Bigger Obligation

[Dick7Access]

I have a question that I would like the opinion of people who consider themselves middle of the road. I am of course right of middle, so I prefer not to get answers from right of middle. I have giving this a lot of thought and will make my own decision but will value the opinion of people a little left of me. I know a lot of people who get government handouts, food stamps, Obama phones, etc., and yet spend big bucks on not essentials. I have no desired to turn them in, and never would. I have a relative who is on food stamps claims to be right wing, and yet is spending big bucks on airline tickets to visit family out of town. Do you think I have bigger obligation for a relative.

 

[Adam Caramon]

If you think they're defrauding the government, do you have proof? Actual, stand-up-in-court kind of proof?

If you are just guessing and don't have the proof, I would say don't try to turn them in. If you have proof but it is not rock solid, then I would say no.

If you have 100% concrete proof that they're cheating the government, then that makes it a very difficult decision. If it were me, I would probably turn them in. That being said, in order to have 100% concrete proof, you would have to spend time on this actually getting your evidence together, and that simply is not worth it to me.

 

[Dick7Access]

If you think they're defrauding the government, do you have proof? Actual, stand-up-in-court kind of proof?

If you are just guessing and don't have the proof, I would say don't try to turn them in. If you have proof but it is not rock solid, then I would say no.

If you have 100% concrete proof that they're cheating the government, then that makes it a very difficult decision. If it were me, I would probably turn them in. That being said, in order to have 100% concrete proof, you would have to spend time on this actually getting your evidence together, and that simply is not worth it to me.

I have proof 100% with pic's and all, if I wanted to, and at least 125 witness not that all would testify as some are far left and think the offender deserve it.
Adam, do you consider yourself middle of the road, would your advice apply to non-relatives as well as relatives?
In your first sentence you would probable turn them in. In your last sentence you say you wouldn’t. Please clarify. Are you over 30 years old?

 

[Alansidman]

Dick;
I am definitely left of center. I am in my late 60's. My questions to you because I don't know anyone on social welfare are: What do you hope to accomplish by turning someone in for allegedly abusing the system? How close a relative? If it were a son or daughter of yours, what would you do? Why do you care? If it were someone cheating on their tax return, what would you do?
Lastly, do you know for sure that they did not receive a gift of $ for the non-essentials from other family members specifically for the trips, etc.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam, do you consider yourself middle of the road, would your advice apply to non-relatives as well as relatives?

I'm socially liberal, fiscally I'm much more center. I think that it is the government's responsibility to monitor the appropriate use of public assistance. I think we start to get into some very bad territory when we turn citizens on one another by having them monitor their neighbor's activities.

In your first sentence you would probable turn them in. In your last sentence you say you wouldn’t. Please clarify. Are you over 30 years old?

If I had 100% concrete proof, then I would likely turn them in, as defrauding the government is wrong. However, 100% concrete proof is incredibly difficult to come by. If you overheard them bragging about getting public assistance but also working a job on the side, that is not 100% concrete proof. People lie all of the time.

In order to have that 100% concrete proof, I would have to research exactly what the public assistance program allows, and what it disallows. Then I would have to have amazing evidence that would be a slam-dunk in a court case, nothing based on what someone said, or I overheard, etc. Something in writing.

As it would take a lot of time and desire to collect all of this info, I would not be likely to spend the time compiling it, researching the law, etc.

Hopefully that clears it up.

 

[Dick7Access]

Dick;
I am definitely left of center. I am in my late 60's. My questions to you because I don't know anyone on social welfare are: What do you hope to accomplish by turning someone in for allegedly abusing the system? How close a relative? If it were a son or daughter of yours, what would you do? Why do you care? If it were someone cheating on their tax return, what would you do?
Lastly, do you know for sure that they did not receive a gift of $ for the non-essentials from other family members specifically for the trips, etc.

Alan I guess there is no arguing you are left of center. Our country is on the verge of financially and morale collapse and I shouldn’t care. I guess I am old fashion, but I do care that almost half of this country would rather have a hand out than work for it. I do care that I am being denied things that I have worked 52 Years for, so someone who breaks the law can have it. I do care that people want to be able to walk bare ass down the street in front of my wife and I. I do care that some mayor or president wants to tell me what food I can and can’t eat. I do care that my kids and grandkids are not going to have as much of a chance at success as I did.

 

[Dick7Access]

I thank everyone for their input, but not sure I made my question clear. The main point of my question was do I have a greater obligation for a close relative than for a stranger. She is a sister BTW. I suppose that the evidence, in one sense it could be called heresy, but it is from her own mouth. She and her husband out of the clear blue sky started giving me reasons why they were not embarrassed to be getting food stamps. (I think thou protest too loudly). I ask causality if her son had sent her the money to fly, and she said they took it out of their IRA. I may be naïve, but I would think their own testimony would stand up in court. As evidence of my first post, I feel little if any obligation for a stranger, so it is not something I would do. I guess maybe the reason I have been pondering the question in the first place is that I am ashamed that my own sister is a welfare cheat. While we are on this subject can anyone give me a good reason why anybody should have a free cell phone?

