What does a small homogeneous population like Denmark got to do with a large melting pot country like the US that is constantly absorbing millions of immigrants?

Green Arrow wrote:What should the penalty be for fraud? Should it be set at a loss of benefits (Corporate, Private, Government), or a physical detriment (caning?), incarceration, or just disregarded?

You missed out a pretty obvious one. A fine. I don't think that there's a one-size-fits-all penalty for a whole category of crime. Just as for other kinds of theft, the punishment should be based on the severity of the crime, rather than being prescribed. But you seem to be ignoring my point there...

Personally I think the standard starting point on fraud should be as follows:

1) Before any punishment is added, the amount defrauded should considered a debt to repay the rightful owners.
2) For minor fraud, a fine is probably a good punishment. As a crime of taking money, the punishment of losing money seems to fit the bill. This is equivalent to the 'loss of benefits', but would cover anyone, regardless of whether they are claiming benefits any more or not.
3) For more serious cases, and for non-payment of fines in (2), I would consider community service to be one possible means of punishment. The culprit gives something of value back to society, even if they can't do so financially
4) For the most serious cases, and for avoidance of (2) and (3), then prison is pretty much the main punishment we have.

I don't think that physical punishments are a good idea. If I wanted to see that, I'd move to Iran.

Neal Anderth wrote:What does a small homogeneous population like Denmark got to do with a large melting pot country like the US that is constantly absorbing millions of immigrants?

Denmark is small, but has around 10% immigrant population (most of which is in the last 30 years) from all over the world.

Are you saying that benefit fraud is a race thing? Funny that, the people that my inlaws complain about as dodging the dole where they live all seem to be white and Anglo-Saxon (or Anglo-Irish). Was it the immigrants that made them do it?

GMTom wrote:I have a nephew who is scamming the govt (legally) for all he can as well. He has a kid and never married his girlfriend because they get more money by being single. They moved in with his Mother and Father so have no real need for rent but they get their share and sock it away!

If they are doing it legally, it's not fraud.

Neal Anderth wrote:What does a small homogeneous population like Denmark got to do with a large melting pot country like the US that is constantly absorbing millions of immigrants?

I am shocked that you, Pigsie, and Ricky completely missed the point. Or not.

The point of the study was not the low unemployment rate or the wealth of benefits--or even their immigration policies. The point is that as the time for which benefits were offered was reduced, people went out and got jobs earlier.

As an aside, I doubt many States pay unemployment benefits of 27%.

rickyp wrote:Besdies Steve. We're talking about welfare rates in the States.... How much does someone get on welfare in your town?

rickyp wrote:I'll answer this generally and not specifically about the US.
It is not the governments responsibility to provide every need.

Are we, or are we not, speaking about the US? Make up your mind.

Neal Anderth wrote:

What does a small homogeneous population like Denmark got to do with a large melting pot country like the US that is constantly absorbing millions of immigrants

?
Ask Steve. He brought them up...

steve

The point of the study was not the low unemployment rate or the wealth of benefits--or even their immigration policies. The point is that as the time for which benefits were offered was reduced, people went out and got jobs earlier.

Didn't miss the point at all Steve. But as always there is context and there is detail.
That Denmark might see a decline in the number of people on unemployment because they engforce a tougher limit may be true. But since Denmark has 4% unemployment there are a couple of other important inferences.
1) That despite having an enormous benefit should they be unemployed MOST danes are employed.
2) If forced off the dole, its likely Danes will find work (see 4% unemployed rate)
3) The rate of compensation for a Dane who doesn't work is enormous. If you cut out expenses related to going to work, I'd bet it would pay most Danes to stay home. Yet they don't. see that happening in enormous numbers (see 4%)

However, most Americans on unemployment are paid UI benefits less than $600 a week. (Excepting Mass. which is $800) . So less than $30,000 per annum for those who've lost the highest paying jobs....http://fileunemployment.org/unemployment-benefits-comparison-by-state
Comparing the cushy Danish beneifts with USA benefits is like comparing Audis and Ford Escorts.
Surely the drop in lifestyle for most Americans already is incentive for them to get a job. Whilst a Dane wouldn't have to change his lifestyle whilst unemployed....

And we're not even talking about unemployment benefits in this...Green is suggesting that ending Welfare after two years would see an increase in employment by those welfare bums. Because the cushy life afforded the generous welfare payments is such a deterrent to the work ethic.
I hardly think that the stipends provided through welfare amount to a cushy life style that a lot of people would be willing to settle for if they could do better....
And thats the premise you need to prove... NOt whether or not the Danes can force change by ending a champagne life style

rickyp wrote:Didn't miss the point at all Steve. But as always there is context and there is detail.
That Denmark might see a decline in the number of people on unemployment because they engforce a tougher limit may be true. But since Denmark has 4% unemployment there are a couple of other important inferences.

