ACA - Centrelink bludgers
Astro
pay the cash back, when busted.
Do people have morals these days?
tealou
> People are ripping the system off and then expecting not to have the
> pay the cash back, when busted.
How do you define ripping the system off?
I dont watch ACA so I dont know what the story was... however...
If someone fully discloses their incoke to Centrelink, if they do0 all the
right paperwork and declare everything, and Cnetrelink fuck up your
payments... then they shouldnt pay it back IMO.
As long as you have cooperated with Centrelink (and an awful lot dont and
THEY are the people you should be going after), I think you should not
incur debt if youre entitlements have been incorrectly calculated.
Astro
People are getting busted for not declaring their full earnings from
years ago.
Phoenix
So, using your rationale, if the bank accidentally puts $100,000.00 into
your account you should be able to keep it? Or if you accidentally
transfer money to the wrong persons account they should be able to keep
that - is that how it works?
tealou
>>As long as you have cooperated with Centrelink (and an awful lot dont
>>and THEY are the people you should be going after), I think you should
>>not incur debt if youre entitlements have been incorrectly calculated.
>
> People are getting busted for not declaring their full earnings from
> years ago.
Ahh thats different then.
Although I don't know about how far back it should go - surely there'd be
some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
tealou
>> As long as you have cooperated with Centrelink (and an awful lot dont
>> and THEY are the people you should be going after), I think you
>> should not incur debt if youre entitlements have been incorrectly
>> calculated.
>
> So, using your rationale, if the bank accidentally puts $100,000.00
> into your account you should be able to keep it? Or if you
> accidentally transfer money to the wrong persons account they should
> be able to keep that - is that how it works?
Nope. Thats different, because you would *know* that you are being
overpaid, or that there is an extra $100,000 in your account.
However, if youve been paid an extra $25 a fortnight for 2 years, how are
you supposed to know> There is no way of calculating your beneifts other
than trusting Centrelinik to do it for you.
They are entirely different circumstances.
Phoenix
<snip>
>
> Nope. Thats different, because you would *know* that you are being
> overpaid, or that there is an extra $100,000 in your account.
>
> However, if youve been paid an extra $25 a fortnight for 2 years, how are
> you supposed to know> There is no way of calculating your beneifts other
> than trusting Centrelinik to do it for you.
>
> They are entirely different circumstances.
No different to being undertaxed and I doubt you would argue with the
ATO if they assessed you as owing money. On your point about not being
able to calculate it, the payment rates are published every 6 months
when there is a CPI change and are available in hard copy or on the net
have a look at:
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_nsa.htm
and
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/chartd.htm
There are similar pages for all payment types.
I don't disagree that the person who made the error should suffer some
consequences but why should the taxpayer suffer by someone getting an
interest free loan as the result of an error?
red ted
4ax.com:
> People are ripping the system off and then expecting not to have the
> pay the cash back, when busted.
>
> Do people have morals these days?
The biggest welfare bludgers in Australia are farmers.
The second biggest welfare bludgers are corporations.
Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
farmers. Ask yourself how much you paid out to manildra just because the
cunt was a mate of Howard's. Moron.
tealou
> I don't disagree that the person who made the error should suffer some
> consequences but why should the taxpayer suffer by someone getting an
> interest free loan as the result of an error?
I really dont know, to be honest.
I just dont think it is fair that those who consistently do the right thing
get the bills, and those who rort the system seem to get off scott free
(people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
mother;s pension, for example...)
It seems that theyre going after the easy targets - those that are liely to
pay back the debt, because generally, they try to do the right thing.
i know its sort of evading the question... but its difficult.
ralph
If a public servant can calculate it, I'm sure anybody can. I don't
think Centrelink calculations are national secrets ;-)
>They are entirely different circumstances.
Split hairs all you want ... but keeping something that you know
doesn't belong to you would be "theft" (even two years later).
Morally, you have a clear obligation to pay taxpayers back if you are
overpaid in error.
Astro
>Astro <he...@hehe.com> wrote in news:904ukvctkt0aspv1c94dn9euj71jqkrosv@
>4ax.com:
>
>> People are ripping the system off and then expecting not to have the
>> pay the cash back, when busted.
>>
>> Do people have morals these days?
>
>The biggest welfare bludgers in Australia are farmers.
People who deserve help.
>The second biggest welfare bludgers are corporations.
no
>Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
>farmers.
Not enough.
>Ask yourself how much you paid out to manildra just because the
>cunt was a mate of Howard's. Moron.
Ask yourself how much is getting paid to druggo's who have no
intention on ever finding a job.
tealou
>>They are entirely different circumstances.
>
> Split hairs all you want ... but keeping something that you know
> doesn't belong to you would be "theft" (even two years later).
But what if you don't know? What if you are elderly or disabled and trust
the government to come up with the right amount to pay you?
