80 retired NY Cops & Firefighters charged with disability fraud

[BostonGuy]

How about paying them a decent salary then maybe they won't feel the need to do this. Starting at $34,000 before paying federal, state and city taxes leaves NYPD officers/FDNY with a starting salary just on the official poverty line. It is sad, I am surprised that only 106 were doing this scheme.

Oh, so it's OK to commit a crime because you don't get paid enough? I'm sure that's how those guys rationalized it. If it's such a lousy paying job then why take it?

I work at a fast food restaurant in Boston - I don't make ****. Does that give me the right to steal from the cash register or commit an other financial crime?

Also, Cops generally start off at a low salary but work there way up and rake in a lot of $$ in overtime and doing detail jobs. They have good benefits and a decent retirement package so it's not the "poverty line" job that you state it is

[PAC-BOY]

Oh, so it's OK to commit a crime because you don't get paid enough? I'm sure that's how those guys rationalized it. If it's such a lousy paying job then why take it?

I work at a fast food restaurant in Boston - I don't make ****. Does that give me the right to steal from the cash register or commit an other financial crime?

[devildg]

but they are "heroes".....how could they!!!

[One_Tycoon]

it's honorable you wouldn't wish to burden others but when push comes to shove I imagine it would be very difficult to do. Even if you were able to I doubt the majority of others could who take that stance, we also have to consider that many won't and shouldn't have to.

I wasn't talking about myself. I will have my back end covered to afford private treatment if necessary.

I'm not sure on the idea of every SS having to compete against each other for the sympathetic publics money.

It's not SS...it's a organization specifically for the disabled.

Firstly, whilst many would volunteer, a lot of unconcerning people wouldn't.

And that's ok in a free society.

I'd rather see them obligated to pay through taxation to ensure that enough money is there for all those in need.

Of course you would. I didn't expect nothing less.

Secondly organizations would be in direct competition for money from other areas, this would mean the organization with the better resources would secure the most money. this could result in a HIV research charity eliminating a cancer patient support charity.

What? Strawman fallacy much? Hasty assumptions before it's even been tried.

It would be a tragedy if one essential service is eliminated because of market forces, and the wider publics ignorance of its need, and because the organization couldn't raise the money in a capitalist system.

Supply/Demand...even in non-profit. If a problem is so big, it will be dealt with in a free market. Surely it can't be any worse than the monstrosity we have right now with Social Security disability...and a record number of so called 'disabled'. We're wasting more money on disability than the actual disabled are worth. The problem is not that big and the cost isn't worth it...and no it cannot be fixed through reforms.

Even if different charities merged, they would naturally channel their resources that generate the most donations, not those with the most needs.

Unintelligible.

That's why government distribution here is essential to ensure the money goes to those that truly need it, not those with the best resources to extract the most from the public.

It's funny you said that because right now...the "essential" govt distribution as you put it is going into the hands of those who aren't even disabled. They're extracting the most from the public indirectly. How's that working out?

As I said...I look forward to when the whole thing collapses of it's own weight.

[MBE]

I wasn't talking about myself. I will have my back end covered to afford private treatment if necessary.
Ok good for you. but others wouldn't, what of the baby born into poverty that has health complications. they deserve our sympathy not our contempt.


It's not SS...it's a organization specifically for the disabled.
Ok organization specifically for the disabled my point remains.


And that's ok in a free society.
Depends what you mean by ok. Legally, yes. Morally, ethically, in a society with no other assistance for them, then no it's not ok.


Of course you would. I didn't expect nothing less.

Not sure how this point counters my argument exactly.


What? Strawman fallacy much? Hasty assumptions before it's even been tried.

How is it a strawman fallacy? You're the one that is suggesting charities compete and merge, some will get eliminated. It's inevitable that some of these who will get eliminated will cater to a whole disability. It could be a disability that only effects 1000 people. I'm not saying that care for the blind will go out, as that is a large scale problem with a greater public awareness that could be taken up by another charity if the original went out of business.



Supply/Demand...even in non-profit. If a problem is so big, it will be dealt with in a free market. Surely it can't be any worse than the monstrosity we have right now with Social Security disability...and a record number of so called 'disabled'. We're wasting more money on disability than the actual disabled are worth. The problem is not that big and the cost isn't worth it...and no it cannot be fixed through reforms.

You're right a big problem can be dealt with by the free market. As I stated in the previous point. What of the rare, small scale problems? The rare genetic disorders?


Unintelligible.
I'll rephrase it for you. If charities merged, there's no guarantee they would take on all of the other charities responsibilities. They may just use the newly acquired resources to better secure charity donations. Their priority lies with securing more donations, providing care is secondary.


It's funny you said that because right now...the "essential" govt distribution as you put it is going into the hands of those who aren't even disabled. They're extracting the most from the public indirectly. How's that working out?

