alt Hacker NewsI suppose it's about finding a balance. I understand not having unreasonable amounts of repetitive checks, but if you make it too easy to abuse more than a few people will abuse it, which takes away money from the people who need it.
I suppose it's about finding a balance. I understand not having unreasonable amounts of repetitive checks, but if you make it too easy to abuse more than a few people will abuse it, which takes away money from the people who need it.
I don't know if there's much evidence to support that, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Even if I'm wrong though, some folks "abusing" a system to get more money they might not necessarily "need" to support their child just doesn't seem that bad to me, and I'm sure whatever that costs the taxpayer would be a rounding error especially compared to the ludicrous amounts the government spends on other things.
I mean, where I live there's food banks, and the only requirement to utilize the food bank is that you bring in a piece of mail with your address on it so they can know you're at the correct food bank. I know, I'm poor and I've had to use the foodbank, recently even. Besides that, you could be the richest guy in town and go and pick up a nice big haul of food every 5 weeks if you choose to. But for whatever reason, this system isn't rife with abuse, even though I'm not drug tested (I would pass) or background checked (no criminal record) or made sure I work (I do). I'm aware of a few bad eggs who don't "need" the food bank who access it anyway, but by and large the people who do need it are getting it and that's what matters.
I guess my point is, you always hear about "what if this is abused" when it comes to systems that are in place to help the less-than-fortunate, but from what I can see it's always just a veiled attempt to make it harder for people who need assistance to actually get it, for little to no actual return because the "rampant abuse" we're told to worry about doesn't seem to be such a big issue in reality.