I think it was Tim Worstall, or someone on his blog, who said that giving away free money was the simplest economic transaction imaginable. But the government regularly foul up...
Imagine some group empowered to combine birth and death registers, together with NI database, census returns, and citizenship registers to produce a central list of all 'valid' citizens. Keeping it up to date would be a continuing effort - but if people not on the 'valid' list received no benefits and had to pay towards valid citizen services (such as health and prescriptions) then the list could be self funding. ID cards may be required.
I have always resisted ID cards before and still feel queasy about the idea, but perhaps the time has come to revisit the consequences of open borders and fraud.
Sam - yes, there must be a tricky aspect to it that we don't understand, something to do with checking.
dearieme - I think it's a way of paying dead Republicans to vote Democrat.
DJ - I imagine it will be done in one way or another and it would solve a few problems, but yes I feel queasy about the ID idea too. Coupled with a more direct democracy it could possibly be useful and fairly safe, but that bit won't happen.
To be fair, $1.3bn is not that much when you're paying out well over a trillion. About 3.25m people die in the US each year. I assume the vast majority would be over pensionable age. Ergo if each received just one additional monthly payment through administrative oversight after they died (lets assume the average payment was at least $1000, its probably closer to $2000) then that would be over $3bn alone. So while it sounds terrible, in the scheme of things its probably not.
Sobers - I agree, it's not that much. I think Senator Kennedy is saying that as cheques were cashed after the death, then it's fraud and the money should be reclaimed but isn't. He also seems to be doing no more than make fun of another federal agency, as he does and something we don't do enough of.
"I think Senator Kennedy is saying that as cheques were cashed after the death"
Do the USians actually send out paper cheques still? Or is he using the term as a synonym for payments? Don't they pay direct to a bank account like we do with benefits, pensions and the like? There's a difference between actively cashing a cheque you're not entitled to, and having some money dropped into your account uninvited. Not least because one suspects trying to return money already paid would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Imagine, if you will, a dead person, not too long dead I hope, coming up to the bank cashier,'s desk and requesting that this check (cheque?) be cashed. Or do they do things differently in the US of A?
Sobers - I wondered about that. Referring to the payments as checks does suggest they are checks, possibly because some recipients don't have bank accounts. Maybe there is an advantage to sending checks in that they have to be cashed or not, but if they don't check this it doesn't matter anyway. I don't know which it is though.
I'm reminded of the story of 3 friends of the deceased were stood by the open coffin. Fred, a builder, said, "I feel guilty that I never did pay Bill that £100 I owed him," and taking that money out of his wallet, laid it on his friend's chest. Jim, a plumber, admitted that he had borrowed £50 from Bill just before his untimely death and, taking £50 out of his wallet, laid it on his friend's chest. Julian, a lawyer, then said that he also owed Bill £100 and, taking his chequebook out of his pocket, wrote out a cheque for £250, picked up the money, put it in his pocket, and laid the cheque on his friend's chest, saying, "There you go, Bill. All debts repaid." Penseivat
13 comments:
I think it was Tim Worstall, or someone on his blog, who said that giving away free money was the simplest economic transaction imaginable. But the government regularly foul up...
Why shouldn't the dead get free money? In the US they often vote, don't they? But only Democrat so I suppose we can safely assume they are in hell.
Imagine some group empowered to combine birth and death registers, together with NI database, census returns, and citizenship registers to produce a central list of all 'valid' citizens. Keeping it up to date would be a continuing effort - but if people not on the 'valid' list received no benefits and had to pay towards valid citizen services (such as health and prescriptions) then the list could be self funding. ID cards may be required.
I have always resisted ID cards before and still feel queasy about the idea, but perhaps the time has come to revisit the consequences of open borders and fraud.
Nobody expects the Data Inquisition....
Sam - yes, there must be a tricky aspect to it that we don't understand, something to do with checking.
dearieme - I think it's a way of paying dead Republicans to vote Democrat.
DJ - I imagine it will be done in one way or another and it would solve a few problems, but yes I feel queasy about the ID idea too. Coupled with a more direct democracy it could possibly be useful and fairly safe, but that bit won't happen.
To be fair, $1.3bn is not that much when you're paying out well over a trillion. About 3.25m people die in the US each year. I assume the vast majority would be over pensionable age. Ergo if each received just one additional monthly payment through administrative oversight after they died (lets assume the average payment was at least $1000, its probably closer to $2000) then that would be over $3bn alone. So while it sounds terrible, in the scheme of things its probably not.
Well with this going on, it's easy to see how easily the Democrats could steal the election from Trump in 2020.
Sobers - I agree, it's not that much. I think Senator Kennedy is saying that as cheques were cashed after the death, then it's fraud and the money should be reclaimed but isn't. He also seems to be doing no more than make fun of another federal agency, as he does and something we don't do enough of.
Tammly - and easy to see that they would.
"I think Senator Kennedy is saying that as cheques were cashed after the death"
Do the USians actually send out paper cheques still? Or is he using the term as a synonym for payments? Don't they pay direct to a bank account like we do with benefits, pensions and the like? There's a difference between actively cashing a cheque you're not entitled to, and having some money dropped into your account uninvited. Not least because one suspects trying to return money already paid would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
Imagine, if you will, a dead person, not too long dead I hope, coming up to the bank cashier,'s desk and requesting that this check (cheque?) be cashed.
Or do they do things differently in the US of A?
Sobers - I wondered about that. Referring to the payments as checks does suggest they are checks, possibly because some recipients don't have bank accounts. Maybe there is an advantage to sending checks in that they have to be cashed or not, but if they don't check this it doesn't matter anyway. I don't know which it is though.
Doonhamer - sounds like the Munsters, so it's not too difficult to imagine.
I'm reminded of the story of 3 friends of the deceased were stood by the open coffin.
Fred, a builder, said, "I feel guilty that I never did pay Bill that £100 I owed him," and taking that money out of his wallet, laid it on his friend's chest.
Jim, a plumber, admitted that he had borrowed £50 from Bill just before his untimely death and, taking £50 out of his wallet, laid it on his friend's chest.
Julian, a lawyer, then said that he also owed Bill £100 and, taking his chequebook out of his pocket, wrote out a cheque for £250, picked up the money, put it in his pocket, and laid the cheque on his friend's chest, saying, "There you go, Bill. All debts repaid."
Penseivat
Post a Comment