>
> Morally, you have a clear obligation to pay taxpayers back if you are
> overpaid in error.
>
Morally, yes. But what if you just odnt have it? You are charging the
poorest members of our society for something that was beyond their
control. But of course, thats just my opinion.
Phoenix
>
> Phoenix scribbled in pink crayon:
>
> > I don't disagree that the person who made the error should suffer some
> > consequences but why should the taxpayer suffer by someone getting an
> > interest free loan as the result of an error?
>
> I really dont know, to be honest.
>
> I just dont think it is fair that those who consistently do the right thing
> get the bills, and those who rort the system seem to get off scott free
> (people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
> mother;s pension, for example...)
surely that is a separate issue and there are any amount of 'urban
legends' such as you describe. If you know of someone who is doing as
you describe and it bothers you so much there is quite a simple solution
- report them!
> It seems that theyre going after the easy targets - those that are liely to
> pay back the debt, because generally, they try to do the right thing.
>
> i know its sort of evading the question... but its difficult.
Well, it isn't so difficult really. The money belongs to the taxpayers,
the government has it adminsitered through places like centrelink - if
you have something that doesn't belong to you then the owner deserves it
back, in this instance the taxpayer !
netvegetable
Everyone has morals. It's an intrinsic part of human nature, unless
they're clinical psychopaths.
The point is ... these people are ripping off the *system*. They are also,
in effect ripping off the Australian taxpayer, but denial ain't just a
river in Egypt.
They're not the only ones. Why do u think people hire accountants?
tealou
>> (people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
>> mother;s pension, for example...)
>
> surely that is a separate issue and there are any amount of 'urban
> legends' such as you describe. If you know of someone who is doing as
> you describe and it bothers you so much there is quite a simple solution
> - report them!
Trust me, they are not necessarily urban myths. I know of at least 3 people
like that.
However, I am not about to set myself up as judge of their circumstances. I
honestly believe that it is Centrelink's job to go after them. I am not
going to do my job for them.
(Besides, I have a very close relationship with one of them and would
*never* do that. I'll complain about it but would never do anything about
it.)
Phoenix
>
> Phoenix scribbled in pink crayon:
>
> Trust me, they are not necessarily urban myths. I know of at least 3 people
> like that.
>
> However, I am not about to set myself up as judge of their circumstances. I
> honestly believe that it is Centrelink's job to go after them. I am not
> going to do my job for them.
So if you were to witness the next door neighbours being broken in to
that would be the job of the police and you wouldn't hone them?
> (Besides, I have a very close relationship with one of them and would
> *never* do that. I'll complain about it but would never do anything about
> it.)
Well that in effect makes you an accessory doesn't it?
You know that a peson is committing a crime and you do nothing about it
because you have a 'close relationship' with them. I suggest that if
you are going to 'complain' publicly in usenet about the problem you
should have the courage of your convictions and do something about it!
It is no wonder that the cost of welfare is escalating in this country
with citizens such as yourself protecting those taking more than their
share.
The Charming Ones
"tealou" <y...@blah.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93E6AA557CA13...@202.72.130.18...
> Astro scribbled in pink crayon:
>
> > People are ripping the system off and then expecting not to have the
> > pay the cash back, when busted.
>
> How do you define ripping the system off?
>
> I dont watch ACA so I dont know what the story was... however...
>
> If someone fully discloses their incoke to Centrelink, if they do0 all the
> right paperwork and declare everything, and Cnetrelink fuck up your
> payments... then they shouldnt pay it back IMO.
Well that all depends on whether you're saying they stuff [oh sorry fuck up]
buy paying a lump sum, or by continuos payments each week, by a couple of
extra dollars, say $30-$50.
Because if they make one mistake and put a couple of thousand in there by
mistake then they should have to give it back, cause if your the honest
type, then you'd question how that much got to be put there in the first
place, wouldn't you? Well I would anyway.
Nat
Nat
Iggy
> Phoenix scribbled in pink crayon:
>
> >> (people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
> >> mother;s pension, for example...)
> >
> > surely that is a separate issue and there are any amount of 'urban
> > legends' such as you describe. If you know of someone who is doing as
> > you describe and it bothers you so much there is quite a simple solution
> > - report them!
>
> Trust me, they are not necessarily urban myths. I know of at least 3
people
> like that.
Right, so a single mother does not deserve to have a nice car or own a
house? Is that it?
Iggy
If the bank accidentally puts a million bucks into your bank account, you
don't get to keep it. And if my employer accidentally overpaid me, I would
not get to keep it either.
The Charming Ones
surely there'd be
> some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
uh uh. I was told that it doesn't matter how long ago it was.
Nat
The Charming Ones
"Phoenix" <ros...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F4F16CB...@ozemail.com.au...
Wouldn't you question as to how that much got there in the first place? I
would.