However, the main inference you SHOULD draw is that when the clock is ticking, people get moving. And, it wasn't so long ago our unemployment rate was very low.

The problem now is that people won't take anything but an "acceptable" job, which is exactly what was going on in Denmark.

Surely the drop in lifestyle for most Americans already is incentive for them to get a job. Whilst a Dane wouldn't have to change his lifestyle whilst unemployed....

What most Americans do is work under the table. I'm just sayin'.

And we're not even talking about unemployment benefits in this...Green is suggesting that ending Welfare after two years would see an increase in employment by those welfare bums.

Ever been in a housing project? Generations are born there and die there, without ever escaping. Why? Is it because there are no other opportunities?

The truth is the incentive to work has been removed for some people. And, it hurts the country as a whole because we are deprived of their talents and labor.

steve

The problem now is that people won't take anything but an "acceptable" job, which is exactly what was going on in Denmark

.

Nonsense. People in Denmark had 90% of their previous income...Their need to accept lower pay is low.
In the US most people are settling for lower wages than they used to make ...but better still than unemployment.

The bulk of the jobs created nationally in the first 10 months of 2010 were relatively low-paying positions, while some high-paying sectors continued to lose jobs, according to a report by economists James Hughes and Joseph Seneca

.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/busines ... wages.html

rickyp wrote:steve

The problem now is that people won't take anything but an "acceptable" job, which is exactly what was going on in Denmark

.

Nonsense. People in Denmark had 90% of their previous income...Their need to accept lower pay is low.

The same principle applies whether the issue was pay, the nature of the work, or even the schedule. For example, someone might be able to make 98% of their former pay, but have to travel an extra hour each way, or work weekends, or have to work in an industry they don't like, so they choose not to take the work--until their benefits are nearly gone.

So, no, it's not "nonsense."

In the US most people are settling for lower wages than they used to make ...but better still than unemployment.

It's all about the Stimulus! Wow, what would we have done without it?

The bulk of the jobs created nationally in the first 10 months of 2010 were relatively low-paying positions, while some high-paying sectors continued to lose jobs, according to a report by economists James Hughes and Joseph Seneca

Awesome! Full props to Pelosi, Reid and the President! That's a recovery! Woot!

steve

The same principle applies whether the issue was pay, the nature of the work, or even the schedule

So?
Are you still claming that Americans choose to remain on welfare because they enjoy the life style they enjoy ?And that by arbitrarily setting a time limit, at which point their $350 a month stipend would end, that they would only then be inspired to find work?
Your example of Danish Unemployment beenfits is a non-starter. It doesn't compare with the the welfare payment situation in the US.

Is $350 a month what it is in Canada? Because it is higher in many cases in the US.

It was about $381 a month, per person in the States (on average).... in 92... If you can find a current source that would be interesting... All I';ve seen are "answer blogs" and they gave me the $350 a month number. ..

A lot of "long term" welfare reciept is from single mothers with children...They tend to stay on welfare longer. Otherwise "long term" welfare is something of a myth.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that the welfare rolls are filled with a substantial population of sedentary freeloaders who stay on for ten years at a time. Most welfare recipients leave within the first two years:

Percent of
Time on AFDC Recipients (8)
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
Some may think that even two years is too much, but one should remember that almost all welfare is for mothers with children. (There are no federal welfare programs for adults without children.) In 1993, the average person collecting state unemployment benefits did so for four months. (9) But the search for work is greatly complicated when one also has a child. A great deal of money, time and energy must go for the care of the child, which significantly detracts from any job search. There is also the bias of employers against women, especially single women with children. Therefore, we should expect mothers with children to take longer getting back on their feet. Society could make it easier for them by providing child care during their job search -- and in fact, many conservative critics of welfare are beginning to see the economic reasons for doing so.

source
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/12/bg1063nbsp-why-congress-must-reform-welfare

* The 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years on welfare.

* When past and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is an astonishing 13 years.

* Among the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, over 90 percent will spend over two years on the AFDC caseload. More than three quarters will spend over five years on AFDC.

This shows a change since 1992 apparently.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.aspx

Could you live on less than $300 a week? The average unemployment check in the U.S. is $293.

First line of the article of the first Google listed site for average unemployment benefit. Tough search...

Could You live on $1172/mo?