Why is the Government paying benefits to those who have left the country?

About 7400 are no longer receiving benefits after failing to reapply for their benefit after 12 months and the government is saying it is a $3.5m saving. ( update its a $9.5m saving now ). According to media reports:

Half of the people who were now off it did not reapply. Of the other half, 2000 were already in work, 1400 had left the county, were in study or failed the work test.

We don’t have any idea how many were studying or how many failed the work test as the Prime Minister didn’t say and nobody appeared to ask him.

But a lot of people must have been were getting benefits they were not entitled to - like the 1400 who had left the country, and WINZ apparently had no idea that they had left the country. It’s their job to have an idea.

If thousands didn’t reapply, should they have been getting it at all? Some were in work, some had left the country. If they had left the country three months earlier, who is the benefit being paid to before it is cancelled? If they were in work, are the overpayments going to be recovered?

In such cases, while WINZ should be told if there are changes that affect benefits, shouldn’t case managers be keeping tabs on their ”clients” to ensure they are paying correct entitlements, and cutting off benefits shortly after they go to work/overseas – not months later.

John Key said it could be assumed that the people who did not reapply were in work. Yet he has no idea how many of those who did not reapply were in prison, studying, formed a new relationship, or had left the country.

So this is not a $3.5m (or $9m) “saving” – this is merely $3.5m saving less overspending, less an undisclosed amount of unrecovered overpayments paid before the benefits were cancelled.

More about → Why is the Government paying benefits to those who have left the country?

Our hungry kids - and our selfish parents

Was watching this programme on Campbell Live where a beneficiary on $529 a week was spending not much more than $100 a week on food and didn’t have enough to feed his three kids. He didn’t send them to school some days because he couldn’t give them lunch as he had no food.

Yet not all parents who fail to give their kids breakfast are that hard up. I have kids. They get breakfast every day. They go to school and come home and tell me that many of their classmates don’t have breakfast.

It’s not that their parents can’t afford to give their kids breakfast, it’s just that they leave for work at 7.30am and drop their kids off to school and don’t want to get up earlier to give their kids breakfast.

So the kids miss out. And the parents no doubt have breakfast at work. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that schools have to feed these kids when their parents either get Working for Families payments or are earning enough to get them over the cut-off threshold.

For parents who are on low incomes, it’s tough. Its even tougher on a benefit. But you can feed your kids porridge at about $50 every three months if you buy it in bulk. The biggest cost is the milk. If parents don’t want to do this for their kids to ensure they don’t miss out on breakfast – it’s called budgeting - there is something wrong with them. For those on benefits you can get a food grant from WINZ which will pay for nine month’s worth of porridge.

Kids should not go hungry because of parent’s poor choices. But they do. It is those parents who don’t have a choice that should get the assistance – such as the man on Campbell Live. Because he deserves it. In fact, if a lot more parents cared for their kids like this dad does,and fed their kids breakfast before work, our kids would be better off. But this man didn't appear to be applying for the assistance that is available from WINZ. He should.

And he doesn't eat porridge. But he does both need and deserve more support - and its good that he is getting it.

But none of it is from the government - its to make up for his substandard benefit income.

He even got a heater to heat his house. I'm so pleased.

More about → Our hungry kids - and our selfish parents

Pushing those on the DPB to work

The NZ Herald reports:

A sole parent with three young children paying the $332 average rent for a three-bedroom house in Papakura would get $206 in family support and $165 in accommodation supplement on top of the $278 DPB, a total of $649 a week.

Lets assume that she could walk straight into a job.

What would happen if she got a job for 25 hours a week at $20 per hour, or $500 per week – by no means the minimum hourly rate.

Firstly, because she is working more than 20 hours, she'd get the in work tax credit. She’d get $500 ($407 net) a week in income. Her family support will be the same, her accommodation supplement would reduce just $5.00. But the $60 In work Tax Credit bumps up her income to $833.00 - an extra $184.00 per week .

Sounds good. But even if she get 20 hours free, she`ll still be paying at least $180 a week in childcare and after school care, assuming she has two preschoolers at the right age and one child who is at school - leaving her nothing extra to pay for transport to get to work and clothes to wear to work.

Would you work for about $1.00 extra an hour? If so, what would you do if your child gets sick? What would you do if you cant get 20 hours free childcare because your childcare centre doesn't offer it or your kids are the wrong age?

If she got a job for $17.50 an hour for a 40 hour week - that’s $700 ($562 net) - she`d get $110.00 accommodation supplement and the same WFF assistance – totalling $878.00. That is $229 extra than the benefit and allowances.

Even better. But after child care costs, an income of $36,400 would leave her less than $50.00 extra to pay for transport to get to work and clothes to wear to work.

More about →