Inflated sense of entitlement

An inflated sense of entitlement is the polite description for Graham Foster. The SST reports:

A beneficiary who was refused a Work and Income grant to pay for a $50 pullover and a $140 pair of shoes has spent two years fighting the government through the courts, costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Now get this. They offered him the money as a loan, but Mr Foster believes it is the duty of hard working taxpayers to buy him clothes on top of his benefit. And this noble man, is willing to spend our money fighting for his entitlement.

Foster, who has been on a sickness benefit since 2004, and an invalid’s benefit since 2007, applied for assistance to buy a pair of shoes and the pullover in August 2007. He submitted a quote of $139.95 for the shoes and $49.95 for the pullover, saying he needed them because of normal wear and tear, and because of the cold weather.

Here is where I get frustrated with the newspaper for not asking and reporting on pertinent questions – namely what is the nature of the disability that has prevented Mr Foster from working for the last six years?

Normally none of our business, but if he is going to take the Govt to court for what he sees as his entitlement, and parade his story in the newspaper, then the question should be asked. Why wasn’t it?

Work and Income agreed to an advance on his $374-a-week benefits, to be repaid at $3 a week.

A less than 1% drop in his disposable income. Incidentally his benefit is equivalent to a before tax salary of $23,684.

Work and Income’s decision was then reviewed twice internally and then by the Social Security Appeal Authority in 2008, which agreed Foster should pay the money back. The authority said a grant could only be given if the clothes were destroyed in a “fire, flood or other disaster or stolen”, or if going without the grant would cause “serious hardship”.

Foster then appealed to the high court in February last year, where Justice Patrick Keane upheld the authority’s decision. Foster made one more unsuccessful application to the high court before going to the Appeal Court, whose decision was released last month.

I wouldn’t begrudge anyone asking for an internal review of a WINZ decision. But Foster has effectively had his refusal to pay back $3 a week reviewed and appealed six times.

Foster told the Star-Times the various judges displayed a lack of understanding of how difficult it is to live on a benefit. That attitude, he said, is reflected by society.

“Beneficiaries are generally considered proliferating bludgers, feeding off the genuine hard-working taxpayer. We get a lot of bad publicity and bad press.”

What a moron – he is himself responsible for exactly the bad publicity and press he complains about. Many people do have it tough on a benefit and they must hate being grouped in with the bludgers. But Foster is as bad a bludger as the Harrises, with what he has cost the taxpayer.

He said legal experts had estimated the cost to the Ministry of Social Development of defending his persistent court action could be anything from $30,000 to $250,000.

He seems proud to have costed us so much money.

Because he had been representing himself, the cases had cost him nothing except “the odd $11 train fare”.

Again I am intrigued by the disability that has left him unable to work for the last six years.  Because it seems he is capable of representing himself in court.

As part of the earlier appeal, the Social Security Appeal Authority questioned items listed in Foster’s domestic budget, including $30 for cellphone, internet and phone line at his shared accommodation. It said: “It is surprising that the appellant can afford to buy the Listener and pay for an internet connection but cannot budget for clothing.”

Now this really pisses me off. You know why? Because I gave up my Listener subscription a couple of years ago as I couldn’t justify the cost. It is not a breach of your human rights to have to prioritise and budget.

Foster has chosen to spend his money on the Listener, a cellphone and the Internet rather than pay for clothing for himself. And when the taxpayer generously offers to loan him the money, saying you only have to pay back $3 a week, he refuses and heads off to court costing up tens of thousands of dollars.

Act MP Dr Muriel Newman said Foster’s court actions had gone too far but were a product of “the system”. “The attitude is, if you do need a jumper and pair of shoes they [the taxpayer] can pay for it. It’s an indictment on the system. People can go to an op shop and get a pair of shoes for $5 and he’s definitely chosen not to take that path.”

Muriel has a decent point also. A $140 pair of shoes is expensive, if not needed for work purposes. Nothing wrong with second hand. It is the culture of entitlement.

Foster said while $3 a week might sound like “chicken feed”, for him to pay it would mean going without something else.

Isn’t the Listener $3 a week? Easy solution I would say!

“The fact is, that beneficiaries live in poverty. When you’re already in debt and you live below the poverty line, it’s exacerbated; $3 to you is trivial, but to me it means that I have to go without something else.”

Foster doesn’t live below the poverty line, unless he has dependants. The relative poverty line is normally 50% of median income. The median weekly income is $538 a week. Foster’s gross income is $454 a week, so he is at 85% of the median income – well above the poverty line.

He may of course has extra costs related to his disability – again it is a pity the newspaper did not ask him for details – then one can form a judgement as to the merits of his case on the full facts.

But well done to the SST for doing the article in the first place – it is a great exposure of the culture of entitlement.