Better off on benefits

I am not shocked by this headline:

Unemployed single mother on benefits who spends £2,000 on Christmas with 20 presents for each of her children

When George Osborne delivered the Autumn Statement last week, announcing that benefits will be raised only by 1% for the next three years instead of in line with inflation, there were understandably mumbles (and stammers*) from the Opposition.

The truth is for a few years now benefits claimants have seen increases in their benefits that are not in line with inflation faced by those in work.

The rate of inflation is calculated on the rate of inflation of a particular month in the preceding year, usually September. So while the rate of inflation (CPI) for September* in a previous year has been 5.2%, meaning that benefits claimants saw a 5.2% rise in their benefits, the rate of inflation for the WHOLE YEAR has been much lower, and those who are in work saw their wages adjusted to a rate much lower than 5.2%.

* 19/12/12: Link and these words added.

Last September the CPI (Consumer Prices Index) was 2.2%, but the average pay rise will be 1.5%. So if benefits were raised in line with CPI, those on benefits would be doing far better than those in work.

I see clients who tell me that they 'cannot afford to go out to work' because they would be earning less than if they were on benefits.

These are usually single mothers with one or more children under 16. They get Child Tax Credits on the basis of being single parents.

In other words they are incentivized to become single parents.

Where is the logic in this? None whatsoever.

When Gordon Brown introduced these tax credits, many, many people were happy to vote for his party to remain in office.

There are also Working Tax Credits. So if you work minimum hours (used to be 16, now 30 if in a couple) the taxpayer tops up your pay.

Result: people work minimum hours in order to benefit. Why work 40 hours when you could get nearly the same by working just 16 hours?

On the other hand people who work 40 hours on minimum wage only get £12,875.20 BEFORE TAX. The unemployed woman in the linked story above gets an untaxed £15,480 (according to the report).

Holidays

When was the last time you enjoyed a six-month holiday?

One of our clients took his parents (all three receive all sorts of benefits) on a six-month holiday back to India. He even came back with a wife. If he could afford to go on such a long holiday, surely we are paying too much in benefits.

I also have clients who come to complain their electricity and gas bills are too high. "It cannot be right. I was not living there. I was on holiday in Sweden for a month."

I suspect clients like this are also claiming benefits in Sweden because governments do not share data, cannot share data, lots of claimants, it is rumoured, have wives in different countries, where they claim all sorts of benefits as single parents while the fathers flit in and out of these various countries, having more and more children and getting richer on benefits.

Can this be right?

31/12/2012: Do read IDS's article and reports. A writer commented:

I could have told IDS this many years ago. I remember a couple with three children taking on a £1200 a month mortgage. They weren't particularly hard working or in lofty positions or one's to skimp on things. When I asked them if they worried about meeting the payments they told me their tax credits more than paid for it.

So like many other millions they were being awarded living standards which they in no way deserved by the welfare system.

At the same time people were turning down overtime and promotion because the tax credit system made them worse off for doing so. It really is an unfair and extremely wasteful system which distorts the proper functioning of the labour market.

Which begs the question of why IDS is only raising this issue now and why they  haven't abolished them completely. We managed and fared much better without them.

Today at the Advice Charity (2)

Actually it's this week and last week.

Woman from a middle-east country had not one, not two, not even three, but SIX penalty charge notices (PCNs) all for the same offence of turning into a road reserved for buses and cycles.

The first PCN was not sent out till two weeks after the first offence during which time several more of the same offence was committed.

They were all committed by a friend visiting from a Scandinavian country. Client had loaned this friend her car to go to the gym. She herself did not go because she could not afford the entry charges. Now she is faced with £65 fine, multiplied by six.

Surprise, surprise, the friend who has returned to her Scandinavian country, has refused to pay.

The offences were committed basically because the friend did not have enough English to understand the clear notices that said private cars are not, has never been, allowed on their stretch of road.

The plight of this client weighed so much on my mind that I phoned the manager the following day to ask if she could offer the client a debt management appointment, so that someone could help her write a letter to the council who served those notices, in order to negotiate a repayment plan.

A neighbour (actually) turned up for help with a 'sanction'. This is a penalty for people on JobSeekers Allowance (JSA) who have not done enough jobseeking or have violated other contractual terms.

This woman was poorly served by the JobCentrePlus (JCP) and I think was sanctioned because 'tis the season for sanctions.

How do you measure the performance of staff at a JCP? All they do is make appointments for JSA claimants to be seen every two weeks (called 'signing on') and then check if they have applied to at least x number of jobs.

One way to measure performance is to monitor the number of sanctions given: by spotting how many JSA claimants have been lazy in their 'job-seeking'. The funny thing is every single person who has come to me for help with their sanctions is the nice gentle sort who would not say 'boo' to a goose.

