4 ms·

Fraud is real, and vast, and if it creeps in it undermines the whole thing. What's the alternative?

by logicchop 6y ago

alasdair_ 6y ago
Universal basic income.
- mc32 6y ago
  Negative taxes are better. No need to give to the wealthy in the first place to come back and tax them later.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    It may seem pointless, but it may be administratively simpler. Similar to how people with government jobs still pay taxes, even though their paychecks come from the government in the first place.
    - mc32 6y ago
      People with fed jobs are not so simple. Are they married, does the partner work outside the fed gov., do they have a second job, etc. But I suppose in principle you could pay them net and make adjustments at tax time. It’s okay by me.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        I'd posit that people with low-incomes are similarly complex—perhaps less-so, but enough. Are they married, how many children do they have, etc.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    >Negative taxes are better. No need to give to the wealthy in the first place to come back and tax them later. It's simpler just to give every citizen the same amount of money than to have to deal with all the edge cases of people having different income this year (and needing the money immediately) versus last year. If you get hit by a bus on January 1st, I'd hope that the money was available for you right away, not in another year. Additionally, I'd like to see a "rolling average" approach to taxation. I think it's enormously unfair that someone who has a one time event (like making a million dollar commission on a sale they worked on for five years) is taxed massively more, and misses out on many more tax credits, than someone who makes $200K a year for five years.
eutropia 6y ago
> and vast ...* [citation needed] Fraud does happen. But it doesn't happen enough for it to be worth setting up an entire bureaucracy to prevent it. Especially if that bureaucracy undermines the value of the program for everyone who's faithfully making use of the services in the intended manner. More and more, it seems that keeping social welfare programs inefficient is benefiting the people who want to remove them entirely (in favor of lowering taxes).
- jfk13 6y ago
  > But it doesn't happen enough for it to be worth setting up an entire bureaucracy to prevent it But perhaps it would happen vastly more if that bureaucracy wasn't trying to prevent? I don't know, but I suspect there are an awful lot of people who would commit fraud if they thought they'd get away with it.
- paul_f 6y ago
  I could be wrong, but it is possible that fraud is low because of the bureaucracy
  - TetOn 6y ago
    A compelling case to increase bureaucracy made here (from 2011): https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2011/more-bureaucrats-please/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2011/more-...
kevinmgranger 6y ago
Do we have evidence that fraud progressively gets worse in the case of housing programs?
colechristensen 6y ago
Do your verification at the application stage, don't attach income requirements, re-evaluate (gently) with yearly reviews of W-2 income. Don't punish people for successfully getting themselves further towards exiting their troubled situation. Accept that some people getting help will need it less than others. There's "fraud" and then there's homeless people trying to get their lives on track. People who need help and support. Saddling them with complex frequent requirements and then calling failing to meet them "fraud" is not helping people. Be interested in helping people instead of helping only the "right" people.
snarf21 6y ago
I think there are alternatives. The question becomes: is the fraud detection cost higher than the potential fraud? and even if it is, is it significantly so? I don't think the current system has no fraud in it either.
DataWorker 6y ago
Billions in unemployment fraud last year means billions in government services that will not b we going to help people that really desperately need help.
- vharuck 6y ago
  But I wonder about the value in the end. If we spend X to prevent Y dollars in fraud, then Y - X can go to people who need it more. As long as Y > X, that's good for the deserving beneficiaries. However, from a society-level view, how much value do we get from the X spent in prevention? We're funneling money to a specific goal, so some verification is needed. But the more we verify, the more man-hours we spend on filling out and checking the paperwork. None of that work benefits society. Those people could've been doing other jobs that perform useful services. And it's not like the money going to fraudsters vanishes. At least it goes back into the economy. We should require only enough to make sure we achieve the program's goals within budget. Figuring that out is the hard part. Hopefully smart minds have been tackling this.
  - DataWorker 6y ago
    “ At least it goes back into the economy. ” Actually no, at least 40 billion went to a Nigerian scammer group. That’s a national security issue and overrides concerns about charity and equity. It’s an existential threat.
- pas 6y ago
  The fraud is entirely due to the structural problems (like hard cut offs) of these programs. (I mean entirely, because if there are people living comfortably on the program without no motivation to do anything else in their life, then a) maybe that's okay, b) maybe that's a mental health issue [and fixing it might cost a lot more], c) at some point the fraud becomes so encompassing, that it's not the program's fault, but it's someone literally robbing taxpayers via whatever means they can. Furthermore any social program that only addresses and takes into account some narrow slice of people's life problems will be easily gameable, so let's have comprehensive integrated programs. Yes, they are hard, but it's not like putting people on the moon is that much easier.)