This happened to a friend of mine, they put a few thousand in there though,
and sh just kept it, but didn't spend, until they asked for it back, and if
they didn't then she would have kept it. :-)
Nat
tealou
> It is no wonder that the cost of welfare is escalating in this country
> with citizens such as yourself protecting those taking more than their
> share.
Thats right.
Unlike some people who prefer to take a self-righteous, simplistic
attitude, I am indeed morally screwed in this regard.
However, I admit it. And, unlike you and your ACA-ilk, I do not set myself
up as judge,jury and executioner. Instead, I grapple with the morality of
my circumstances, and try do to the right thing when there is no way to
win.
So I tip my hat to you, oh morally superior being.
tealou
>>
>> Trust me, they are not necessarily urban myths. I know of at least 3
> people
>> like that.
>
> Right, so a single mother does not deserve to have a nice car or own a
> house? Is that it?
That is not what I am saying at all.
The Charming Ones
> Phoenix scribbled in pink crayon:
>
> >> (people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
> >> mother;s pension, for example...)
> >
> > surely that is a separate issue and there are any amount of 'urban
> > legends' such as you describe. If you know of someone who is doing as
> > you describe and it bothers you so much there is quite a simple solution
> > - report them!
>
> Trust me, they are not necessarily urban myths. I know of at least 3
people
> like that.
>
> However, I am not about to set myself up as judge of their circumstances.
I
> honestly believe that it is Centrelink's job to go after them. I am not
> going to do my job for them.
Don't you mean: I am not going to do their job for them? :-)
Nat
Barbara
> tealou wrote:
>
> It is no wonder that the cost of welfare is escalating in this country
> with citizens such as yourself protecting those taking more than their
> share.
I hope you have a university degree, or have at least attended uni,
otherwise you opinions mean diddly squat to Tea.
Kwyjibo.
Bullshit. Legally, any entity (person, company or government department)
only has to keep financial records for 7 years so it's not feasible to go
back any further than that.
--
Kwyj.
Phoenix
You 'snipped' an important bit Tea, that was:
> You know that a peson is committing a crime and you do nothing about it
> because you have a 'close relationship' with them. I suggest that if
> you are going to 'complain' publicly in usenet about the problem you
> should have the courage of your convictions and do something about it!
It has nothing to do with being 'self righteous' as you suggest. It has
to do with you complaining in a public forum about a certain type of
person then openly confessing that you are protecting people of the same
ilk.
With all due respect I find that a tad contradictory!
Iggy
That's what it sounded like.
Phoenix
I think you will find that it isn't 'bullshit' Kwyj - take a peek at the
relevant legislation and let me know where it says that the calculation
of a debt cannot go beyond 7 years.
Phoenix
I agree Tea, you are not saying that a single mother doesn't deserv to
have a nice car or own a house. What you are saying is that it is
alright for a single mother to defraud the taxpayer and have a nice
shiny car and house and because you have a 'very close relationship'
with that persopn then there is nothing you can do about it! Not a
particularly logical arguument.
Phoenix
A studenf of life Barbara :-)
red ted
4ax.com:
>>Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
>>farmers.
>
> Not enough.
what shite. the cunts employ hardly anyone, they get 17x the welfare other
australians get. the average dole bludger's allowance doesn't even cover
the bludging farmer's petrol subsidy.
these cunts are bludgers. they're a whining bludging fucking blight on the
entire country. we'd be far better off to stop paying the bludging cunts a
single dollar and to start getting all our food from overseas.
if these cunts can't sompete with farmers in the 3rd world, then let the
country die. tell these cunts to stop bludging and get a real fucking job.
if their farms aren't profitable then they can fucking go broke and we can
stop propping the whining bludging cunts up.
get a fucking job and stop bludging you whining cunts.
where have you heard that before?
oh, that's right, you posted that about the unemployed to start this thread
sidn't you?
you fucking halfwit.
Paul Bowlay
> If the bank accidentally puts a million bucks into your bank account,
> you don't get to keep it.
True. But if the bank sent you a letter and said that money is yours and
your financial status is okay with them, do you get to keep it then?
Because that's what Centrelink did to one of the people in the story.
Iggy
"red ted" <red...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:binbvc$b3ukq$1...@ID-176014.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Astro <he...@hehe.com> wrote in news:4e7ukvkafcd4gld7oq8352ng3tk3b8otqe@
> 4ax.com:
>
> >>Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
> >>farmers.
> >
> > Not enough.
>
> what shite. the cunts employ hardly anyone, they get 17x the welfare other
> australians get.
Did you just learn the word "cunt" today. What a clever boy you are.
Astro
I have a job and would earn atleast triple you, stupid.
Phoenix
Your point being?
Iggy
"Paul Bowlay" <replace....@paulbowlay.com> wrote in message
news:binc4c$b20e5$1...@ID-200043.news.uni-berlin.de...
