3 ms·

What you describe is called fraud, and the anti-poor people in this country would go after them for it, just like they went after "welfare queens" and the like.

by sidlls 9y ago

andrewljohnson 9y ago
How is getting divorced to maximize tax avoidance or get government services even remotely fraud? Is there a statute on that? You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes.
- abalashov 9y ago
  Well, if the theory is that the benefits are for single parents rather than those who are benefiting from the pooled resources of a marriage, in principle, then, at the very least, such a benefit claim could be said to go against the spirit in which the benefits are offered. That said, given the absurdity of the situation and the fact that the rules severely punish them for being married, I wouldn't fault them in the slightest for doing exactly that.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes. No, you really can't. Do you seriously think the state is going to pay out more benefits to parents solely because they haven't signed a marriage certificate? You _can_ absolutely qualify for more benefits if the other parent is unable or unwilling to contribute financially and the state is unable to coerce them to do so. But the state goes after the other parent first. Part of the reason these programs are so harmful is that they provide incentives for the father to stay away from the children. Staying around to raise the children makes it a lot easier for the state to A) find him and B) make the case that he's the father or has taken on a fatherly role and is therefore responsible for paying for them.
lostcolony 9y ago
No. If they both declared the children as dependents, THAT would be fraud. But choosing not to be married is perfectly legal. It's called a divorce, is legal in all 50 states, and in California doesn't even require a reason. I'm not sure you actually thought about what you typed.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The proposed covert transfer of funds (pooling resources, but not on paper) from the working ex-husband to the non-working ex-wife while the ex-wife claims public benefits is straight-out, textbook public benefits fraud by concealing income (it probably also involves tax fraud by concealing income, otherwise it's going to get discovered in less than a year.)

What you describe is called fraud, and the anti-poor people in this country would go after them for it, just like they went after "welfare queens" and the like.

by sidlls 9y ago

What you describe is called fraud, and the anti-poor people in this country would go after them for it, just like they went after "welfare queens" and the like.

andrewljohnson 9y ago

How is getting divorced to maximize tax avoidance or get government services even remotely fraud? Is there a statute on that? You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes.

abalashov 9y ago
Well, if the theory is that the benefits are for single parents rather than those who are benefiting from the pooled resources of a marriage, in principle, then, at the very least, such a benefit claim could be said to go against the spirit in which the benefits are offered. That said, given the absurdity of the situation and the fact that the rules severely punish them for being married, I wouldn't fault them in the slightest for doing exactly that.
jimmyk 9y ago
>You can obviously avoid marriage in the first place, in order to maximize services or avoid taxes. No, you really can't. Do you seriously think the state is going to pay out more benefits to parents solely because they haven't signed a marriage certificate? You _can_ absolutely qualify for more benefits if the other parent is unable or unwilling to contribute financially and the state is unable to coerce them to do so. But the state goes after the other parent first. Part of the reason these programs are so harmful is that they provide incentives for the father to stay away from the children. Staying around to raise the children makes it a lot easier for the state to A) find him and B) make the case that he's the father or has taken on a fatherly role and is therefore responsible for paying for them.

lostcolony 9y ago

No. If they both declared the children as dependents, THAT would be fraud. But choosing not to be married is perfectly legal. It's called a divorce, is legal in all 50 states, and in California doesn't even require a reason. I'm not sure you actually thought about what you typed.

dragonwriter 9y ago
The proposed covert transfer of funds (pooling resources, but not on paper) from the working ex-husband to the non-working ex-wife while the ex-wife claims public benefits is straight-out, textbook public benefits fraud by concealing income (it probably also involves tax fraud by concealing income, otherwise it's going to get discovered in less than a year.)