Should recieving excessive welfare be jailable?

[Meathead]

That's what I did, Meathead: you know, job, military, college, professional careers, taxes, investments, raising a family, successful children in family and careers.

Have you tried that? I recommend it.

You come off like you've spent your entire "career" at welfare offices. Go figure.

Nah, that's the voices in your head panicking when they are faced with incontrovertible evidence that your head doesn't work well.

No, I think it has more to do with the whiny jist of so many of your posts.

So, a democrat who works and pays taxes, weird. I'm skeptical.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If there is fraud - then yes, of course it should be jailable as with any fraud.
Examples of fraud in welfare/disability:
1) Individual dies, family still accepts checks without saying a word.
2) False Claiming dependent expenses, and or knowingly misrepresentation of childcare cost for the purpose of getting credit for expenses that never occurred. THIS IS RAMPANT. There is no way of knowing how often it occurs, only that it happens with regularity. Mother #1 will claim child care expenses and put down Mother #2 as care giver. Mother #2 will claim childcare expenses and put down Mother#1 as care giver. NETHER HAVE A JOB. Now you would think that the state would question childcare claims when the Mother is unemployed.
3) False claiming elderly care in multi-family with deadbeat child still living at home..who is on welfare.
This is also very popular...a worthless welfare momma who is already on the dole, will claim to be a care provider for their "elderly" parent. So the household gets Social Security, Welfare for the deadbeat mom, food stamps, assisted or free rent - and as much as $400 per week for Homehealth care for the deadbeat daughter. What a gig!!!

 

[RDD_1210]

Simple question. At what point should a person be allowed to be a parasite of the taxpayer, be the ultimate TAKER, living off the work of others, before it should be jailable?

I say if a person is on government subsidies for more than 3 years, they should be jailed for fraud. Spend 5 years or so in prison working off that debt. Do something productive. Chain gangs, making license plates, whatever it is. Hell, put them on treadmills that churn generators to make electricity.

But, no one should be allowed to abuse welfare for more than 3 years. After that, if you apply again, you should be charged with fraud.

Does this include corporate welfare? Wall Street would be a pretty empty place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You come off like you've spent your entire "career" at welfare offices. Go figure.

Nah, that's the voices in your head panicking when they are faced with incontrovertible evidence that your head doesn't work well.

No, I think it has more to do with the whiny jist of so many of your posts.

So, a democrat who works and pays taxes, weird. I'm skeptical.

You are talking to a whiner in the mirror, Meathead. I am Republican, always have been, and I am skeptical that you are anything more than a far right wing nut reactionary. In other words, you are a poser.

 

[RandomVariable]

I wonder if the numbers of the two are about the same.

Follows are quotes from a website I will not cite because it is from a business cite. I will message it if anyone desires.

From cite:
It is a crime to cheat on your taxes. In a recent year, however, fewer than 2,000 people were convicted of tax crimes —0.0022% of all taxpayers. This number is astonishingly small, taking into account that the IRS estimates that 15.5% of us are not complying with the tax laws in some way or another. The number of convictions for tax crimes has increased less than 1% over the most recent five-year period.

Tax crimes are most likely to be first spotted during an audit. If you are caught in a tax lie by an auditor, she can either slap you with a penalty or refer your case to the IRS’s criminal investigation division (CID). In the vast majority of cases, the auditor won’t call in the CID.

Auditors are trained to look for signs of tax fraud, which is a form of tax evasion. Tax fraud is defined as a willful act done with the intent to defraud the IRS—that dark area beyond honest mistakes. Using a false Social Security number, keeping two sets of financial books, or claiming a blind spouse as a dependent when you are single are all blatant examples of tax fraud.

The IRS wants more than just one specific item to make a fraud case—unless the item was for many thousands of dollars. While you might argue that one or two items were negligently left off the books (or your computer crashed or you lost your records), 15 or 20 omitted items shows a pattern of fraud.

You will probably never face criminal fraud penalties. At least 98% of the time, the IRS punishes fraud with civil penalties—fines of 75% added to the tax due. For example, if the additional tax due from fraud is $10,000, the penalty is $7,500, for a total of $17,500. Interest is added on to both the tax and the fraud penalty, starting on the date the return was due or filed, whichever is later.

In a recent year, 4,300 individuals were criminally investigated by the CID. Only if the IRS has strong indications of wrongdoing does it send out its elite police. Cases involving less than $20,000 in taxes are rarely investigated. Criminal investigations start with a special agent interviewing the taxpayer’s friends, business associates, professional advisers, and anyone else who might have information. Later on the special agents usually invite the targeted individual to speak to them.



Intent. The primary element of any tax crime is intent. In legalese, this intent is called willfulness. If the government can’t prove you acted intentionally, you can’t be convicted. Put another way, you can’t be convicted of a tax crime if you only made a mistake, even if it was a big mistake. For example, if you didn’t file a tax return because you honestly believed that 65-year-olds didn’t have to file any longer, you did not act intentionally.

Beyond a reasonable doubt. All crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a judge or jury has any degree of doubt that you did what you were accused of or acted intentionally, the government’s case will fail. For instance, without additional evidence showing an intent to cheat the IRS, a juror may not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the immigrant who omitted his foreign investment income was filing a false tax return. The reasonable doubt standard is why the Justice Department prosecutes only airtight cases.

Today, instead of landing on the Rock, tax convicts are usually sent to a Club Fed minimum security facility filled with bankers, lawyers, politicians, and Wall Street sharpies. The average length of time served for a tax crime is a little less than two years.

 

[Meathead]

Nah, that's the voices in your head panicking when they are faced with incontrovertible evidence that your head doesn't work well.

No, I think it has more to do with the whiny jist of so many of your posts.

So, a democrat who works and pays taxes, weird. I'm skeptical.

You are talking to a whiner in the mirror, Meathead. I am Republican, always have been, and I am skeptical that you are anything more than a far right wing nut reactionary. In other words, you are a poser.

OK, now I know you're lying. So back to square one, the thought of having to work is pretty scary, huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I think it has more to do with the whiny jist of so many of your posts.

So, a democrat who works and pays taxes, weird. I'm skeptical.

You are talking to a whiner in the mirror, Meathead. I am Republican, always have been, and I am skeptical that you are anything more than a far right wing nut reactionary. In other words, you are a poser.

OK, now I know you're lying. So back to square one, the thought of having to work is pretty scary, huh?

Nope, you are the liar. Now get to work; it is that time of day. Or are you on welfare?

I am retired, so I can scout out posers like you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple question. At what point should a person be allowed to be a parasite of the taxpayer, be the ultimate TAKER, living off the work of others, before it should be jailable?

I say if a person is on government subsidies for more than 3 years, they should be jailed for fraud. Spend 5 years or so in prison working off that debt. Do something productive. Chain gangs, making license plates, whatever it is. Hell, put them on treadmills that churn generators to make electricity.

But, no one should be allowed to abuse welfare for more than 3 years. After that, if you apply again, you should be charged with fraud.

Those who are entitled to welfare are not abusing it.

You just summed up Americans libtard problem.

NO ONE is 'entitled' to welfare, aka, MY tax dollars. You aren't entitled to my tax money. No one is.

Welfare should cap at 3 years. Apply again after that, you should go to jail.

And you’ve just summed up America’s conservative problem: ignorant, hateful conservatives opining on issues they know nothing about, based solely on errant rightist dogma, absent any facts, evidence, or even the most fundamental understanding of the issue, such as public assistance.

 

[Vox]

fraud - yes, should be a criminal offense. And in order to cut the fraud - make it temporary. 3 years - and basta.

unless somebody is really sick, old and otherwise incapable of work.

 

[Vox]

No, I think it has more to do with the whiny jist of so many of your posts.

So, a democrat who works and pays taxes, weird. I'm skeptical.

You are talking to a whiner in the mirror, Meathead. I am Republican, always have been, and I am skeptical that you are anything more than a far right wing nut reactionary. In other words, you are a poser.

OK, now I know you're lying. So back to square one, the thought of having to work is pretty scary, huh?

he is as Republican as I am a Democrat

 

[g5000]

In other words, all claims of fiscal responsibility are just cover for your vindictiveness.

Was it the "Muslim in Chief" remark that gave it away?

 

[g5000]

"Excess welfare" sounds as stupid as "excess profits".

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are talking to a whiner in the mirror, Meathead. I am Republican, always have been, and I am skeptical that you are anything more than a far right wing nut reactionary. In other words, you are a poser.

OK, now I know you're lying. So back to square one, the thought of having to work is pretty scary, huh?

he is as Republican as I am a Democrat

You are no type of Republican: just a far right reactionary wing nut poser.