So who recognises Britain as it is today?

meanredspider

I'm not even sure what English or British goods are. Made in the UK? Designed in the UK? Manufactured by a UK-owned company? All three? Now that would be a very short list.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

As a uk born father of four, I still continue to get some tax credits in addition to disability benefits related to a disabled child. I get child benefit too. Anyone who lives and works in the country is welcome to equal access to benefits as far as I am concerned.

Yeah perhaps i can pay some more tax and you can have a 5th child?

so not only have you voted to leave the EU and p1ss ed me off in the process, now you tell me i m paying for you too, this is the really reason this country is going down hill, too many people are claiming and not enough are net tax payers.

A girl at work, moaning about billionaires not paying enough tax, then went on to say that her tax credits, HB and child benefit DOUBLED her part time salary, i gently pointed out that perhaps she could do another day and her reply was "i get tired working 3 days a week and i like to go to the gym on my 2 days off"

Dont get me wrong, i ve no problem anyone getting help esp if they can improve their lot, but thats not what is happening, we are just giving people a reason to stay as they are, whilst others pay for it.

You're a tory at heart mamba

I knew it!!!

rick_chasey

ukiboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

Or even Ponders End High Street. Spot an English shop on that stretch...

Presumably all the one-shop businesses are English, 'cos, y'know, they're in England and registered in England.

Unless that's not what you mean? Be more specific in your language.

It's not that difficult Rick. English shops = English businesses, shop front written in English, goods inside English or British. Not a shop front that an indigenous English person couldn't understand. I can't understand any of the shop fronts that are in Ponders End High Street as they're all written in a language that is foreign to me. Years ago I could understand them all as they were written in, you know, ENGLISH! As it should be. Seeing as we are in ENGLAND!

How are you defining indigenous? As in "indigenous English person" ??

briantrumpet

The trouble is, if it doesn't have English writing on the shop front, how am I going to know what it sells? This one could be selling spare car parts, for all I know.

bobmcstuff

ukiboy wrote:

Or even Ponders End High Street. Spot an English shop on that stretch...

Have you actually tried going into any of these places? There's a Polish bakery near me, it's really good.

mr_goo

briantrumpet wrote:

The trouble is, if it doesn't have English writing on the shop front, how am I going to know what it sells? This one could be selling spare car parts, for all I know.

Careful now. Some forum members might call you a racist and xenophobe for having a pop at a halal fruit and veg shop.

Stevo_666

Based on my experience from travelling round the world, dual language signs often help to avoid misunderstandings on this front.

bobmcstuff

There's a chippy near me which markets itself as being the area's "only English chippy". Anyway it's crap compared to the one just round the corner which is staffed entirely by Turkish people, so I stopped going.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

There's a chippy near me which markets itself as being the area's "only English chippy". Anyway it's crap compared to the one just round the corner which is staffed entirely by Turkish people, so I stopped going.

Think I know it. Bloke works there thinks hes Elvis

briantrumpet

Mr Goo wrote:

Some forum members might call you a racist and xenophobe for having a pop at a halal fruit and veg shop.

I might have a pop at them for not recognising what attitude I'm satirising.

slowmart

So when different nationalities start a business, pay tax , employ people and service the community they should conform to subjective opinions and display their signs in English? Mmmmmm. I've always believed that a business model met the needs of their customers?

I originally started the thread because I thought we were a better nation of people than the reality but that's too simplistic. It seems there is a lot of anger and frustration but theyre both emotions and emotions drive behaviours.

And that's the big issue, a lot of people are angry but they're all angry for different reasons so square that circle.

I don't see anyone politically with the gravitas, charisma and intellect in the current political landscape to offer real leadership which is what we need.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

As a uk born father of four, I still continue to get some tax credits in addition to disability benefits related to a disabled child. I get child benefit too. Anyone who lives and works in the country is welcome to equal access to benefits as far as I am concerned.

Yeah perhaps i can pay some more tax and you can have a 5th child?

so not only have you voted to leave the EU and p1ss ed me off in the process, now you tell me i m paying for you too, this is the really reason this country is going down hill, too many people are claiming and not enough are net tax payers.