Fraud is real, and vast, and if it creeps in it undermines the whole thing. What's the alternative?

alasdair_ 6y ago

Universal basic income.

mc32 6y ago
Negative taxes are better. No need to give to the wealthy in the first place to come back and tax them later.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  It may seem pointless, but it may be administratively simpler. Similar to how people with government jobs still pay taxes, even though their paychecks come from the government in the first place.
  - mc32 6y ago
    People with fed jobs are not so simple. Are they married, does the partner work outside the fed gov., do they have a second job, etc. But I suppose in principle you could pay them net and make adjustments at tax time. It’s okay by me.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      I'd posit that people with low-incomes are similarly complex—perhaps less-so, but enough. Are they married, how many children do they have, etc.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >Negative taxes are better. No need to give to the wealthy in the first place to come back and tax them later. It's simpler just to give every citizen the same amount of money than to have to deal with all the edge cases of people having different income this year (and needing the money immediately) versus last year. If you get hit by a bus on January 1st, I'd hope that the money was available for you right away, not in another year. Additionally, I'd like to see a "rolling average" approach to taxation. I think it's enormously unfair that someone who has a one time event (like making a million dollar commission on a sale they worked on for five years) is taxed massively more, and misses out on many more tax credits, than someone who makes $200K a year for five years.

eutropia 6y ago

> and vast ...* [citation needed] Fraud does happen. But it doesn't happen enough for it to be worth setting up an entire bureaucracy to prevent it. Especially if that bureaucracy undermines the value of the program for everyone who's faithfully making use of the services in the intended manner. More and more, it seems that keeping social welfare programs inefficient is benefiting the people who want to remove them entirely (in favor of lowering taxes).

jfk13 6y ago
> But it doesn't happen enough for it to be worth setting up an entire bureaucracy to prevent it But perhaps it would happen vastly more if that bureaucracy wasn't trying to prevent? I don't know, but I suspect there are an awful lot of people who would commit fraud if they thought they'd get away with it.
paul_f 6y ago
I could be wrong, but it is possible that fraud is low because of the bureaucracy
- TetOn 6y ago
  A compelling case to increase bureaucracy made here (from 2011): https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2011/more-bureaucrats-please/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2011/more-...

kevinmgranger 6y ago

Do we have evidence that fraud progressively gets worse in the case of housing programs?

colechristensen 6y ago

Do your verification at the application stage, don't attach income requirements, re-evaluate (gently) with yearly reviews of W-2 income. Don't punish people for successfully getting themselves further towards exiting their troubled situation. Accept that some people getting help will need it less than others. There's "fraud" and then there's homeless people trying to get their lives on track. People who need help and support. Saddling them with complex frequent requirements and then calling failing to meet them "fraud" is not helping people. Be interested in helping people instead of helping only the "right" people.

snarf21 6y ago

I think there are alternatives. The question becomes: is the fraud detection cost higher than the potential fraud? and even if it is, is it significantly so? I don't think the current system has no fraud in it either.

DataWorker 6y ago

Billions in unemployment fraud last year means billions in government services that will not b we going to help people that really desperately need help.

vharuck 6y ago
But I wonder about the value in the end. If we spend X to prevent Y dollars in fraud, then Y - X can go to people who need it more. As long as Y > X, that's good for the deserving beneficiaries. However, from a society-level view, how much value do we get from the X spent in prevention? We're funneling money to a specific goal, so some verification is needed. But the more we verify, the more man-hours we spend on filling out and checking the paperwork. None of that work benefits society. Those people could've been doing other jobs that perform useful services. And it's not like the money going to fraudsters vanishes. At least it goes back into the economy. We should require only enough to make sure we achieve the program's goals within budget. Figuring that out is the hard part. Hopefully smart minds have been tackling this.
- DataWorker 6y ago
  “ At least it goes back into the economy. ” Actually no, at least 40 billion went to a Nigerian scammer group. That’s a national security issue and overrides concerns about charity and equity. It’s an existential threat.
pas 6y ago
The fraud is entirely due to the structural problems (like hard cut offs) of these programs. (I mean entirely, because if there are people living comfortably on the program without no motivation to do anything else in their life, then a) maybe that's okay, b) maybe that's a mental health issue [and fixing it might cost a lot more], c) at some point the fraud becomes so encompassing, that it's not the program's fault, but it's someone literally robbing taxpayers via whatever means they can. Furthermore any social program that only addresses and takes into account some narrow slice of people's life problems will be easily gameable, so let's have comprehensive integrated programs. Yes, they are hard, but it's not like putting people on the moon is that much easier.)