And of course ACA would not have left out any important or relevant parts to
edit the story to go the way they wanted it, would they?
Phoenix
You're telling the story did they get to keep it?
The law allows for both possibilities depending on the circumstances.
Kwyjibo.
> "Kwyjibo." wrote:
>>
>> "The Charming Ones" <nat...@yahoo.com.au> said
>>
>> >
>> > "tealou" <y...@blah.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns93E6AD36CF707...@202.72.130.18...
>> >
>> > surely there'd be
>> >> some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
>> >
>> > uh uh. I was told that it doesn't matter how long ago it was.
>> >
>>
>> Bullshit. Legally, any entity (person, company or government
>> department) only has to keep financial records for 7 years so it's
>> not feasible to go back any further than that.
>
> I think you will find that it isn't 'bullshit' Kwyj - take a peek at
> the relevant legislation and let me know where it says that the
> calculation of a debt cannot go beyond 7 years.
Show me where in the legislation it states it can.
You cannot be charged with anything unless given the oportunity to prove
your innocence. If there is no requirement to keep documentation going back
further than 7 years, how can you reasonably prove your innocence for an
offence alleged to have occured prior to that?
I can't find specific information on DFCS payments, but the ATO states that
they can only go back 5 years.
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/30327.htm&page=1
&pc=&mnu=5472&mfp=001/002&st=&cy=
I would assume that DFCS legislation would be similar.
--
Kwyj.
Kwyjibo.
>
> Right, so a single mother does not deserve to have a nice car or own a
> house? Is that it?
>
Not if I'm paying for it.
--
Kwyj.
Astro
wrote:
My point is simple, I'm not a dole bludger like suggested.
Kwyjibo.
>
> I have a job and would earn atleast triple you, stupid.
And you know that you earn at least triple his wage how exactly ?
Mamma Mia
>
> >>and THEY are the people you should be going after), I think you should
> >>not incur debt if youre entitlements have been incorrectly calculated.
> >
> > years ago.
>
> Ahh thats different then.
>
> Although I don't know about how far back it should go - surely there'd be
> some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
if you have been fraudulent, they can go back as far as they want....
Mamma Mia
"Kwyjibo." <sdrawkca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns93E6D07...@130.133.1.4...
Dassa
wrote:
|>
|>if you are frauding the system, they can force you to go back longer.
|>
From cradle to grave they have you covered.
--
Dassa
Phoenix
Have a look in:
http://139.134.5.123/kapala/freelegal/scaleplus.html
the relevant legislation which gprobably be the Social Security Act 1991
and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
Phoenix
'I have a job' would have sufficed to make that point
Astro
wrote:
That has nothing to do with it.
Paul Bowlay
>> True. But if the bank sent you a letter and said that money is
>> yours and your financial status is okay with them, do you get to
>> keep it then? Because that's what Centrelink did to one of the
>> people in the story.
>
> And of course ACA would not have left out any important or relevant
> parts to edit the story to go the way they wanted it, would they?
Point taken. But ACA did show the letter from Centrelink's own audit
stating that the person's accounts were in order, so why ACA are now
harrassing them for 15 grand is the issue for one of the interviewees.
Paul Bowlay
>> True. But if the bank sent you a letter and said that money is
>> yours and your financial status is okay with them, do you get to
>> keep it then? Because that's what Centrelink did to one of the
>> people in the story.
>
> You're telling the story did they get to keep it?
> The law allows for both possibilities depending on the circumstances.
Don't know yet. ACA is supposedly following it up.
Paul Bowlay
> Point taken. But ACA did show the letter from Centrelink's own audit
> stating that the person's accounts were in order, so why ACA are now
> harrassing them for 15 grand is the issue for one of the interviewees.
Argh, typo above: meant to say "why CENTRELINK are now harrassing...".
Phoenix
Well, you've lost me. First you say you wanted to make the point that
you weren't a dole bludger. I responded that a response of 'I have a
job' would have sufficed and you reply with 'That has nothing to do with
it' !!!!
Sorry I don't follow your logic, unless of course you have a job and are
still being paid the dole. I would have thought that the fact that you
had a job would mean that you weren't on the dole. My point was
directed at why was it necessary to make the comment 'I ... would earn
atleast triple you, stupid.'
Phoenix
Probably a simple answer to that question - they are trying to get
taxpayers dollars back as they are required to do.
Dyna Soar
>> Your point being?
>
> My point is simple, I'm not a dole bludger like suggested.
Of course you have a job. Its called trolling. And you do it very well,
too.
--
Dyna
Astro
Oh Give it up!
Astro
Astro
<sdrawkca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
With a mouth like his i can't see him being any position other than a
mechanic etc.
Dyna Soar
Wassa matter, ye of many names?
