Did Trump Incentivize Laziness With The CARES Act?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by walkoflife, May 13, 2020.

  1. wrat

    wrat Member

    Fact is what he does is not relevant what is relevant is he was making more money collecting unemployment with the added incentive yet he chose to go back to work while others did not as I pointed out....As to the welfare fraud like I stated you quoted POINT EIGHT and seemed to have no problem with that while I stated its MUCH higher here as a percentage which also obviously means more people committing fraud as well as the fact that a random survey here in the US found that 80% of respondents were willing to commit fraud . HUGE problem would you not agree? As far as conflating Trump it would seem to me that most here blame him for everything bad that has happened as well as corrupting the government from the top down yet you (collectively not specifically) are willing to use Gov't data IF IT SUPPORTS your point yet conversely it must be inaccurate, fictitious or out right lies
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    But I repeat - Many blue collar jobs are paid at a much higher rate than working in a coffee shop as a waiter so it makes me wonder even more what your brother in laws job is and how he survives on it.

    Why is his job type such a big secret?

    But you seem to accept it is lower than 10% so say 5% this other calculation I cited puts it at 2% so that means 95-98% of such benefits are legitimate.

    And it is possible to bring it down as proved by the 0.8%

    So what is your argument?

    I ask AGAIN what survey

    I found one report for France the Netherlands and Belgium


    A study of how people would do in hypothetic situations showed large differences between various risk alternatives.More than 80% were ready to take a job on the black market and receive unemployment benefit if the risk of audit was ⅙, but just under 50% if the risk was ¼ and circa 5% if the risk was ½.[my bold]


    Tax Evasion, Welfare Fraud, and "The Broken Windows" Effect: An Experiment in Belgium, France and the Netherlands

    But is it a big problem that was hypothetical but I mean if it can be brought down to 0.8%

    Also the report was regarding tax evasion and welfare dodging so remember the earlier figure –

    Fraud, overpayments and underpayments in all assistance programs cost federal and state governments about $136.7 billion (in 2015), while according to the Internal Revenue Service, tax evasion cost the federal government on average $458 billion per year between 2008 through 2010.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2020
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    LOL this seems to be more your bias than clear thinking- I get information from many sources you seem to often throughout things that that when looked at don’t seem so clear – the survey from the US and the 10% figure are just a couple of recent examples.

    If I think something is inaccurate, fictitious or outright lies I’ll explain my reasons, I actually think the welfare information been collected by the US is woeful, but I get the impression that is on purpose it allows politicians to muddy the waters.

    As I said earlier one of the most important jobs of government is the collection of information so that it can be given to politicians so they can make appropriate policy decisions.

    The problem is when ideologue takes over from rationally based decision making.

    We have seen this in climate change, health and welfare
     
  4. wrat

    wrat Member

    As I explained earlier I do not know
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    wrat

    You don't know what job your brother in law does, but you do know how much he is paid, how is that?
     
  6. wrat

    wrat Member

    Very easily HE stated he made more money on unemployment WITH the incentive then he did working, pretty simple concept actually
    I dont know his wage OR what he was making with unemployment PLUS incentive
     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    So he told you this but you don't know what he does or how much he earns?

    Not close then...but close enough for you to get some information that just happens to be useful to you in a web forum....oh yeah...
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2020
  8. wrat

    wrat Member

    actually yes pretty simple concept sorry it does not fit your narrative
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    LOL sorry I have so little information to go on - your sisters husband said something but even you don’t know if the information is correct because you don’t really have a clue what he does (something blue collar?) and you don’t know how much he earns. I’ve had five bothers in law and knew what each of them did for a living.

    Oh well.

    But you seem to accept it is lower than 10% so say 5% this other calculation I cited puts it at 2% so that means 95-98% of such benefits are legitimate.

    And it is possible to bring it down as proved by the 0.8%

    So what is your argument?

    I ask AGAIN what survey

    I found one report for France the Netherlands and Belgium

    More than 80% were ready to take a job on the black market and receive unemployment benefit if the risk of audit was ⅙, but just under 50% if the risk was ¼ and circa 5% if the risk was ½.

    Tax Evasion, Welfare Fraud, and "The Broken Windows" Effect: An Experiment in Belgium, France and the Netherlands

    But is it a big problem I mean if it can be brought down to 0.8%

    Also the report was regarding tax evasion and welfare dodging so remember the earlier figure –

    Fraud, overpayments and underpayments in all assistance programs cost federal and state governments about $136.7 billion (in 2015), while according to the Internal Revenue Service, tax evasion cost the federal government on average $458 billion per year between 2008 through 2010.
     
  10. wrat

    wrat Member

    The original postulation was regarding laziness I think that the cares act did in fact
    Incentivize Laziness
    I cited a PUBLISHED example you disregarded it it did not fit your narrative
    then conversely I cited a personal example that was the OPPOSITE and again you disregarded it

    Im done
     
  11. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Speaking of fraud, are you bothered much by Trump's unwillingess to disclose his tax returns? Seems to me there's a lot of incentivization of fraud at all levels of our society, but reform should start t the top.
     
    granite45 and Balbus like this.
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    Again you are making excuses for not debating.

    If you are talking about the coffee shop thing it didn’t prove laziness it proved self-interest due to low wages

    As the shop owner says -"Not because they did not like their jobs or because they did not want to work, but because it would cost them literally hundreds of dollars per week to be employed."

    *

    As to your supposed ‘personal example’ it’s not that personal your sisters husband supposedly said something but even you don’t know if the information is correct because you don’t really have a clue what he does (something blue collar?) and you don’t know how much he earns. As I’ve said I’ve had five bothers in law and knew what each of them did for a living?

    And this story fit in incredibly well with your narrative that someone was getting paid at the same rate of a coffee shop server (for some type of blue collar job) but went into work anyway even though he’d loose hundreds of dollars a week.

    *

    You do seem to be getting a reputation for this – getting all huffy or supposedly huffy – so you can pull out of debate when things get a bit shaky for you.
     
  13. wrat

    wrat Member

    Actually it did prove laziness they accepted the job at the rate of pay THEN the pandemic hit and the cares act came along and they were able to make more money not working,,... IF they could not survive on original rate of pay they never should have accepted the job .. the only reason it cost them hundreds per week was due to the cares act, remove cares act they are employed and business stays open... now I am done there is nothing left to discuss as to the original post..
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Wrat

    How?

    As the shop owner says -"Not because they did not like their jobs or because they did not want to work, but because it would cost them literally hundreds of dollars per week to be employed."

    And if you get a better offer do you turn it down because you accepted the first offer?

    As I said this seems like a badly set up scheme, in the UK people that couldn’t work at home were furloughed with 80% of their wages been paid by the government (and I believe it has cost less than what was paid out to bailout the banks).

    But a bad scheme can’t be blamed on the recipients

    And how does your brother in law and your sister survive on the wages of a coffee shop server?

    Really have you not rung and asked what job he does yet?
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice