The law about pennies

Following up the last blog see this article here.

The modern world

In South Wales again. En route I stopped for diesel at a BP garage. "What number?" he says when I go to pay. "18". He looks confused as 18 is already paid. I check again and I am right. it turns out the man at number 19 has paid the wrong bill. The difference is about a pound so they ask me if I have change, which I don't as I'm saving my cash for the bridge. In the end the customer whose mistake it was stuck with my bill and let me pay his, losing a pound or so but getting us all out of a problem.

Then I'm in Cwmbran shopping centre trying to get change for a £10 note. The shops won't open their tills except for a purchase. No problem, I'll try a bank. The banks won't give you change unless you're a customer (my bank is the other side of the centre). They say it's to do with money laundering but they are quick to volunteer that the Post Office will do it (queue too long). So if you are planning to launder money go to the Post Office not a bank, I guess.

Meanwhile I drive my nephew into my old school (Croesy Comp). Can't remember when I was there last. It's now like a prison. Everywhere is fenced off to keep kids out of the woods and fields. It's looking pretty tatty all round but the fencing doesn't help I'm sure.

Lebanese Loop

I learned a new word recently. I went to get cash from a hole in the wall the other day and the machine was rather slow so I cancelled my transaction without entering my pin. When I retrieved the card something like the above came out too. I immediately guessed the machine had been tampered with. Behind me were a smartly dressed man and woman who I assumed were queueing to use the machine but I think now they were looking to see me key in my pin. I took the contraption to the supermarket whose machine it was and had a brief explanation from them. You can read more here. Men invent ways of doing evil the Bible says.

Lotto Trouble

When we hear of a big national lottery win I often express my sympathy for the victims and the trouble they are in. There's probably a bit of schadenfreude in my attitude but this article from the Christian Institute confirms my worst fears.

A married couple from Wales have scooped a share of a £91 million EuroMillions jackpot but a national newspaper asks – is it the worst thing that could have happened to them?
“We may not be as rich” as those who win the lottery “but there’s every chance we may live longer, happier lives as a result”, Julia Hartley-Brewer, a Sunday Express reporter wrote.
She cites a survey of 30 of the biggest jackpot winners and said it branded the lottery “Britain’s biggest marriage wrecker” when it found that a third of respondents said their lives had been blighted by their new found fortune.
Families had fallen apart, marriages had ended and envy had destroyed friendships, the survey reportedly revealed.
The comments follow a spate of real life stories from lottery winners who have admitted misery because of their windfall.
Earlier this year Callie Rogers, 22, who won close to £1.9 million as a teenager in 2003, revealed that she is now facing bankruptcy and the money she won hasn’t made her happy.
She is currently holding down three jobs to support her two young children and she told a reporter that her life was now a “shambles”.
In 2005, after a suicide attempt, she said: “Until you win such a large amount of money at such a young age, you don’t realise the pressures that come with it.”
Michael Carroll, a former dustman, won £9.7million in 2002 but claimed it had made him miserable.
After he won the jackpot, his wife Sandra left him and took their baby daughter with her. Mr Carroll turned to cocaine, was jailed and was later served with two anti-social behaviour orders.
In 1999 Stephanie Powell won £7.2million, but her family life began to break down as a result.
Her partner Wayne Lawrence walked out on her, claiming the stress of her riches as his reason.
The article also cited research published this summer which warned that the lives of lottery winners could be cut short due to excessive alcohol-fuelled partying.
In 1999 Phil Kitchen, a jobless carpenter, won £1.8 million but two years later was found dead in his £500,000 home after drinking himself to death.
In July a report by the think-tank Theos argued that the National Lottery was penalising the poor.
Theos Director Paul Woolley said: “The Lottery might have created a new source of funding for projects that would otherwise have remained un-funded, but this has come with a high price tag for Britain’s poor.”
The report found that skilled manual workers are most likely to play in Lottery draws, with over 67 per cent taking part once a month compared with 47 per cent of professionals and managers.
According to the report, the average Lottery player spends £142.88 each year but among those with salaries of £15,000- £20,000 the figure increases to £174.53.

Wesley on Money

I found this here recently. Very interesting. It is by Charles Edward White, assistant professor of Christian thought and history in Spring Arbor (Michigan) College.

What Wesley Practiced and Preached about Money

John Wesley preached a lot about money. And with probably the highest earned income in England, he had the opportunities to put his ideas into practice. What did he say about money? And what did he do with his own?
John Wesley knew grinding poverty as a child. His father, Samuel Wesley, was the Anglican priest in one of England’s lowest-paying parishes. He had nine children to support and was rarely out of debt. Once John saw his father being marched off to debtors’ prison. So when John followed his father into the ministry, he had no illusions about the financial rewards.
It probably came as a surprise to John Wesley that while God had called him to follow his father’s vocation, he had not also called him to be poor like his father. Instead of being a parish priest, John felt God’s direction to teach at Oxford University. There he was elected a fellow of Lincoln College, and his financial status changed dramatically. His position usually paid him at least thirty pounds a year, more than enough money for a single man to live on. John seems to have enjoyed his relative prosperity. He spent his money on playing cards, tobacco and brandy.
While at Oxford, an incident changed his perspective on money. He had just finished paying for some pictures for his room when one of the chambermaids came to his door. It was a cold winter day, and he noticed that she had nothing to protect her except a thin linen gown. He reached into his pocket to give her some money to buy a coat but found he had too little left. Immediately, the thought struck him that the Lord was not pleased with the way he had spent his money. He asked himself, Will thy Master say, “Well done, good and faithful steward?” Thou hast adorned thy walls with the money which might have screened this poor creature from the cold! O justice! O mercy! Are not these pictures the blood of this poor maid?

What Wesley Did
Perhaps as a result of this incident, in 1731, Wesley began to limit his expenses so that he would have more money to give to the poor. He records that one year his income was 30 pounds and his living expenses 28 pounds, so he had 2 pounds to give away. The next year his income doubled, but he still managed to live on 28 pounds, so he had 32 pounds to give to the poor. In the third year, his income jumped to 90 pounds. Instead of letting his expenses rise with his income, he kept them to 28 pounds and gave away 62 pounds. In the fourth year, he received 120 pounds. As before, his expenses were 28 pounds, so his giving rose to 92 pounds.

Wesley felt that the Christian should not merely tithe but give away all extra income once the family and creditors were taken care of. He believed that with increasing income,

what should rise is not the Christian’s standard of living but the standard of giving.

This practice, begun at Oxford, continued throughout his life. Even when his income rose into the thousands of pounds sterling, he lived simply and he quickly gave away his surplus money. One year his income was a little over 1400 pounds. He lived on 30 pounds and gave away nearly 1400 pounds. Because he had no family to care for, he had no need for savings. He was afraid of laying up treasures on earth, so the money went out in charity as quickly as it came in. He reports that he never had 100 pounds at any one time.

Wesley limited his expenditures by not purchasing the kinds of things thought essential for a man in his station of life. In 1776, the English tax commissioners inspected his return and wrote him the following: “[We] cannot doubt but you have plate for which you have hitherto neglected to make an entry.” They were saying a man of his prominence certainly must have some silver plate in his house and were accusing him of failing to pay excise tax on it. Wesley wrote back: “I have two silver spoons at London and two at Bristol. This all the plate I have at present, and I shall not buy any more while so many round me want bread.”
Another way Wesley limited expenses was by identifying with the needy. He had preached that Christians should consider themselves members of the poor, whom God had given them money to aid. So he lived and ate with the poor. Under Wesley’s leadership, the London Methodists had established two homes for widows in the city. They were supported by offerings taken at the band meetings and the Lord’s Supper. In 1748, nine widows, one blind woman, and two children lived there. With them lived John Wesley and any other Methodist preacher who happened to be in town. Wesley rejoiced to eat the same food at the the same table, looking forward to the heavenly banquet all Christians will share.
For almost four years, Wesley’s diet consisted mainly of potatoes, partly to improve his health, but also to save money. He said: “What I save from my own meat will feed another that else would have none.”
In 1744, Wesley had written, “[When I die] if I leave behind me ten pounds ... you and all mankind [may] bear witness against me, that I have lived and died a thief and a robber.” When he died in 1791, the only money mentioned in his will was the miscellaneous coins to be found in his pockets and dresser drawers.
What had happened to the rest of his money, to the estimated thirty thousand pounds he had earned over his lifetime? He had given it away. As Wesley said, “I cannot help leaving my books behind me whenever God calls me hence, but in every other respect my own hands will be my executors.”

What Wesley Preached

Wesley’s teaching on money offered simple, practical guidelines for every believer.
Wesley’s first rule about money was Gain all you can. Despite its potential for misuse, money in itself is something good. There is no end to the good it can do: “In the hands of [God’s] children, it is food for the hungry, drink for the thirsty, raiment for the naked. it gives to the traveler and the stranger where to lay his head. By it we may supply the place of a husband to the widow, and of a father to the fatherless. We may be a defense for the oppressed, a means of health to the sick, of ease to them that are in pain. It may be as eyes to the blind, as feet to the lame: yea, a lifter up from the gates of death!”
Wesley adds that in gaining all they can, Christians must be careful not to damage their own souls, minds, or bodies, or the souls, minds, or bodies of anyone else. He thus prohibited gaining money through industries that pollute the environment or endanger workers.

Wesley’s second rule for the right use of money was Save all you can. He urged his hearers not to spend money merely to gratify the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eye or the pride of life. he cried out against expensive food, fancy clothes, and elegant furniture: “Cut off all this expense! Despise delicacy and variety and be content with what plain nature requires.”
Wesley had two reason for telling Christians to buy only necessities. The obvious one was so they would not waste money. The second was so they would not increase their desires. The old preacher wisely pointed out that when people spend money on things they do not really need, they begin to want more things they do not need. Instead of satisfying their desires, they only increase them: “Who would depend anything in gratifying these desires, if he considered that to gratify them is to increase them? Nothing can be more certain than this: Daily experience shows that the more they are indulged, they increase the more.”
Wesley especially warned against buying too much for children. People who would never waste money on themselves might be more indulgent with their children. On the principle that gratifying a desire needlessly only tends to increase it, he asked these well-intentioned parents: “Why should you purchase for them more pride or lust, more vanity or foolish and hurtful desires? ...Why should you be at further expense to increase their temptations and snares and to pierce them through with more sorrows?”

John Wesley’s third rule was Give all you can. One’s giving should begin with the tithe. He told the one who does not tithe, “Thou doest undoubtedly set they heart upon thy gold” and warned, “It will ‘eat thy flesh as fire!’” But one’s giving should not end at the tithe. All of the Christian’s money belongs to God, not just the first tenth. Believers must use 100 percent of their incomes as God directs.

And how has God directed Christians to use their incomes? Wesley listed four scriptural priorities:
1. Provide things needful for yourself and your family (1 Tim. 5:8). The believer should make sure the family has the necessities and conveniences of life, that is, “a sufficiency of plain, wholesome food to eat, and clean raiment to put on” as well as a place to live. The believer must also insure that the family has enough to live on if something were to happen to the breadwinner.
2. “Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content” (1 Tim. 6:8). Wesley adds that the word translated raiment is literally coverings and thus includes lodging as well as clothes. “It plainly follows whatever is more than these is, in the sense of the apostle, riches - whatever is above the plain necessities, or at most, conveniences, of life. Whoever has sufficient food to eat, and raiment to put on, with a place to lay his head, and something over, is rich.”
3. “Provide things honest in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17) and “Owe no man anything” (Rom. 13:8). Wesley said the next claim on a Christian’s money was the creditors’. He adds that those who are in business for themselves need to have adequate tools, stock, or capital for the carrying on of the business.
4. “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). After the Christian has provided for the family, the creditors, and the business, the next obligation is to use any money that is left to meet the needs of others.

In giving these four biblical principles, Wesley recognized some situations were not clear-cut. It isn’t always obvious how the Christian should use the Lord’s money. Wesley accordingly offered four questions to help his hearers decide how to spend the money:

1. In spending this money, am I acting like I owned it, or am I acting like the Lord’s trustee?
2. What Scripture requires me to spend this money in this way?
3. Can I offer up this purchase as a sacrifice to the Lord?
4. Will God reward me for this expenditure at the resurrection of the just?

Finally, for the believer who is still perplexed, John Wesley suggested this prayer before a purchase:
“Lord, thou seest I am going to expend this sum on that food, apparel, furniture. And thou knowest I act therein with a single eye, as a steward of thy goods, expending this portion of them thus, in pursuance of the design thou hadst in entrusting me with them. Thou knowest I do this in obedience to thy word, as thou commandest, and because thou commandest it. let this, I beseech thee, be a holy sacrifice, acceptable through Jesus Christ! And give me a witness in myself, that for this labor of love I shall have a recompence when thou rewardest every man according to his words.”
He was confident that any believer who has a clear conscience after praying this prayer will be using money wisely.

Newport again Glimpse 2, 3

2. At least they have a Caffe Nero there so I popped in for a coffee and a read. Now the thing here was that while I was reading and drinking I overheard a woman talking about rugby. She was talking about the Ospreys. She couldn't remember who they'd played against last (Gloucester it was) but she was certain that with the talent they have they should have played better. "They just didn't gel" she said. The thing is I don't hear many people talking about rugby in London and certainly not women. It has to be one of the things I miss.

3. After that I headed to the bank to get myself some money from an ATM or cashpoint. There are two big Lloyds Banks in the main street. You used to be able to get money in French and German on the Kilburn High Road. Of course, in Wales you can often do it in Welsh, which I enjoyed doing (although I didn't notice any sign of Welsh anywhere else in the bank) - arian parod, gweddill ar y sgrin, etc. The thing that struck me was that the ATM gave me fivers - something that banks don't do in London. Does that reflect Newport's economic status.

Free £5 notes

I was pointed to this item here. The exercise is concerned with attitudes to money but I think there is some interest here as far as the gospel is concerned. What seems like an asset - that it is totally free is not seen in that way by some.

Brits Fail To Cash In On Free £5 Notes
• Just 28 people took free fivers in two busy crowded streets

• And further research shows that half of all Brits claim they would also turn down free cash

The full extent of Britain’s financial inertia was laid bare today when passers-by in London and Manchester were offered a free £5 note, no strings attached.
Representatives from a price comparison website wandered the streets this morning wearing sandwich boards offering a free £5 note to anyone who asked. Despite encountering over 1800 people, only 28 passers by bothered to take advantage of the offer.
Even when those few plucky souls claimed their free booty it didn’t spark a stampede. The exercise was designed to illustrate that, credit crunch or no credit crunch, Brits are unwilling to take even the simplest steps to improve their financial situation.
Additional research found that more than half of all Brits (53%) admit they too would not be bothered to claim their £5 if they were in the same situation. This finding suggests that people actually overestimate their own likelihood of acting in such a situation, given the poor take up of the offer on the streets of London and Manchester. ...
The experiment also found a stark difference in the attitudes of men and women. On the streets of London and Manchester, all but 7 of the people who claimed the free cash were men and the research backed this up further. In a poll of 2000 people almost two thirds of women (64%) said they would not claim the free fiver, compared to 41% of money-shy men.
Additionally, the experiment found that Londoners were more reserved than their Manchester counterparts. Whilst just 1.2% of people took advantage of the offer in London, this figure increased to 3.1% on the streets of Manchester.
The research also found that the older the person, the less likely they would be to act on the free offer. Whilst some two thirds of under-twenties say they would claim the free cash, this steadily drops the older we get, declining to only a third (35%) of over 70s who claim they would ask for a free fiver.
Why do Brits believe they would fail to take up the offer?

• Six in 10 people say they their cynicism would prevent them from asking for free cash as they would suspect a catch or trick

• 20% of people would simply not believe the offer was real – a trend which increased with age. Almost a third of over 60s claimed they wouldn’t believe the sandwich board wearer

• Just over one in 10 people said they would feel too embarrassed and 3% of people said that £5 wasn’t worth the effort