A girl at work, moaning about billionaires not paying enough tax, then went on to say that her tax credits, HB and child benefit DOUBLED her part time salary, i gently pointed out that perhaps she could do another day and her reply was "i get tired working 3 days a week and i like to go to the gym on my 2 days off"

Dont get me wrong, i ve no problem anyone getting help esp if they can improve their lot, but thats not what is happening, we are just giving people a reason to stay as they are, whilst others pay for it.

You're a tory at heart mamba

lol!

the welfare state was designed as a safety net, things like the free further education, the open university have helped many improve their lot, whilst claiming benefits, almost all of this has gone under, i have to say it both labour and tory Governments.
I m more of a Frank Field type, the tories like labour now have lost their way.
its all very well claiming this benefit or that one but ultimately someone else is paying, the goal is take people out of benefits NOT by cutting them but allowing people to better themselves and thats what is missing in the UK.
Just because a woman is walking the high street with a couple of kids, doesn't mean her husband isnt working 80 hours a week, people who have the means and the will to seek a better life in the west or flee a war zone, tend to be some of the hardest working folk out there, putting indigenous white british to shame.

mr_goo

I don't care what language the sign has. Just so long as it has a modicum of being presented nicely.
Cannot stand to see these cheap signs with Photoshoped images of food, telecom stuff, pets, etc etc. What happened to classy sign writing?

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

I don't care what language the sign has. Just so long as it has a modicum of being presented nicely.
Cannot stand to see these cheap signs with Photoshoped images of food, telecom stuff, pets, etc etc. What happened to classy sign writing?

Is the 'Grocer's Apostrophe' part of English culture?

ballysmate

its all very well claiming this benefit or that one but ultimately someone else is paying, the goal is take people out of benefits NOT by cutting them but allowing people to better themselves and thats what is missing in the UK.

A laudable aim that we can probably all agree on.
Although I fear this may be old ground, what do you do about those who don't want to 'better themselves'? Those that are happy claiming all they can and not doing a day's work in their lives. Those that refuse to work more than 16 hours a week (I think that is the threshold) so that it doesn't impinge on their benefits?
You say the answer is not to cut their benefits, so what other options would you explore?

veronese68

briantrumpet wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

English shops = English businesses, shop front written in English, goods inside English or British. Not a shop front that an indigenous English person couldn't understand. I can't understand any of the shop fronts that are in Ponders End High Street as they're all written in a language that is foreign to me. Years ago I could understand them all as they were written in, you know, ENGLISH! As it should be. Seeing as we are in ENGLAND!

List of businesses on High Street in Ponders End


141
Euro Cars
Minicabs

Maybe that's the one that caused the problem. We voted OUT!!! They should change their name to British Cars for British People.

We'll ignore all the shops with English names, you know in English, shouldn't let little things like facts get in the way of justifying bias.

coopster_the_1st

Ballysmate wrote:

its all very well claiming this benefit or that one but ultimately someone else is paying, the goal is take people out of benefits NOT by cutting them but allowing people to better themselves and thats what is missing in the UK.

A laudable aim that we can probably all agree on.
Although I fear this may be old ground, what do you do about those who don't want to 'better themselves'? Those that are happy claiming all they can and not doing a day's work in their lives. Those that refuse to work more than 16 hours a week (I think that is the threshold) so that it doesn't impinge on their benefits?
You say the answer is not to cut their benefits, so what other options would you explore?

Increase the threshold to 20 hours but rather than cut the benefit paid by the extra money earned(e.g 4 x nation minimum wage hours), reduce the benefit paid by say 2.5 x NMW.

That way those on benefits will be 1.5xNMW hours better off, the state will be paying out less, etc. I don't think employers or employees will have problems finding the extra 4 hours of work especially as these jobs hours are around not breaching the benefit pay threshold.

Yes it does not sound like a lot, but at these levels it is a noticeable amount to those involved.

There is obviously a limit to the number of hours this can be increased to as many will be people working with school age children to work around but 20 hours is only 4 hours a day, 5 days a week.