I've never seen someone who is a bully or looks remotely menacing being given a sanction, or at least they have not come to me.

JCP staff try to 'up' their performance by coming down really hard on those who are newly unemployed (do not know all the rules) and who are easy, soft targets who won't retaliate.

This week I saw someone who was made redundant and never got round to starting to make claims, leading to a court summons for non-payment of council tax. No one at the council office bothered to tell her/her husband that because she is unemployed (after having worked for 20+ years) she is entitled to benefits, including housing benefits, help with mortgage interest, and council tax benefit (CTB). Instead she is being taken to court when she's been borrowing money to pay the tax, etc.

It is very rare that people do not realize that they could in fact claim. I mean, just a few weeks ago I had an elderly woman who had more or less just stepped off the plane who came in to say, "Please, help me get those benefits."

She had not contributed a single penny to this country but is the widow of an immigrant who had gained British citizenship, and she holds a British passport. In this instance she does not even need to pass the HRT (habitual residence test), I suspect (I may be wrong), but how can this country afford to support everyone who comes to this country on the basis that she felt insecure in her homeland after being robbed!

Then I tried to help a mini-cab driver whose driving licence was cancelled. Actually an arrest warrant could have been issued due to his non-appearance at court for a minor driving offence. He was lucky not to have been arrested on entering the country, thanks to lazy bureaucracy.

He and his cousin listened most attentively and responded politely as I tried to explain what he must do. In their own country I would have been shot dead for trying to get an education. So I hope it makes them think how useful it is to educate women as well.

Saddest of all was the client whose one son had died and the other son has been sent to prison. She was so, so sad and wanted to get out of the house she now now lives because of all the sad memories. She also does not want to have anything to do with the remaining son.

I suspect that she has married outside her ethnic group. I encouraged her to get her mind into the right condition to face the future. (She did not believe that she is younger than me.) She has another half a life-time ahead of her. She has to start thinking what she wanted to do with it.

She shed quiet tears and promised me that she would do something. I said I would pray for her. She said "Thank you".

Reading Marxist Lefebrve and writing triads

Or Why you so cheem, hah?

The following version of my letter was published in the online section of the Straits Times Forum:

===============

Nature, nurture and the PSLE

WE SPENT eight hours driving, often in blinding rain, to attend my mother-in-law's 80th birthday bash. My son was spooked by having to wade through floodwaters to get back to our hotel. I explained to him: "Family-benefits-obligations" - Where there's family, there are benefits as well as obligations, and this was an obligation.

Inspired by the French Marxist philosopher Henri Lefebvre, I have been thinking up my own "triadic dialectics", ideas based on three-way relationships.

Lefebvre infused space and time (Kant's "necessary conditions") with energy to give us "space-time-energy", thus transcending the limitation of "space-time" analysis. By his positing a "melody-harmony-rhythm" dialectic and the analysis of rhythms, anthropologists can now circumvent the problem of time being either only "social" or "clock" time.

I thought of British (national and local) politicians caught ripping off taxpayers, top earners hiding their wages in offshore schemes to avoid paying tax, and benefits scroungers exploiting the system. In one voice, they claim that they are "doing nothing wrong".

Yes, on a "rights versus responsibilities" basis, they are within the rules.

But on a "rights-responsibilities-morality" dialectic, their rationalisation fails.

Marriage, contrary to received wisdom, is strongest when it is a relationship between three partners. Christians believe these to be "husband-wife-God". Marriage (as an institution) is sustained by "husband-wife-something else". The "something else" could be religion, family obligations, collective conscience, social convention, economic necessity, or whatever.

Take away any one of these three prongs and the marriage (and family) risks failing, as we see it happening all over the world, not just in Western cultures.

In a similar vein, I pondered the old chestnut: "nature or nurture". The triad "nature-nurture-opportunity" would put to rest the "either/or" arguments that do not help in the resolution.

No matter how many chances my son is given to play football, he will not excel because it is just not within his nature. You cannot nurture what is not there.

On the other hand, if we had not given him the opportunity of a private education, his natural talent would also have been stymied in a state school. Nature without nurture will be wasted.

Ergo, it is crucial that every Singaporean child is given every opportunity to nurture their nature-given talents, most of which cannot be showcased by Primary School Leaving Examination results.

==========

The nature of some of the responses was not unexpected. 'What's the meaning of "cheem"?,' my husband asked.

I was surprised that the editor actually ran a piece that contained the words 'Marxist' and 'triad'. It was interesting to see how some readers think he should not have bothered.

