[cobras]

Cóż, coś czułem, że ktoś wyskoczy z takim, po części słusznym zarzutem. Po prawdzie nie mam i nawet nie wiem jak takie dane można by znaleźć, z racji tego, że cała sprawa się rozbija o kombinatorów, którzy omijają w odpowiedni sposób przepisy, więc i znalezienie takich danych wydaje się wręcz graniczące z niemożliwością.

No tak, słynne "nie znam się, ale wypowiem". A tu pierwszy z brzegu link - http://www.quora.com/How-much-welfare-fr...ere-really

All studies point to a very low rate of fraud in welfare programs, this despite knowing a guy who knows a guy who owns three new cars and two 80" flat-screen HD TVs. The current best stat is 2.6%. That's pretty clean- not even statistically significant. We'll believe a poll with a bigger margin of error than that.

Tu inny - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ud/278690/

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the typical business loses 5 percent of its revenue to fraud each year. Even when detected, 40 to 50 percent of victimized companies don’t recover their losses. The industries most likely to be victims of fraud are the banking and financial sector; government and public administration; and manufacturing. I can’t quite figure why manufacturing is on the list, but it’s easy to conjecture that banks and governments are frequent targets of fraud because they’re in the business of handing out money. But as ACFE reports -- and as we just saw in the Katrina example -- it’s usually managers and executives who commit the worst fraud.

It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on “welfare” (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found “improper payment” levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs -- but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either “eligibility and payment calculation errors” or “documentation errors”), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

A similar story emerges with everyone’s favorite punching bag, food stamps (or, as they’re known today, SNAP). Earlier this year, Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, both Republicans, introduced legislation to save $30 billion over 10 years from SNAP, purportedly by “eliminating loopholes, waste, fraud, and abuse.” Once you dig into their fact sheet, however, none of the savings actually come from fraud, but rather from cutting funding and tightening benefits. That’s probably because fraud levels in SNAP appear to be as low as with the other “pure welfare” programs we just touched on: “Payment error” rates -- money sent in incorrect amounts and/or to the wrong people -- have declined from near 10 percent a decade ago to 3 to 4 percent today, most of it due, again, to government error, not active fraud. The majority of food-stamp fraud appears to be generated by supermarkets “trafficking” in the food stamps. Beneficiaries intentionally ripping off the taxpayers account for perhaps 1 percent of payments.

5 minut szukania w google.