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

its all very well claiming this benefit or that one but ultimately someone else is paying, the goal is take people out of benefits NOT by cutting them but allowing people to better themselves and thats what is missing in the UK.

A laudable aim that we can probably all agree on.
Although I fear this may be old ground, what do you do about those who don't want to 'better themselves'? Those that are happy claiming all they can and not doing a day's work in their lives. Those that refuse to work more than 16 hours a week (I think that is the threshold) so that it doesn't impinge on their benefits?
You say the answer is not to cut their benefits, so what other options would you explore?

Increase the threshold to 20 hours but rather than cut the benefit paid by the extra money earned(e.g 4 x nation minimum wage hours), reduce the benefit paid by say 2.5 x NMW.

That way those on benefits will be 1.5xNMW hours better off, the state will be paying out less, etc. I don't think employers or employees will have problems finding the extra 4 hours of work especially as these jobs hours are around not breaching the benefit pay threshold.

Yes it does not sound like a lot, but at these levels it is a noticeable amount to those involved.

There is obviously a limit to the number of hours this can be increased to as many will be people working with school age children to work around but 20 hours is only 4 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Something needs to be done, I don't know what or how. On a couple of occasions I've heard people in the warehouse say they are leaving becasue they might as well stay at home and collect benefits. Then they just get themselves sacked so they can sign on. Then there are others that have a work ethic, I've heard them say they'd much rather work and pay their own way than claim. How do you change the attitudes of people?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

its all very well claiming this benefit or that one but ultimately someone else is paying, the goal is take people out of benefits NOT by cutting them but allowing people to better themselves and thats what is missing in the UK.

A laudable aim that we can probably all agree on.
Although I fear this may be old ground, what do you do about those who don't want to 'better themselves'? Those that are happy claiming all they can and not doing a day's work in their lives. Those that refuse to work more than 16 hours a week (I think that is the threshold) so that it doesn't impinge on their benefits?
You say the answer is not to cut their benefits, so what other options would you explore?

How many people live like this? I mean, actually live like this.

If it's a really small amount, I'd be tempted to shrug my shoulders and carry on.

--

I've done some googling, to save you the effort ; first hit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... acts-myths

"Benefits in Britain, facts & myths" from April 2013.

What percentage of the UK's adult population is dependent on the welfare state?

The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners. The number of families receiving benefits will be between 1 and 2 million fewer now because of changes to child tax credits that mean some working families who previously got a small amount now get nothing.

How big is the problem of families on benefits where generations have never worked?

Patterns of work in working-age households
Patterns of work in working-age households.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.


For 2011-12 it is estimated that 0.8%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid as a result of fraud. This is far lower than the figures widely believed by the public, as revealed repeatedly in opinion polls. A TUC poll recently revealed that people believe 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

Hard to judge, and hard to generalise. There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months. For disability benefits, there are a lot more long-term claimants, of course. In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.

f unemployment benefits are reduced, do more claimants find work?

They may stop claiming – but not necessarily go to work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out a systematic review of international research on the impact of benefit sanctions. This finds, mainly from US research, that sanctions are successful in getting people off benefits, but this may be because they are dropping out of the system altogether, rather than going into decent work. European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits?
To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

Do any families get more than £100,000 a year in benefits, as George Osborne has claimed?

A freedom of information request by Full Fact showed that in August 2010, there were fewer than five housing benefit claimants receiving the equivalent of £100,000 a year.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

How many people live like this? I mean, actually live like this.

Well, I know quite few personally.
I won't claim it can be extrapolated, but they do exist. And their offspring appear to like the path.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

[ Do any families get more than £100,000 a year in benefits, as George Osborne has claimed?

