Hacker News Reader

Comment by celestialcheese | Hacker News Reader

Everytime a story like this pops up, I think of patio11's argument that "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero". [1]

I work with our local food bank, and got in a discussion with a family member who was shocked at there being no means testing or proof of need to participate. I'm certain there are people we serve who are over whatever threshold would exist, but the cost of excluding someone who's hungry because they couldn't print a paystub or have access to the right documents is _so_ much higher than any spillage from fraud.

With certain aspects of society, such as with social-saftey-net benefits, when the costs of exclusion impact those teetering on the edge, "non-zero" fraud is absolutely the optimal amount.

1 - https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

View on HN

In fact, the benefits scandal may have happened precisely because of governmental overcorrection following the so-called ‘Bulgarian’ fraud scandal [1]. The following passage (translated) from Wikipedia is telling:

During the debate on the Bulgarian fraud scandal, State Secretary Frans Weekers sustained the Second Chamber’s call for stricter fraud control, but warned that “the good will suffer under the bad”.

[1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeslagenaffaire#Bulgarenfraud... (Dutch)

> I'm certain there are people we serve who are over whatever threshold would exist, but the cost of excluding someone who's hungry because they couldn't print a paystub or have access to the right documents is _so_ much higher than any spillage from fraud.

How did you determine this?

If the goal of the food bank is "ensure there's food for people who can't afford it," then turning away one person is a failure. As long as you're not running out of food, it would seem to me that means-testing for a food bank is unnecessary.

And means testing at food bank is bound to fail. As there are sufficient number of scenarios where technically person there should have means, but for one or other reason they do not at that specific moment. Like maybe home fire or something. Or they were fired and things are processing.

Or to use a newly-minted term: people in energy poverty. Heating costs have quadrupled in many places, and it's generally the rich that have the best isolated homes. So many people who used to be self-sufficient with their income are now having to choose between food and warmth. Officially, they are not allowed to use the food bank because the means testing does not take into account the size of their energy bill, but in practice they may have no other option.

In the UK food banks are indeed finding themselves short of food as demand increases and donations drop. Means testing process varies but certainly exists in the UK.

This line of reasoning implies that a food bank with a 99.99% success rate is a 'failure'.

Which doesn't seem sensible.

It's pretty self evident isn't it. Having some (likely small) percentage of people getting food that they shouldn't will likely only have very minor influence on how muchnfood can be distributed (often enough there are some left overs even). Denying someone who really needs the food, might mean that person will not have food possible for several days. That's a pretty big cost for the person.

Generally many "fraud prevention methods" for poor people are more about punishing poor people than actual fraud prevention. Often the cost of enforcement is as high or higher than the cost of the fraud.

This seems like a repetition of the parent comment with more words.

Can you describe, step-by-step, how you arrived at the conclusion?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

1. There is enough food to go around

2. Determining with 100% accuracy if someone is really entitled to help is unnecessary

If you don't understand the conversation then chiming in doesn't advance the argument.

The question is assuming the marginal case since it wasn't intended to be trivial. i.e. where the 'amount of food' is limited.

But if there is genuine confusion, since it wasn't spelt out, here's the rephrased question:

"How is this assessment made when food is limited?

Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited. If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.

> Food is parceled out so a small amount of food bank fraud creates a slightly smaller parcel for everyone, in the case where food is limited.

This makes sense, thanks for actually writing an easy to follow explanation.

> If fraud rates are small, the cost to everyone is trivial; if fraud rates are zero, the costs get piled onto a few unfortunate souls who couldn't pass the test despite actually needing help.

Can you explain how the second follows the first?

I think this is more about the money rather than food

Spot on. The real fraud isn't committed by the poor, the real fraud is committed by the rich. There is ample evidence that focusing on the rich will yield a much higher pay-off per man hour invested of investigators but the politics dictate that being 'tough on crime' or 'tough on fraud' aims for the people least likely to be able to defend themselves (rightly or wrongly accused).

Pretty sure that both poor and rich can and do commit real fraud.

Yes, but if you look at the numbers then there are more poor people committing fraud than there are rich people, but if you look at the amounts then the rich people win by a very, very large margin. So focusing your investigative powers on the rich has a much bigger pay-off, even if they are willing to throw more money into the defense. The poor are by comparison much softer targets and so it may look good on paper but you're likely losing money on every case.

I think going after the many rather the few is better for society

The rich agree... but personally I think you should allocate your resources there where it has the most effect and those that need these services are already operating on the margins. So 'better for society' does not translate into 'where the larger numbers of people are'.

And the rich should be an example for the poor.

> but if you look at the amounts then the rich people win by a very, very large margin

This is the kind of bold claim that needs a citation going to some organization that has studied this claim (maybe the USA socialist party has done one?).

How are you counting this article where mainly poor people are actively participating in fraud orchestrated by rich people?

Where do you look up these numbers?

Does the Fraudster Union keep official statistics?

Note that while this may be true where you live, it isn't true in all contexts. E.g. if you try and do food distribution to all who come with no checking in, say, the Congo you'll very soon have the vast majority of it being resold.

Very poor countries are a very different environment (I lived in one for a couple of decades).

Also, consider the valid cases. How to ensure you received all up-to-date bank accounts they and their family and dependants have? Then how much time would you spend to verify numbers there that they are under the threshold and so on?

It is quite a lot of work per person, for what 10 or 20€ worth bag? And doesn't even really cover the scenarios which usually result in this.

Some big unexpected cost of money, maybe losing money and the unemployment taking time to process. Failure in that process. So on. Scenarios where technically it might be that person would not even get it yet.

Did you intend to reply to cycomaniac's comment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com