You like to be the troller rather than the trollee?
--
Dyna
Dassa
<dyna_soar_au..REMOVE..THIS..@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
And some people indulge in not only one job but many, often for no pay but
just the hell of it.
--
Dassa
Phoenix
Interesting association, it might surprise you to learn that there are
some vry wealthy 'mechanics' out there and what is it exactly you do? so
we might judge what a wealthy fellow you are?
Greg
True!! I do tax returns in large numbers. Mechanics of all
sorts are doing fine.
Caro
I watched the show and it told the case of a woman that had had a full
centrelink audit 2 years back and she had a letter thanking her for
cooperating and everything was rosy.
Now she gets a letter saying she now owes $14000, when she queries this she
is then told she owes a lot more than the $14000, (cant remember the
amount).
She has done the right thing by declaring everything to the best of her
knowledge and has a letter from centrelink 2 years back saying everything is
fine.
If Centrelink have been incompentent in calculating her benefit then they
should wear it,
Astro
wrote:
>Astro wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Aug 2003 11:22:12 GMT, "Kwyjibo."
>> <sdrawkca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >Astro <he...@hehe.com> said
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I have a job and would earn atleast triple you, stupid.
>> >
>> >And you know that you earn at least triple his wage how exactly ?
>>
>> With a mouth like his i can't see him being any position other than a
>> mechanic etc.
>
>Interesting association, it might surprise you to learn that there are
>some vry wealthy 'mechanics' out there
I'm sure there are some that do ok, the majority are on an average to
low wage.
>and what is it exactly you do?
Garbage collector/troll.
>so we might judge what a wealthy fellow you are?
Go ahead.
JM
"red ted" <red...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:binbvc$b3ukq$1...@ID-176014.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Astro <he...@hehe.com> wrote in news:4e7ukvkafcd4gld7oq8352ng3tk3b8otqe@
> 4ax.com:
>
> >>Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
> >>farmers.
> >
> > Not enough.
>
> what shite. the cunts employ hardly anyone, they get 17x the welfare other
> australians get. the average dole bludger's allowance doesn't even cover
> the bludging farmer's petrol subsidy.
They don't NEED to employ many workers because most farms are family run,
nor could they afford to anyway. As for getting 17x the welfare that's just
absolute bullshit.
>
> these cunts are bludgers. they're a whining bludging fucking blight on the
> entire country. we'd be far better off to stop paying the bludging cunts a
> single dollar and to start getting all our food from overseas.
That was intelligent. Where do you think 'fresh' produce and milk is going
to come from? Sure they're going to fly it in every day fresh for your
breakfast or I can see it now... milk tankers on the high seas.
While you're sitting on your fat arse banging away at your dick and keyboard
a great proportion of farmers are doing 16 hour days 7 days a week on the
farm or holding down a second job trying to keep things going.Calling a
farmer a bludger couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps you could do
everyone a favour and stop eating australian produce in protest.
<rest of rant snipped> To moronic to bother replying to.
David Z
Hardly fair.
"red ted" <red...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:binbvc$b3ukq$1...@ID-176014.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Astro <he...@hehe.com> wrote in news:4e7ukvkafcd4gld7oq8352ng3tk3b8otqe@
> 4ax.com:
>
> >>Ask yourself how much you paid out in welfare during the drought to
> >>farmers.
> >
> > Not enough.
>
> what shite. the cunts employ hardly anyone, they get 17x the welfare other
> australians get. the average dole bludger's allowance doesn't even cover
> the bludging farmer's petrol subsidy.
>
> these cunts are bludgers. they're a whining bludging fucking blight on the
> entire country. we'd be far better off to stop paying the bludging cunts a
> single dollar and to start getting all our food from overseas.
>
Primus News
"Iggy" <ig0610(nospam)@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:IvG3b.347$ls4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Paul Bowlay" <replace....@paulbowlay.com> wrote in message
> news:binc4c$b20e5$1...@ID-200043.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Iggy wrote:
> >
> > > If the bank accidentally puts a million bucks into your bank account,
> > > you don't get to keep it.
> >
> > True. But if the bank sent you a letter and said that money is yours
and
> > your financial status is okay with them, do you get to keep it then?
> > Because that's what Centrelink did to one of the people in the story.
>
Kwyjibo.
> Have a look in:
>
> http://139.134.5.123/kapala/freelegal/scaleplus.html
>
> the relevant legislation which gprobably be the Social Security Act
> 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
>
> let me know where it says that the calculation of a debt cannot go
> beyond 7 years.
>
Seeing as you seem to know where to look, how about you do your own
research and get back to me.
Kwyj.
Judy Bednar
Caro <ja...@msn.com> typed:
That's exactly the point. I agree that if someone cheats the system they should
be made to pay it back, but these people didn't cheat, didn't do a thing wrong.
