4 ms·

1. I find it extremely hard to believe that France has a 0.39% fraud rate, I still have not seen an even remotely convincing debunk of Cartel des Fraudes by Cha

1. I find it extremely hard to believe that France has a 0.39% fraud rate, I still have not seen an even remotely convincing debunk of Cartel des Fraudes by Charles Prats to suggest that the Cour des comptes numbers resemble reality. Just putting this here because article says that the supposed 5% fraud size in Denmark is very disproportionate to Europe and lists France as one of the examples. 2. The social contract of welfare is that you have a right to receive money from government when you hit hard times and the corresponding responsibility to not abuse the privilege. It's not a contract if it isn't enforceable by either of the parties.

meowfly 4y ago
My brother works for a non-profit that distributes HIV drugs to the homeless. The biggest issue he has is that people will stop taking meds and disappear. They try to bribe them to come back with gift cards. He's expressed how valuable it would be if we could track these persons, but that it would be politically untenable. To me, it seems society should have some ability to do this for the sake of public health, however I also understand not wanting to wanting to grant this kind of power to the state, even if we are trading it for welfare.
ouid 4y ago
2 is an incredibly stupid system. Means tested welfare incentivizes people to meet the criteria of the welfare system. Welfare should just be a negative tax bracket. People mostly don't cheat on their taxes.
- mantas 4y ago
  Mostly... :D
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
Meh, if I have to pick between 5% fraud rate while the other 95% get the help they need without hassle, or a 0% fraud rate and a system that's highly exclusionary and invasive, you're damn right I'm picking the former. Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either. Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
> 1. I find it extremely hard to believe that France has a 0.39% fraud rate I share your doubts... I suspect that there is an error in the article as the document (from French gov, in French) it links to mentions numbers that are much higher, 3.5+% and up to 10% for specific things.

meowfly 4y ago

My brother works for a non-profit that distributes HIV drugs to the homeless. The biggest issue he has is that people will stop taking meds and disappear. They try to bribe them to come back with gift cards. He's expressed how valuable it would be if we could track these persons, but that it would be politically untenable. To me, it seems society should have some ability to do this for the sake of public health, however I also understand not wanting to wanting to grant this kind of power to the state, even if we are trading it for welfare.

ouid 4y ago

2 is an incredibly stupid system. Means tested welfare incentivizes people to meet the criteria of the welfare system. Welfare should just be a negative tax bracket. People mostly don't cheat on their taxes.

mantas 4y ago
Mostly... :D

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

Meh, if I have to pick between 5% fraud rate while the other 95% get the help they need without hassle, or a 0% fraud rate and a system that's highly exclusionary and invasive, you're damn right I'm picking the former. Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either. Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

> 1. I find it extremely hard to believe that France has a 0.39% fraud rate I share your doubts... I suspect that there is an error in the article as the document (from French gov, in French) it links to mentions numbers that are much higher, 3.5+% and up to 10% for specific things.