Tax defrauders list but no welfare defrauders list

T McGibney said:
If there's another and more genuine motivation here, I'm happy to answer any query, but my own opinion on the respective treatments of welfare vs tax cheats is hardly any more on-topic here than yours is.
Click to expand...
I just had to go re-read the OP to make sure I wasn't misremembering it.

Turns out I'm not, which leads to my response to the above being....

Huh?
 
torblednam said:
I just had to go re-read the OP to make sure I wasn't misremembering it.

Turns out I'm not, which leads to my response to the above being....

Huh?
Click to expand...
Look, I am publicly identifiable here and you know that too.

Because of this, I am never willing to submit to cross-examination from anyone who chooses to post anonymously.

My comments above about the widespread perception that the government steals from the people stand by the way.
 
Going back to the original query, I would make the monetary thresholds for tax and social welfare cheating the same.
 
I didn’t read the five preceding pages so apologies if I’m repeating what someone else has posted.
Tax Defaulting is between Revenue and the actual Tax-Payer. Usually, it’s a finite amount. There can be nobody else involved outside perhaps a tax advisor or a tax appeals board. In black and white situations politicians usually take a back seat.

Social Welfare Fraud can sometimes be much more complicated and sensitive. The SW civil servant would have to tread more carefully than say a Revenue official. I’m saying this from my own experience. The last thing a civil servant wants is exposure to an embarrassing error where a genuine applicant is denied something. Don’t discount that there might be political intervention. Civil Servants in SW are more inclined to accept the word of a politician even in some blatant false claims.
 
Don't agree whatsoever, welfare fraud is usually more blatant and its black and white, you are not dealing with complicated accounting rules, therefore the potential welfare fraudster has more power as regards the welfare officer, the welfare officer is afraid for their personal safety so are going to err on the side of caution, we saw this with Martin Cahill blatantly collecting his dole even though he was a wealthy gangster which everyone in the welfare office knew about.

In the case of tax fraud, the revenue officer are in the stronger position they have all the expertise at their disposal it is very difficult to win an argument or a case against revenue, you would need large sums of money and very good accountants to successfully argue your case. Revenue officers are not in fear of being attacked by the likes of Martin Cahill
 
I agree that Welfare Inspectors are probably more vulnerable than Tax Inspectors

But one Revenue official reported being poisoned by nail polish.

Revenue logs 102 accidents involving its staff

Revenue staff working at ports and airports were deliberately hit by cars, bitten by dogs, while one officer suffered mild poisoning after being exposed to carbon monoxide fumes from nail polish.
www.rte.ie

I thought that there had been a very serious incident of an attack on the home of a Tax Inspector in the not too distant past but I can't find it.
 
Will AI which will be able to process lots of data and throw up anomalies be able to reduce welfare fraud significantly in the future. Having access to all government databases and cross linking issues is something AI will probably be very good at.

I know my company used a tool to look at our companies systems and it uncovered some issues with expenses which were in my mind closely scrutinised, but clearly not closely enough. Probably small money in the whole company cash flow but they are just starting to dip their toes in the water of using AI.
 
Clamball said:
Will AI which will be able to process lots of data and throw up anomalies be able to reduce welfare fraud significantly in the future. Having access to all government databases and cross linking issues is something AI will probably be very good at.
Click to expand...

Revenue have used a system called REAP for years. I have been told it is also by insurance companies to looks for anomalies in data. If they could feed card payments and loyalty card data into the system...
 
joe sod said:
welfare fraud is usually more blatant and its black and white
Click to expand...
I disagree. Rules on cohabitation are not simple. Means testing means assembling and declaring all of your wealth which you don’t have to do with Revenue.

I had personal experience with helping a relative try to pass a habitual residence test to qualify for carer’s allowance. The rules were as clear as treacle and asked about whether she was married abroad, still had a bank account in Ireland, etc, etc. It seemed there was no scoring system for all of the criteria, and the rejection was pure judgement even on appeal.

I’ve never come across anything nearly as vague in tax law.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
I’ve never come across anything nearly as vague in tax law.
Click to expand...
what about the deemed disposal regime for ETFs , the classification of whether an ETF is taxed under deemed disposal or normal taxation, there are whole threads on that topic. Most people use accountants to submit tax returns, Ive never heard someone employing a lawyer to apply for social welfare benefits so that shows that taxation is much more complex as you need to employ professionals. Most welfare fraud is blatant, people know they are scamming the system, they are withholding information they know would disqualify them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register