They had no way of knowing they were being overpaid, it's not like they received
a cheque of $14,000 in one lump sum, so how could they have known? I'm on a
disability pension myself. I have to fill out a form once a year, telling them
my "income" for the following year (I still have a bit of my super money
invested) I know that, should I win Tatts or something, I have to notifiy them.
I also take it upon myself that once a year I inform them of my bank balance.
The amount of the pension changes a few dollars, up or down. It never really
makes much sense, no idea how they work it out. I tried asking a few times, the
explanation never makes sense. (and I used to be a bookkeeper!) I get the
feeling the person doing the "explaining" doesn't understand either. So, if
were to say they are overpaying me by $25 p/f, that would be $6500 in ten years,
plus interest (yes, they charge interest) I would be most upset it that were to
happen and I would have to sell my flat to pay it back. If I always tell them
the truth about my finances (which I do) I don't think they should have the
right to demand it back years later. They should check these things often
enough, so that mistakes (and that's what they are, mistakes on the part of
Centrelink- not these people trying to cheat the system) are picked up
immediately, before they become huge, unmanageable amouns. But, if they allow
them to get that far, then yes, they should wear it.
--
Cheers,
Judy
When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic.
Judy Bednar
Kwyjibo. <sdrawkca...@yahoo.com.au> typed:
> "The Charming Ones" <nat...@yahoo.com.au> said
>
>>
>> "tealou" <y...@blah.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns93E6AD36CF707...@202.72.130.18...
>>
>> surely there'd be
>>> some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
>>
>> uh uh. I was told that it doesn't matter how long ago it was.
>>
>
> Bullshit. Legally, any entity (person, company or government
> department) only has to keep financial records for 7 years so it's
> not feasible to go back any further than that.
Centrelink does go back further. I used to know a woman who was cheating for
some 20 years (working and getting the pension) got taken to court and was
supposed to pay the whole lot back (no assets - they were deducting a percentage
of her pension until she died AFIK)
--
Cheers,
Judy
Honesty is the best policy -- unless, of course, you are dealing with your
wife, your girlfriend, your banker, your employer, the I.R.S., your creditors...
Judy Bednar
Iggy <ig0610(nospam)@yahoo.com.au> typed:> news:Xns93E6AA557CA13...@202.72.130.18...
>> Astro scribbled in pink crayon:
>>
>>> People are ripping the system off and then expecting not to have the
>>> pay the cash back, when busted.
>>
>> How do you define ripping the system off?
>>
>> I dont watch ACA so I dont know what the story was... however...
>>
>> If someone fully discloses their incoke to Centrelink, if they do0
>> all the right paperwork and declare everything, and Cnetrelink fuck
>> up your payments... then they shouldnt pay it back IMO.
>>
>> As long as you have cooperated with Centrelink (and an awful lot
>> dont and THEY are the people you should be going after), I think you
>> should not incur debt if youre entitlements have been incorrectly
>> calculated.
>
> If the bank accidentally puts a million bucks into your bank account,
> me, I would not get to keep it either.
Well, firstly, Centrelink DID NOT put a large lump sum into their account - it
was a small amoun paid forthnightly. Secondly, if you got overpaid by your
employer a million bucks, you'd notice, but if he paid you, say, $25 a week
extra, for years, you'd presume you got a payrise, wouldn't you? And, I know
this for a fact, (happened at a place I worked) if you employer overpaid you, he
can ask for it back, nicely, but you CAN refuse, telling him, sorry, I've spent
it. Sure, you may lose your job over it, but depending on the overpayment, it
may be worth it
--
Cheers,
Judy
An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one. - (George
Mikes)
Matthew_The_Caesar
wrote:
>legends' such as you describe. If you know of someone who is doing as
>you describe and it bothers you so much there is quite a simple solution
>- report them!
Wot rot.
Report them why?
Because they have a new car?
Iggy
"Caro" <ja...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XJI3b.71204$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Except that that money that Centrelink have paid her is *your* tax dollars.
If it came directly out of your pocket, would you still think she should
keep it?
If she lodged an appeal against the debt instead of whinging to a TV show,
she would probably win it anyway.
Iggy
"Judy Bednar" <jbe...@poqmelbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:bio5uf$i7c$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
I was overpaid about $20 fortnight by my employer for about 18 months, and
had no idea. When it finally got picked up I had to pay it back. I fought
against it, through the correct channels, but I still had to pay it back -
albeit in instalments, because it was money I was not entitled to.
Astro
Wrong. legally if an employer overpays you, you have to pay it back.
The Charming Ones
"Phoenix" <ros...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F4F322C...@ozemail.com.au...
> > >
> > > surely there'd be
> > >> some sort of limitation on how far back they go?
> > >
> > > uh uh. I was told that it doesn't matter how long ago it was.
