painlord2k at libero.it
Fri Jul 24 13:08:54 UTC 2009
Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/7/24 Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> I'm not sure you understood what I meant by "means test". It is
> testing of recipients to make sure that they truly are eligible for
> the service: really poor, unemployed, a single mother or whatever the
> criterion may be.
The difference is discretion:
private charities can, and often do, check in many ways if someone is
worth to be helped and the help is useful or not.
They are not limited to fixed, pre-determined tests.
They are responsible only to the donors, not to the receivers.
> Governments have strict and usually rigid rules
> about this, and are able to access tax records etc. to confirm
The charity can ask for the same. No good answers, no money or help.
Where is the difference?
> If you lie that is fraud and you have to at least pay the
> money back and possibly be fined or imprisoned as well.
In UK and US I think there is little interest in following these people.
They also have little to lose, so what?
It is not that if you cheat the government there are laws stripping you
from any and every future welfare.
Do it with a private charity and you are out forever and ever, and
probably other charities will learn of you.
> Charities are
> generally much more trusting; if they require proof at all, they
> generally don't have the power to check it. Fortunately not many
> people try to abuse charities,
So, do you believe that people that cheat the government have problem to
cheat charities? If they are easier targets, why they don't prefer them
to the government?
> but a lot of people would abuse
> government welfare payments if it were just a matter of signing up.
Well, here we have blinds driving cars, lame doing the refers in soccer
games and judges in sick leave sailing the sea (and posting on their
facebook account the photos for their friends).
Do you never think sometimes the system is defected by design?
More information about the extropy-chat