Certain redistribution programs are called “entitlements” because anybody who meets various criteria is “entitled” to automatically get money or other benefits.
Economists worry that such programs (particularly the “means-tested” entitlements) create perverse incentives since some people will choose to work less and earn less in order to maximize the amount of handouts they receive. Such behavior is immoral, but understandable. People learn that if they make sacrifices and work more, the reward is taxation, whereas if they work less (or not at all), the reward is freebies from the government.
And the problem presumably is worse in places where there is a greater amount of redistribution (if you’re curious, here’s the data on which states and countries have the most profligate package of benefits).
But the problem goes beyond simply luring people into idleness with bad incentives. When politicians create programs that give away money, they also create opportunities for outright fraud. Which is a pervasive problem, as illustrated by these examples.
- Medicare fraud.
- Medicaid fraud.
- Food stamp fraud.
- EITC fraud.
- Unemployment benefits fraud.
- Disability fraud.
Let’s travel to Minnesota to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem.
Minnesota’s Pioneer Press reports on a government audit that found one-third of welfare recipients improperly received handouts.
A review by Minnesota’s legislative auditor has found that some of Minnesota’s welfare programs do a poor job of ensuring benefits don’t go to ineligible people… It found significant error rates in the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program, which provides cash and other benefits to low-income families with children. …the audit found eight of 24 families it reviewed weren’t eligible for benefits they received.
That’s not a large sample size, so we don’t know if the actual overall error rate is higher or lower than 33 percent, but the audit certainly suggests that there is a major problem.
It’s also not clear how much of the problem is caused by accident and how much is caused by fraud. Presumably the latter, but it’s quite possible that some people aren’t knowingly bilking the system.
But in some cases, there’s no ambiguity. The Sun has a horror story about a stunning case of welfare fraud.
Fozia Dualeh, 39, was charged with felony theft in Anoka County District Court, as prosecutors say she received $118,000 in government aid over roughly an 18 month period. According to the complaint, Dualeh exploited three public benefit programs from January 2015 to August 2015 which included $24,176 in food support, $85,582 in child care assistance and $8,996 in medical assistance overpayments.
Wow, almost $120K over 1-1/2 years. That’s an impressive haul, though perhaps not too surprising given the dozens of handout programs that – when combined – make idleness relatively lucrative.
In any event, Ms. Dualeh claimed she was eligible for that huge package of handouts because her husband was no longer part of the family.
But that wasn’t true.
A search of the home by authorities in late October 2015 led to the discovery of Dualeh’s husband, who is also the children’s father, Abdikhadar Ismail, hiding under a blanket in the master bedroom, charges said. Several articles of mens clothing were found in a chest, as well as numerous documents and mail throughout the home belonging to Ismail. Ismail also listed the family’s address on two vehicles and with his employer, a residential health care business.
Given the large sums of money involved, the Center of the American Experiment probably deserves an award for most-understated headline on this issue.
Though at the risk of being a pedantic libertarian, I would prefer if the headline said “Lucrative” instead of “Profitable.” After all, as Walter Williams has explained that profit is a meritorious reward for serving others.
But we can all probably agree that Ms. Dualeh deserves membership in the Moocher Hall of Fame.
P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Dualeh was introduced to the welfare system thanks to America’s poorly designed refugee program.
P.P.S. On the broader issue of redistribution and economics, this Wizard-of-Id parody contains a lot of insight about labor supply and incentives. As does this Chuck Asay cartoon and this Robert Gorrell cartoon.
[…] written about widespread fraud affecting programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, disability, and the earned income […]
[…] written about widespread fraud affecting programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, disability, and the earned income […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/a-six-figure-welfare-fraud-horror-story/ […]
Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.
Welfare fraud can be profitable. Why don’t we ask Rep Omar?
kommonsentsjane
[…] There’s fraud in the Medicare program. There’s fraud in the EITC program. There’s fraud in food stamps. There’s fraud in Medicaid. There’s fraud in the disability program. There’s welfare fraud. […]
Richard:
The UBI set at the poverty level will “cost” about $2.2 trillion. Just a shade under $1 trillion comes from elimination or reduction of the safety-net programs mentioned above. $1.2 trillion comes from elimination of “tax expenditures”.
This is a federal plan. States and charities will be free to do as they please. Doesn’t it make sense that wealthy states like CA and NY provide what is necessary for the differences in cost of living?
As a conservative, you cannot argue that there should be no redistribution and at the same time ask “what if people are still going hungry?” The stock answer would be that charities will take up the slack. My proposal recognizes that charities could not deal with the full elimination of redistribution. Charities, however, will have a much better chance to meet marginal needs over and above UBI support.
Since the states are free to do as they wish, blue states may well continue with lavish benefits and high taxes, while red states opt to have low taxes and leave marginal needs to charities. Which one do you think would work out better?
We currently “take money from those who work and give to the lazy”. But we also make working one’s way out of poverty impossible by making the effective tax rate plus loss of benefits outrageously expensive. A UBI would take money that we are currently spending and give it to all, regardless of income. Current “tax expenditures” benefit primarily the wealthy. A UBI would spread those funds evenly to all citizens.
The push for lower tax rates and possibly a flat tax, would seem to benefit “the rich”. A UBI would make a flat tax progressive and those working their way out of poverty would pay no higher effective tax rate than the wealthiest. Everyone would face the same UBI plus tax, but the dollars going to those with lower incomes would have a greater impact. Without a UBI, the flat tax is a political loser.
Which is the “silly idea”? Leave things as they are? Eliminate all redistribution? Fix our tax code and reallocate money we are currently spending to eliminate the nanny state and encourage all to take responsibility for their own lives?
And nedlamdp, exactly how are you going to fund your UBI, and what if people are still going hungry, what will liberal friends what to do about that, and do people in NYC and San Francisco get the same dollar amount as those out in the hinterlands…
Sounds nice, but it involves taking money from those who work and give to the lazy. THIS silly idea won’t work…..
[…] might have enough visual impact to worry a few people about the fiscal future of the US. Welfare fraud stories. Tax reform. End the bias of debt over […]
And you wonder why I favor an Unconditional Basic Income.
It would replace all federal welfare, dollar for dollar reductions on unemployment, disability, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Plus the standard deduction and all so called “revenue expenditures” (tax deductions).
It would be difficult to defraud a UBI system, since every citizen would receive the same dollar amount, and if one did get caught they could lose their own UBI for the rest of their life, as well as land in jail.
A UBI set at the poverty level, $10,000 per adult and $2,000 per child would only increase with inflation and population growth (0.9% annually).
It is a political impossibility to get to a flat tax and eliminate taxes on investment, which heavily favors the wealthy, unless you can make the flat tax progressive enough to get the votes.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.