> > >
> >
> > Bullshit. Legally, any entity (person, company or government department)
> > only has to keep financial records for 7 years so it's not feasible to
go
> > back any further than that.
> >
> > Kwyj.
BULLSHIT! You are wrong. I know a woman that
got sent to jail for 2 months. And that was only last year, and they were
saying this happened in 1995.
Nat
The Charming Ones
Oh Dear!!! lol
Someone has their knickers in a knot.
Nat
Jason W
It was a rhetorical question.
Jason
Dyna Soar
>>> Bullshit. Legally, any entity (person, company or government
>>> department) only has to keep financial records for 7 years so it's
>>> not feasible to go back any further than that.
> BULLSHIT! You are wrong. I know a woman that
> got sent to jail for 2 months. And that was only last year, and they
> were saying this happened in 1995.
1995 plus 7 years is 2002. 2002 is last year.
Your point is?
BTW, I don't know one way or the other about the original seven years
argument, but guessing that mathematics is not your strongest subject.
--
Dyna
Typhoid
Ross = Lucas
--
Typ
The Charming Ones
"Dyna Soar" <dyna_soar_au..REMOVE..THIS..@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bip9qb$btrnp$1...@ID-105834.news.uni-berlin.de...
Sorry that was suppose to 1992. But you're right
I wasn't good at Maths at all :-)
Nat
Primus News
place and the funds are not coming out of the public purse, which is the
case with Centrelink. A private enterprise employer can, however, seek
recompense through the courts. This step has been streamlined with
government agencies through the relevant legislation under which they
operate.
The onus is on the individual to seek clarification of any unusual
circumstances such as higher / lower than expected payments. Yes folks,
there are STILL areas where we need to be responsible for ourselves and our
own actions! Not many mind you, but some!
"Judy Bednar" <jbe...@poqmelbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:bio5uf$i7c$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
Primus News
> Except that that money that Centrelink have paid her is *your* tax
dollars.
> If it came directly out of your pocket, would you still think she should
> keep it?
>
> If she lodged an appeal against the debt instead of whinging to a TV show,
> she would probably win it anyway.
>
to their customers how to appeal ANY decision / assessment made by
Centrelink. So there is NO reason for this woman to run into Ray Martin's
arms sobbing like a poor, unfortunate victimised battler. Instead, she
should have queried the overpayment with Centrelink and followed it through
until it was all sorted out. Then, if necessary, appeal the decision. That
procedure is laid out in plain black and white for all to see on Centrelink
letters.
tealou
> On 29 Aug 2003 17:37:23 +0800, tealou <y...@blah.com> wrote:
>>I just dont think it is fair that those who consistently do the right
>>thing get the bills, and those who rort the system seem to get off
>>scott free (people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still
>>get single mother;s pension, for example...)
>
> There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.
Not at all, and I am not the kind of person to judge from afar. The
people I have seen rort the system are very close to me - I am related to
them and know their circumstances.
And i really shouldnt have said anything - I've been in a shitty mood
lately because I have an essay due on Monday ;)
My original point was, really, that Centrelink should be putting their
energy into catching those that defraud the system deliberately, not
those that seem to be a victim of circumstance (assukming, of course that
they *are* victims of circumstance :))
Whether or not people actually are defrauding the system deliberately is
irrelevant - I am just saying that their resources could be better spent
on investigating frauds etc.
> Maybe there is just more publicity about the "innocent" victims. The
> media likes to promote controversy, and this sort of thing makes for
> more public outrage. The DSS is *always* after the deliberate cheats,
> they maintain a lot of staff and contracted personnel for that exact
> purpose.
Absolutely.
> Regarding penalising innocent people, being asked to repay money they
> were not entitled to is not a penalty, any more than the obligation to
> repay a bank loan. As long as no additional penalties are applied, and
> they are allowed to pay in a way and over a period of time that didn't
> cause undue hardship, then it seems fair.
>
> I am sure that if the DSS had made errors that resulted in underpaying
> people, those people wouldn't be very quick to say, " Oh well, it was
> a couple of years ago and it was an honest mistake, so don't worry
> about paying me what I was entitled to receive."
You have a valid point I guess. But how are peoploe going to know that
they were underpaid as well as overpaid? They don't. They put their faith
in the system and assume that it has been calculated correctly.
Phoenix
That has to be the ultimate insult!
Phoenix
I know it doesn't say that, the balls in your court.
Phoenix
Read the thread Mathew.
The Charming Ones
"Typhoid" <neins...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bac5fd5...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> The Charming Ones wrote:
> > I wasn't good at Maths at all :-)
>
Don't you concern yourself and start thinking about me period! Mind ya own
fucking business and keep your smart mouth to yourself.
Nat
Phoenix
was it?
