The IRS are not able to follow up on every tax payer. No tax collection agency can. Which is why they have semi-random audits. It is also a lot simpler to spots patterns of tax avoidance than it is to pick up on benefit fraud (it all gets very complicated and I don't really understand most of how they do these things, but I'm reliably informed this is the case).lowing wrote:
Thats funny, the IRS seems to be able to follow up on every single tax payer, and fuck them royally if they get caught cheating, ( unless you are part of Obamas posse that is). yet the 10 or 20% of people on welfare is just impossible to manage. Well then, if you can not manage my money, and control where it goes, as you admit, then you probably ( the govt.) shouldn't get any of it for any social programs, and I will decide for myself which charities I want to support. Do I have your support?Bertster7 wrote:
There you go, doing exactly what I expected, talking about a complex topic you obviously know NOTHING about, as though it's something really simple. It isn't. Which is why they lose money on trying to catch people (spending £150m to save £100m is not cost-effective).lowing wrote:
In a sinle year the IRS reviews income tax returns of every filer in the US. It investigates "red flags" of those that catch their attention. and that is EVERY filer in the US.
Now, there should be a hell of a lot less on welfare to investigate than tax filers. I maintain if every year the IRS can review every taxpayers 1040A's, a progaram can be set up to review every welfare recipients status using the info I discussed every year. Noting changes in information Penalties severe enough that cheating would definately be discouraged.
IF a criminal record is discovered, IF no applications for jobs are written, IF no enrollment into school is filed, IF no medical conditions are produced, your sorry, lazy, good for nothing ass, is cut the fuck off.
The systems in place for doing this are extremely advanced neural networks designed to pick up on patterns and trends. That is the most effective system currently in use and it loses money.
As I've said, if you think it's so easy to develop a system for catching these people - then do so. You'd become one of the richest people alive.
Just because this doesn't fit in with your delusional view of the world you choose to ignore the evidence that it cannot currently be done in a cost-effective manner.
Do you have your support for the withdrawal of all government social programs? Hell no!
That's pretty much a direct contradiction of your previous statement:
So now, after I've highlighted the fact that the many of the inefficiencies of the system are unavoidable, you've changed your stance to wanting to deny support to those who cannot support themselves.lowing wrote:
Been down this road many times Bertster, you have been here long enough to know that I have alwats endorsed taking care of theose that can not take care of themselves. I do not endorse taking care of those that do not choose to do so.
You support a system where there is no government support in place for someone who is blind and cannot work, for example? So someone in that position would have to rely on friends, family or charities (and the horror stories surrounding charity inefficiencies and corruption often make the government seem pretty damn good).