As I said...I look forward to when the whole thing collapses of it's own weight.
I bet there are more people receiving the help that need it than there are people abusing the system.

Besides, even in a free market version, you're still going to get people who try their best to abuse a system and claim for charitable assistance (money) when they don't require it.

All replies are within the quote.

[-Kev-]

Oh, so it's OK to commit a crime because you don't get paid enough? I'm sure that's how those guys rationalized it. If it's such a lousy paying job then why take it?

I work at a fast food restaurant in Boston - I don't make ****. Does that give me the right to steal from the cash register or commit an other financial crime?

Also, Cops generally start off at a low salary but work there way up and rake in a lot of $$ in overtime and doing detail jobs. They have good benefits and a decent retirement package so it's not the "poverty line" job that you state it is

I still stand by my original post, despite you adding things to it. Pay these men, who take a lot of sh-t from civilians in a dangerous job, a better salary.

And working at a fast food restaurant is not exactly a dangerous job, or a job where you're trying to keep people safe from danger.

I know in Boston starting salaries are pretty generous for police officers, I think it's something like $60k.

You make $34k as an officer, you take home $25k, that is $2k below the poverty line. Why are NY's Finest living in poverty even if it's just starting pay? So, okay they get up to, what, $65k after 5.5 years, then you take home $45k, that's not enough to live in NYC.

It doesn't make it right, but how about paying them a decent salary for the location they live in which is a pretty damn expensive city, and maybe your cops won't be crooks.

[One_Tycoon]

Ok good for you. but others wouldn't, what of the baby born into poverty that has health complications. they deserve our sympathy not our contempt.

What if, what of, what if....we could be here all day long discussing every isolated problem as an anecdote. The false premise here is that the govt is needed for every one of these problems...which it is not. It's the equivalent to the God of the gaps argument that the religious make. And I'm assuming that you're a Godless Atheist, being from the UK and all. NO?

Depends what you mean by ok. Legally, yes. Morally, ethically, in a society with no other assistance for them, then no it's not ok.

Morally, ethically....is taken care of by those individuals who are moral and ethical on a per individual basis. If you don't trust individuals, then why would you trust govt's to take care of the problem. After all, the people in govt are not some benevolent beings sent down from the sky. I guess in theory it's ok as long as you don't have to pay for it and dump the costs on somebody else, saying to yourself "The Govt has got it covered".

Not sure how this point counters my argument exactly.

You didn't make an argument, you made a statement that you would "rather see them obligated to pay through taxation", which I disagreed with. There is nothing to be countered. My remark was simply aimed at the fact that you're from the UK and have an entirely different perspective on Big Govt Vs Small Govt.

How is it a strawman fallacy? You're the one that is suggesting charities compete and merge, some will get eliminated. It's inevitable that some of these who will get eliminated will cater to a whole disability. It could be a disability that only effects 1000 people. I'm not saying that care for the blind will go out, as that is a large scale problem with a greater public awareness that could be taken up by another charity if the original went out of business.

It wouldn't be a problem at all. If you're suggesting that some people will be left out in the cold on rare instances...then you're right because there is no Utopia and perfection with any "solution". But nothing on the scale you're trying to make it seem. And again...it would be more cost efficient.

I'll rephrase it for you. If charities merged, there's no guarantee they would take on all of the other charities responsibilities. They may just use the newly acquired resources to better secure charity donations. Their priority lies with securing more donations, providing care is secondary.

Rubbish. We are discussing a non-existent charity/org. If there is a widespread problem...it gets covered because the vast majority of donations come because of said problem. If there are minor, specific disabilities then they get covered by default because they're minor and aren't really costing the org. that much to begin with. What you're doing is already painting another Leftist picture of negative greed. But everyone is greedy, remember?

I bet there are more people receiving the help that need it than there are people abusing the system.

Then you would lose that bet as the statistics show an explosion of people signing up for "disability" like never before [some can't find jobs, some just want early retirment etc,. though it's hard to prove] This Fireman/Policeman story is not even that unusual. All you have to do is use deductive reasoning. Unless you naively believe that there is an unexplained explosion of truly disabled at never before seen levels.

Besides, even in a free market version, you're still going to get people who try their best to abuse a system and claim for charitable assistance (money) when they don't require it.

Again...you are equating Private Vs Public like they're equals. You have made this mistake before in the other thread. They're not equals. Private sector pays for the Public Sector on every level. The Public Sector is the parasite [and I don't mean that as a pejorative... but literally] , private sector is the host. If someone does abuse a private charity, it will be dealt with at a faster rate than any public agency/dept because there is an incentive to stop the leakage or the money stops coming in. The reason everyone is signing up for Disability is because they expect the money to just keep coming in indefinitely.



Either that or the knowledge they'd be a fool not to get a piece of the free pie while it's still there. Sort of like a...IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM mentality.