5 ms·

>The entire process is wrapped in layers of fraud paranoia, even though the fraud rate is absolutely minuscule. ... or possibly "due to the layers of fraud par

>The entire process is wrapped in layers of fraud paranoia, even though the fraud rate is absolutely minuscule. ... or possibly "due to the layers of fraud paranoia, the fraud rate is absolutely minuscule". Difficult to know, I would think?

jessaustin 4y ago
It would be possible to change policies slightly and observe the results. The slope toward vastly less punitive benefits regimes might be slippery...
jnovek 4y ago
Of course; I’m sure that, if it were easy enough, people would commit social security fraud. I know this is a subjective statement, but as I go through this process it just feels way, way, way over the top. We could probably do with a lot less. We could probably make the process kinder. The experience is so humiliating and we do it to people who are already suffering. Edit: Imagine, hypothetically, that the process were twice as kind but bumped the fraud rate to 1.5%. I would be totally OK with that. Maybe it’s worth spending a little extra public money to treat people with dignity.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  I apologize; it was a little glib. I'm sure that the way it works isn't Pareto optimal; and there is clearly a problem in the U.S. of using shaming as a tool to discourage consumption of means-tested benefits, as opposed to focusing on actual good governance. I wish you the best of luck.
  - jnovek 4y ago
    No worries! You’re not out of line for being concerned about this stuff. It’s like a lot of policy stuff: our congress critters have a very black-and-white approach to a problem that only comes in shades of gray. And, thank you. I have a good support system these days and I think everything will eventually be OK. There’s just an unspecified amount of stupid stuff between here and there. :-)
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Once a little fraud is possible an industry is set up to exploit it until it becomes dominated by fraud.
gopher_space 4y ago
That’s something we could calculate, so any discussion about it is a deflection.
rhizome 4y ago
That would explain the opposite situation when it comes to tax avoidance schemes.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Yes; in fact, there's excellent evidence from the IRS that the level of misreporting on tax returns increases with the opacity and difficulty of verification of income source. There's hardly any fraud for W-2 employees, and relatively large amounts of it for passthrough businesses like partnership and S-corps.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
avs733 4y ago
From my experience, it seems the fraud paranoia actually trends towards increasing the relative fraud rate. The layers of bullshit serve to trip up and exclude those the programs are meant to serve but don’t bother the fraudsters at all. Layers of bureaucracy don’t hurt people who are willing to just lie - it’s like why dishonest witnesses are often more compelling. It’s much easier to tell an internally consistent story when it’s all fabricated.

jessaustin 4y ago

It would be possible to change policies slightly and observe the results. The slope toward vastly less punitive benefits regimes might be slippery...

jnovek 4y ago

Of course; I’m sure that, if it were easy enough, people would commit social security fraud. I know this is a subjective statement, but as I go through this process it just feels way, way, way over the top. We could probably do with a lot less. We could probably make the process kinder. The experience is so humiliating and we do it to people who are already suffering. Edit: Imagine, hypothetically, that the process were twice as kind but bumped the fraud rate to 1.5%. I would be totally OK with that. Maybe it’s worth spending a little extra public money to treat people with dignity.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I apologize; it was a little glib. I'm sure that the way it works isn't Pareto optimal; and there is clearly a problem in the U.S. of using shaming as a tool to discourage consumption of means-tested benefits, as opposed to focusing on actual good governance. I wish you the best of luck.
- jnovek 4y ago
  No worries! You’re not out of line for being concerned about this stuff. It’s like a lot of policy stuff: our congress critters have a very black-and-white approach to a problem that only comes in shades of gray. And, thank you. I have a good support system these days and I think everything will eventually be OK. There’s just an unspecified amount of stupid stuff between here and there. :-)
cjbgkagh 4y ago
Once a little fraud is possible an industry is set up to exploit it until it becomes dominated by fraud.

gopher_space 4y ago

That’s something we could calculate, so any discussion about it is a deflection.

rhizome 4y ago

That would explain the opposite situation when it comes to tax avoidance schemes.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Yes; in fact, there's excellent evidence from the IRS that the level of misreporting on tax returns increases with the opacity and difficulty of verification of income source. There's hardly any fraud for W-2 employees, and relatively large amounts of it for passthrough businesses like partnership and S-corps.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

avs733 4y ago

From my experience, it seems the fraud paranoia actually trends towards increasing the relative fraud rate. The layers of bullshit serve to trip up and exclude those the programs are meant to serve but don’t bother the fraudsters at all. Layers of bureaucracy don’t hurt people who are willing to just lie - it’s like why dishonest witnesses are often more compelling. It’s much easier to tell an internally consistent story when it’s all fabricated.