| Are they taking this approach only in the negative form? Ie; if they detect you’ve made a mistake an and not claimed something you are eligible for. Or paid some tax that you are actually eligible to deduct/offset somehow, does it notify or automate the process of fixing that error? I’m not opposed to the idea of automate to ensure compliance with the law / regulations. But enforcement should go both ways. The goal of automation of policy should be for the policy to be maximally effective. It shouldn’t just penalise those who incorrectly claim, but rather maximise eligible claims. And by that same measure, ensure those ineligible are rejected. Obviously without any penalities, this would lead to over claiming, and reliance on the system to reject. But I think the system should be resilient enough to handle that. While it’s not to such an extreme extent, there is a polar opposite attitude / policy towards entitlement of government benefits in Australia and New Zealand. In Australia you may be eligible for something, but it’s your responsibility to know that and claim it. And the government takes a ‘we defend the benefits from those who are ineligible’ attitude (more so if the Liberal party is in power, see Robo Debt scandal). In New Zealand they take a ‘these benefits must go to those who are eligible’ attitude. And they model the extent to which they fulfil that objective based on how many claim vs how many their model states are eligible. The outcome is that in NZ they call after you’ve had a baby to ensure you’re receiving additional tax benefits, services, etc. In Australia you’d only receive a call / letter to notify your benefits are being cut off, and there’s some difficult->impossible method of re-applying. Such as contacting a call centre that’s queue is full by 9:30 and stops accepting calls… |