The Charming Ones
> The Charming Ones wrote:
> > BULLSHIT! You are wrong. I know a woman that
> > got sent to jail for 2 months. And that was only last year, and they
were
> > saying this happened in 1995.
>
> the clanger?
LOL. Your wife is the crackwhore. Get it right arsehole.
Phoenix
> >
> >> I don't disagree that the person who made the error should suffer some
> >> consequences but why should the taxpayer suffer by someone getting an
> >> interest free loan as the result of an error?
> >
> >I really dont know, to be honest.
> >
> >I just dont think it is fair that those who consistently do the right thing
> >get the bills, and those who rort the system seem to get off scott free
> >(people I know who have mortgages and new cars and still get single
> >mother;s pension, for example...)
>
> There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.
>
> mortgage and a new car. Her husband was killed in a car accident when
> she was eight months pregnant and her parents bought her a new car and
> built her a house on land they already owned. She has a small mortgage
> to cover the amount that they were short for building the house. When
> her little girl is at school she plans to return to work.
>
> You have to remember that many parents help their children out; all
> people on social security who have assets aren't necessarily cheats,
> they may just have supportive families.
>
> >It seems that theyre going after the easy targets - those that are liely to
> >pay back the debt, because generally, they try to do the right thing.
>
> Maybe there is just more publicity about the "innocent" victims. The
> media likes to promote controversy, and this sort of thing makes for
> more public outrage. The DSS is *always* after the deliberate cheats,
> they maintain a lot of staff and contracted personnel for that exact
> purpose.
>
> were not entitled to is not a penalty, any more than the obligation to
> repay a bank loan. As long as no additional penalties are applied, and
> they are allowed to pay in a way and over a period of time that didn't
> cause undue hardship, then it seems fair.
>
> I am sure that if the DSS had made errors that resulted in underpaying
> people, those people wouldn't be very quick to say, " Oh well, it was
> a couple of years ago and it was an honest mistake, so don't worry
> about paying me what I was entitled to receive."
>
>
> Jeff
Read the post Jeff, Tea admitted in response to a suggestion that she
could have Centrelink investigate the circumstance of the people she
complained about wrote:
"I honestly believe that it is Centrelink's job to go after them. I am
not
going to do my job for them.
(Besides, I have a very close relationship with one of them and would
*never* do that. I'll complain about it but would never do anything
about
it.)"
I suspect she knows full well that her 'friend' is rorting the system
and it it more comfortable for her to ignore it.
tealou
>
> I suspect she knows full well that her 'friend' is rorting the system
> and it it more comfortable for her to ignore it.
It is not a friend, it is a relative.
And I would like to see how you treat your family, given that you;d dob
them in at a moment's notice, obvsiously.
Kwyjibo.
Kwyjibo.
Kwyjibo.
> Phoenix scribbled in pink crayon:
>
>>
>> I suspect she knows full well that her 'friend' is rorting the system
>> and it it more comfortable for her to ignore it.
>
> It is not a friend, it is a relative.
>
BFD.
> And I would like to see how you treat your family, given that you;d dob
> them in at a moment's notice, obvsiously.
I'd give them an ultimatum. Stop doing whatever they are doing *or* I will
dob them in. Their choice.
--
Kwyj.
Barbara
I suppose it would depend if they are of the mullet majority or the uni
elite.
Phoenix
Surely it is in their interests that they cease what they are doing.
Quite simple really, you know what they are doing, tell them! at the
same time let them know that if they continue they will end up with, at
the very least a debt, or, (and the longer it goes on far more likely) a
jail sentence. Is this how you support your 'family'?
Phoenix
The relevant legislation does not say that a calculation of a debt
'cannot go beyond 7 years'. Somewhat difficult to show you 'where' it
doesn't say that as it 'doesn't say that' throughout the body of the
text. Read it for yourself Matthew.
Kwyjibo.
>> Care to show me exactly where it doesn't say that?
>>
>> --
>> M Goodyear.
>
> The relevant legislation does not say that a calculation of a debt
> 'cannot go beyond 7 years'. Somewhat difficult to show you 'where' it
> doesn't say that as it 'doesn't say that' throughout the body of the
> text. Read it for yourself Matthew.
>
Ever been 'whooosh'ed ??
--
Kwyj.
Phoenix
Is that a rhetorical question?
tealou
>> And I would like to see how you treat your family, given that you;d dob
>> them in at a moment's notice, obvsiously.
>
> Surely it is in their interests that they cease what they are doing.
> Quite simple really, you know what they are doing, tell them! at the
> same time let them know that if they continue they will end up with, at
> the very least a debt, or, (and the longer it goes on far more likely) a
> jail sentence. Is this how you support your 'family'?
I have said that.
At the end of the day, I have to make a moral choice. I either rat on a
family member or rat on a government department.
I am glad things are so simple to some people. For others, it is a little
more complicated than just 'dobbing them in'