 

[Adam Caramon]

I may be naïve, but I would think their own testimony would stand up in court.

No, not at all. That is called circumstantial evidence.

I guess maybe the reason I have been pondering the question in the first place is that I am ashamed that my own sister is a welfare cheat.

I understand where you are coming from. I have relatives that I suspect (but could not prove) do the same thing. There is no good way to handle this kind of situation though. I try to subtlety encourage them to take more responsibility for themselves.

While we are on this subject can anyone give me a good reason why anybody should have a free cell phone?

If by "free cell phone" you mean the government pays for a cell phone for you, then no, there is no reason that I think is acceptable. Assuming that your information is true (I've seen commercials that say people who are on government assistance qualify for free phones, but have not done the research to see if those phones are subsidized by the government or if a private company is providing them), it is a bad idea and something that should be stripped out of the tax code.

However, there are many programs like this littered through the tax code. Welfare to oil companies, ridiculous business deductions for lavish parties, gifts, etc.

I read an article the other day where a woman who has an autistic son was worried that if we go off the fiscal cliff she will no longer be able to get grants from the government to take care of him. Example included a $3000 grant to build a fence around her yard so he can't run off.

While I have sympathy for her that her son is autistic and likely requires a lot of funds and attention for his care, why should this be on the government's tab?

 

[Fifty2One]

Dont let something like this weigh down your consience with guilt - the person (relative, friend or stranger does not matter) is committing fraud, the attitude of "the government can afford it" is all bunk because the government coffers are topped up by tax payers. I would turn in anyone I knew who was defrauding anyone, including the government, same way I would turn in a drunk driver or someone taking from a charity donation box.
It would be a shame to have a dishonest family member, but permitting them to continue to commit a crime doubles the shame.

 

[rodmc]

That is a hard one TBH.

Some of the most vulnerable member's of society struggle cos they dont get enough and that may be in part to benefit fraud, this is especially true in the UK, where pensioners who have paid in all their lives are struggling to pay fuel bills while some sections of our society are getting housing benefit, Council tax benefit, unemployment benefit (JSA) and whole other raft of benefits.

Rather than stick her in it, could you not have a word and convince her to stop the "dole bludging" as we call it?

I would say Im left of centre!

 

[Dick7Access]

No, not at all. That is called circumstantial evidence.



I understand where you are coming from. I have relatives that I suspect (but could not prove) do the same thing. There is no good way to handle this kind of situation though. I try to subtlety encourage them to take more responsibility for themselves.



If by "free cell phone" you mean the government pays for a cell phone for you, then no, there is no reason that I think is acceptable. Assuming that your information is true (I've seen commercials that say people who are on government assistance qualify for free phones, but have not done the research to see if those phones are subsidized by the government or if a private company is providing them), it is a bad idea and something that should be stripped out of the tax code.

Even if it is provided by the phone co, it still comes out of our pockets
Please don't I am changing position but I just thought of a reason for a free, If a person is truly handicapped and is living alone I suppose a phone that can only call 911 would be justified.



However, there are many programs like this littered through the tax code. Welfare to oil companies, ridiculous business deductions for lavish parties, gifts, etc.

The problem with that is the goverment pivking the winners and loosers

 

[Dick7Access]

No, not at all. That is called circumstantial evidence.



their own testermony under oath would be circumstantial

 

[Vassago]

their own testermony under oath would be circumstantial

Yes, but you are innocent until proven guilty. Your testimony would be circumstantial and not prove guilt. It wouldn't matter what they say unless they admit they did it.

If you are absolutely sure your family member is abusing the system, you have to look at the consequences of turning them in. Would it cause issues with your family? Are there kids involved that would be harmed? Are you ok with losing parts of your family? Sometimes the consequences aren't worth it. You wouldn't want any harm to come to any innocent bystanders, right?

I think having a conversation with your sister is the best approach. Tell her how you feel and what you see. Let her explain herself and listen with an open mind. There may be things included with this you do not know about or don't fully understand.

 

[Dick7Access]

Two things, you or me are missing. Probable me for not putting it clear enough.

Point 1: I am not about to turn her in or anybody else. The premise for the whole post is, do I have a bigger obligation since it is my sister. Now other premises that popped up from others input is whether I, you, or anybody has an obligation to turn anyone in. That could start a whole new thread.

The second item is if my sister is on the witness stand and she under oat confess that she is on food stamps, and confesses that she spend X number of $for two airline tickets, that would be hearsay evidence. Could be I guess, there are stranger laws than that.

 

[Rabbie]

No, not at all. That is called circumstantial evidence.



their own testermony under oath would be circumstantial

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.