Xenophobia?

[Tiberius]

Which brings us back round to why it would be dishonest or what have you to exploit (another loaded choice of words) a service that you have claim to as a citizen. Seems to me, that in the case of a person having children (ostensibly for the purpose of being moved up to better accommodations- not sure how we'd make a charge like that stick btw, and it's not really how it works here anyway) has to be pretty honest about at least how many children they have.

In my opinion, it is dishonest (and fraudulent) if you either:

1) Are not entitled to the benefit, but try to obtain it or keep it.
2) Actively change your situation so you are worse off, in order to claim more in benefits.

Now, the instances of (2) are probably low, but the number of cases we hear about concerning (1) benefit fraud is very high. Usually it is people who received disability benefits because they were unable to work due to an injury, but continue to claim the benefit after they are healed and able to work again.

In the child case, it's not people lying about the number of children they have, but purposefully having more children in order to gain the additional child benefits. Like I said though, the instances of this are probably low.

Without our little brood Miss and I wouldn't qualify for a dime. With 4 we qualify for a few more dimes (but the tax breaks are where it really shows). We didn't have our kids to get an increase in benefits, but every kid we had increased them nevertheless. Whats to stop someone inclined to do so from claiming that we had our children to game the system? Suppose the person making that claim was the issuing body (of our benefits). How are we to defend ourselves against a charge of intent, and how are they to make their case in the first place?

Well, luckily for our modern society we operate on "innocent until proven guilty", so you don't have to do anything to defend yourselves if you are innocent; the prosecution won't be able to demonstrate anything that a jury could accept as "beyond reasonable doubt".

I should point out though, that even if prosecuting people for this is near impossible, it is still fundamentally dishonest and fraudulent if they do it.

In light of this what exactly, can you, Tibs, say about welfare queens that I wouldn't immediately dismiss, as Apo above, as ideology?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I understand that in your country, welfare queens might be a myth from the Reagan era. However, in any welfare system which is as badly mismanaged as ours, welfare queens are a real thing, and sadly, an inevitability.

A few moments on Google will find reputable media sources talking about them:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010...ange-99ers
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comm...131444.ece

I'm not making a comment on welfare queens in the US, only in the UK...because I live in the UK and I know more about the state of affairs here than in the US.

yes............ 2.1% is what i call ALMOST NONE especially since it INCLUDES ERROR................. besides cutting welfare won't decrease that percentage you will still be wasting or "giving away" 2.1%

Cutting welfare may well reduce that percentage, given that it would limit the requirements needed for people to legitimately claim welfare.

Besides, did you not read the line after I posted the stat: "That figure does not cover people claiming on the NHS." 2.1% might be a small number, but the NHS may well be abused far more than that.

pointing out one story that's probably overhyped and based off 3 seconds of dialogue is tabloid bullshit, same bullshit that made cancelling welfare popular in America, the term welfare queens was popularized by reagan who lied about women with cadillacs and 16 welfare checks......... did it matter if those people actually existed of course not, because being a conservative politician is all about being the biggest dick

Can you give any evidence for the "probably overhyped" claim? Or the 3 seconds of dialogue claim? No. These people are being interviewed in newspapers; they actively brag about how much they are getting. That is the only reason this issue is being talked about over here.

the government also prevents fraud and giving more money to these programs is the best way to prevent fraud, cutting wlefare is a blatant attampt at disenfrachinsing the poor, and using cowardly empty rhetoric to make the gullible (you) into agreeing with these ridiculous polcies

Cutting welfare for those who do not need it is not an attempt at disenfranchising the poor. It is in fact, completely the opposite. Less money for welfare cheats means more money for people who actually require it.

well the people in your country who can't find work are just parasites anyway

No, they are victims of a system which is acting against their interests.