Abusing the system

cindy71 · #61 01/19/14, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pax6

What really bothers me is how many full time employees still qualify for SNAP benefits. Walmart's employee handbook even includes location info for local social services because they pay poverty level wages. And if every large retailer adopted Walmart's employee pay rates it would cost taxpayers $400 million annually in increased healthcare and welfare costs. In California alone. The way I see it, Walmart's low prices are taxpayer subsidies.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart.pdf

They qualify because they most have dependence or worker part time maybe both. It is NOT the owner of any business to pay you based on how many people you have in your household.... If you don't like what someone is paying DON"T work there. Now that being said I know some people have no choice to take these jobs but they don't have to stay there for the rest of their life and complain that they don't get paid enough to feed there kids.

Ozarks Tom · #62 01/19/14, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by where I want to

Which is exactly the problem with most welfare programs- to prosecute a person who is fraudulently getting a couple of hundred dollars a month will cost much more than will ever be recovered. So it does not get done.

The private insurance companies find prosecuting fraud to be cost effective, or they certainly wouldn't be doing it. Word gets around amongst the scammers, get caught by xxxxxx Insurance and you're going to jail.

They also know only the high visibility (Octomom), or really egregious cases will be punished by the government.

where I want to · #63 01/19/14, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozarks Tom

The private insurance companies find prosecuting fraud to be cost effective, or they certainly wouldn't be doing it. Word gets around amongst the scammers, get caught by xxxxxx Insurance and you're going to jail.

They also know only the high visibility (Octomom), or really egregious cases will be punished by the government.

It's a theory I would subscribe to but the rules were not to refer a case to be considered for court action unless it totalled more than $100,000 and that was twenty years ago.