Others said it was convoluted, gobbledygook, etc. Try developing an argument where you have to:

• grab attention by relating to a current event
• explain the ideas of a philosopher that is probably not very well-known in Singapore
• indicate how his ideas have helped to move thinking along in philosophy and anthropology
• illustrate how his ideas could be developed to evaluate current social issues
• demonstrate how the work of thinkers and academics can (must?) have a practical application in the real world, as in helping to understand what is lacking in our discussion about the PSLE in Singapore

All in under 400 words.

Granted, the Fog Index (indicator of readability) of this piece is higher than usual. But I needed to use multi-syllable words instead of several more short ones to keep within the word limit. In another time and place (space-time) I could develop this into a 5,000 word essay, pre-empting all those comments that have been raised.

Also, this follows a previous letter which the editor chose not to publish. Really I cannot see the point of parents putting their children through tuition to get them into the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). The point is if your child needs tuition, then he/she is probably not that gifted, really.

Worse, when they get into the programme and find that they cannot cope, you are setting your children up for a miserable life.

Was the letter suitable for the target audience? Probably not. So "thank you" to Mr Yap for being so brave in pushing the envelope, as one might say. Thanks also to 'unewolke' and 'jousterr' for their kind support in the Forum discussion.

When you have considered all those hours that I spent as an undergraduate trying to come to grips with Kant and this space-time conundrum, you would understand why I think Lefebrve is fab.

Kama Sutra

I came back from running errands in the rain to my weekly helper going, "I think I should show you what I found in your son's room."

It was a pocket version of the Kama Sutra.

I laughed, more so from the look on her face than anything else, and said, "O! That's alright. It's our copy."

"We want to be the ones teaching him about these things rather than let him learn from people we don't know whom."

Apparently our son was the only one who managed to keep a straight face when the new Science teacher taught them human reproduction.

We've always said that we must teach him about sex, about responsible sex, and other related values ourselves and not expect someone else to do it, or let him learn from reading pornography, or whatever.

The control over when to do this was taken out of our hands when he heard the TV news report of a British woman (and the man as well??) being taken to court for having sex on a Dubai beach. I did not manage to change channels quickly enough.

"Dad, what is sex?"

Dad gamely stepped up to the plate and did a very good job explaining. The mechanics.

On other occasions when the context was right, we reinforced the values.

Now, nearly 13, he's learning about his growing body and anticipate the massive changes ahead. Dad enlightens him about experiences that only dads have.

Back to mechanics again.

So why not the Kama Sutra? And also the Song of Solomon in the Bible?

There is the occasional "Yuck!", but he's established that Mum and Dad are the ones to talk to about these things.

Job done?

Not quite. I've started praying for a Godly woman that God would nurture to support my son in his adult life.

Escape FROM the Country

My husband and I had been thinking of moving to the country when he retires and we dream of keeping honeybees and chickens and growing our own vegetables, etc.

Last night we were in Devon to celebrate his mum's 80th birthday. We had a great time but I was nervous about travelling knowing how treacherous the weather promised to be.

Thankfully husband drove well (as usual) and I suspect given the weather warnings, only those who needed to travel, did, and the roads were pretty clear. Still the rain beat down.

We checked into a riverside inn in Bovey Tracey, rested, and met up at the pub restaurant for the party.

When we were leaving after the party the staff told us that the road we arrived by was flooded and traffic was not getting through. So husband, who knew that area well, chose a different route.

Once we got into the car the local radio notified us of various flood spots and, of course, that the river had burst its banks at Bovey Tracey. Ah! What do we do?

Son in the back was panicking. We managed to calm him down.

But we reached the point where Police closed the road and husband was shown what the road looked like: a river! We were told to park up and walk.

So we did, in our party clothes! Thankfully I had opted to wear boots to keep me warm.

"County Rangers" were putting out sandbags and we were told, "You don't want to go that way. The water is waist high."

That frightened me a bit.

Thankfully after wading about 70-80 yards in not quite knee-deep water, we got to the bit of the road which was actually a bridge over the river and surprisingly our pub/restaurant/inn was quite dry considering that the river runs under it! We got back to our room.

Son was petrified that the flood waters would rise even further. He was just very tired and began to imagine the worst. So I comforted and reassured him that with the police down the road, the worst that could happen was they would evacuate us. He soon fell asleep.

This morning we found that it was "just another day in Bovey Tracey" (after Phil Collins) and people were out and about walking their dogs and getting their newspapers. The river level had fallen although the road was still 'puddley' right outside our room (which was in a dip).

Husband returned his abandoned car to the inn, and we packed up and left without even stopping for breakfast, keen to get out before the next rains appeared.

That first squelch (is that the right word?) of water inside one's shoes took a bit getting used to.

Mighty strange to think how instead of an 'Escape to the Country' we literally escaped from it.

Leaving Primary School

The following letter was sent to Straits Times Forum on 5th November 2012, one of the many letters that have not been published. I have been too busy to put this up on the blog and so have not made any further comments.

Please feel free to do so:

====

Our son is transferring to senior school in September. The system in the UK independent sector is rather complex: offers are made based on a permutation of 13+ Common Entrance Examination (CEE), interviews, school reports, individual school entrance exams, scholarship exams, etc.

The most important advice we have been given is:

• Our son must be happy in order to thrive at senior school, so shop around.
• If your son requires tuition to pass the specific school entrance exam, then it is not the right school for him.

Boys from his school have won scholarships to senior schools based on their athletic skills, or talent in art, drama and music. However, everyone still sits the CEE and the results are used by the senior schools to customize teaching.

There is no shame in going to a ‘less academic’ school because the minimum academic standard is still there.

Entrance to state schools is different. Grammar schools still require excellent 11+ exam results. However, grammars are finding that pupils that have been coached to pass exams struggle to keep up*.

Other schools are required by law to be non-selective and offer places on the basis of distance from schools. When performing well in exams is not a passport to a ‘good’ school – as only the rich kids can afford to live near such schools – children lose incentive and then self-esteem, leading to a race to the bottom.

It is sad that parents (and children) think that Singapore only has a place for those proven to be academically gifted by the time one is 12.

Singapore must find a balance. Precisely because we are a small country we must nurture the natural talent of every child and educate each to the appropriate level to make each a contributing citizen.

In addition, society (you and I) must respect, appreciate and reward justly the part played by “we, the citizens” and every net contributor, not just the educated and well-heeled.

How miserable would life be if we do not have safe bus and train drivers, knowledgeable and polite sales/service staff, efficient and hygienic hospital cleaners and porters, keen-eyed and dextrous factory workers, etc?

Those who have risen to the top courtesy of a meritocracy now have the moral responsibility to ensure that the best and brightest of each cohort, from whatever background, also have the opportunity to do the same.

==========

Bright children failed by a 'cult of the average', CBI warn

Private schools are demonised in Britain but are the envy of the world

* Grammar school tests to be made 'tutor-proof'

What's the point of HRT?

This is not about hormone replacement therapy, sorry, but the "Habitual Residence Test".

I saw a client this week who was refused benefits on account of her failing the HRT.

Born somewhere in the Middle-east she became a citizen of a Scandinavian country and had lived there many years. Then she decided to come to the UK where she has family.

She was clearly in a lot of pain when she saw me and could not sit for more than a few minutes without having to change position. She told me she had come here so that her family could look after her.

But EU/EEA citizens cannot just arrive on these shores and claim benefits. They have the right to reside but they must be able to support themselves by being employed or be self-employed, but they do not have the right to benefits. I think the objective is that people do not simply move to a country with better benefits, ie shop around for better benefits.

Truth is, people do.

They come here and worked for a bit, claimed illness, and then go on benefits indefinitely. It has been known.

When I later looked at this client's notes I realized that she had been seen by our most experienced adviser who told her the 'rules'. I said, you know, you could go back to your country and you'd be able to claim all the benefits: health, care, education, housing, etc.

She wouldn't countenance that idea because she wants to be in the UK. Her son requires special medication and has special needs. Her children have been in school here. Etc.

When I looked up (just) at the HRT I learned that there is a chance that this woman may now qualify and it makes me angry.

If you intend to stay and if your children have been put in school, you are habitually resident, and therefore you can now claim benefits.

She worked for a month when she first arrived and was dismissed. She kept dropping plates in the restaurant because she was depressed. She suffers from arthritis in several places, etc.

And the UK taxpayer has to pick up the tab. Why? She had no intention of working here. She wanted to come here so that her family could look after her because she is ill. That's what she told me. And yet if she drags the procedure out for a bit, simply by refusing to go home, claims that her children are settled here, etc. she would pass the HRT. And thousands of pounds of benefits would roll in, not counting the medical bills we are already paying.

Also, she was sent to us by her social worker! The taxpayer pays the social worker to look after vulnerable people. The social worker sends her client to my advice charity, run by volunteers.

If you paid for a medical service would you be happy if they say, 'Sorry, cannot help you there. Please go to the Red Cross or St John's Ambulance people.'

I cannot understand a welfare system where people could fleece it without having first contributed to it. Does Singapore really want this sort of welfare? Be careful. It would be good for a few years. Everyone would be happy. But there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Look at Greece. Apparently they retire in their 50s while Britons cannot retire till at least 65, or 67 in my case. But they want their pension and for much longer. They are out on the streets demonstrating again.

Do they not understand that we have to work to keep the economy going in order to pay benefits?

We have decided that we will leave this country as soon as we can. Job offers, anyone?