A freedom of information request by Full Fact showed that in August 2010, there were fewer than five housing benefit claimants receiving the equivalent of £100,000 a year.

the point i was making, mainly to Mrpfb is that its all very well moaning about EU this that or the other but the reality is that if you ve 4 kids and reliant on working tax credits and DLA then maybe voting OUT and taking the hit on the eco down turn, saying oh well it ll be alright once it s all sorted out.... is going to mean that your even more reliant on those net tax payers...

the 'state needs to get a grip on working claimants earning extra money and losing benefit, perhaps an incremental sliding scale? certainly not the 70p in the pound reductions you get now, thats a heck of a tax rate!
the form filling for even a few extra hours encourages no one, HB gets stopped temporarily and getting hold of the 'council to get it reinstated is a pia.
the state should principally (in this case) be about getting people off benefits and earning much more than they were getting on the social, unfortunately, people see low paid. part time work as ok because the state will give them the extra for them to live on, so tell me, how can companies make super hi profits and dividend payouts yet pay their workers such low wages they have to go cap in hand to the state?
its just not what the welfare state was set up for.

DeVlaeminck

Veronese68 wrote:

Something needs to be done, I don't know what or how. On a couple of occasions I've heard people in the warehouse say they are leaving becasue they might as well stay at home and collect benefits. Then they just get themselves sacked so they can sign on. Then there are others that have a work ethic, I've heard them say they'd much rather work and pay their own way than claim. How do you change the attitudes of people?

Make them less rational you mean ?

mr_goo

As a customer of mine once said 'civilisation comes at a cost'. He meant taxes.

I for one feel privileged to live in a civilised country. Not a perfect country, but there is no such thing. Think of our much maligned NHS. When it's needed it's there for all. When Mrs Goo was recently admitted to Southampton General for a few days, never have I felt more grateful that we have the NHS. It's not going to be 100% perfect and foolproof, it just cannot be, as it's vast and staffed by humans. But my word is the care and medical resources excellent. Far, far better than in the 50s, 60s, 70s...

So do I recognise Britain as it is today. No. And jolly glad too.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Something needs to be done, I don't know what or how. On a couple of occasions I've heard people in the warehouse say they are leaving becasue they might as well stay at home and collect benefits. Then they just get themselves sacked so they can sign on. Then there are others that have a work ethic, I've heard them say they'd much rather work and pay their own way than claim. How do you change the attitudes of people?

Make them less rational you mean ?

The Japanese take what they need from the state - we take what we can so yes you need to make them less rational by changing people's attitude.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[ Do any families get more than £100,000 a year in benefits, as George Osborne has claimed?

A freedom of information request by Full Fact showed that in August 2010, there were fewer than five housing benefit claimants receiving the equivalent of £100,000 a year.

the point i was making, mainly to Mrpfb is that its all very well moaning about EU this that or the other but the reality is that if you ve 4 kids and reliant on working tax credits and DLA then maybe voting OUT and taking the hit on the eco down turn, saying oh well it ll be alright once it s all sorted out.... is going to mean that your even more reliant on those net tax payers...

the 'state needs to get a grip on working claimants earning extra money and losing benefit, perhaps an incremental sliding scale? certainly not the 70p in the pound reductions you get now, thats a heck of a tax rate!
the form filling for even a few extra hours encourages no one, HB gets stopped temporarily and getting hold of the 'council to get it reinstated is a pia.
the state should principally (in this case) be about getting people off benefits and earning much more than they were getting on the social, unfortunately, people see low paid. part time work as ok because the state will give them the extra for them to live on, so tell me, how can companies make super hi profits and dividend payouts yet pay their workers such low wages they have to go cap in hand to the state?
its just not what the welfare state was set up for.

agree with your sentiments -

WTC were an invention of a career politician who had no concept of the law of unintended consequences.

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work. To me it makes no sense that you tax with one hand and hand back with the other so a natural rate for taxation should be set at the same level as the benefit cap. This would also be the level that I would set the pension cap so freeing up even more money.

rolf_f

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

Or even Ponders End High Street. Spot an English shop on that stretch...

Presumably all the one-shop businesses are English, 'cos, y'know, they're in England and registered in England.

Unless that's not what you mean? Be more specific in your language.

It's not that difficult Rick. English shops = English businesses, shop front written in English, goods inside English or British. Not a shop front that an indigenous English person couldn't understand. I can't understand any of the shop fronts that are in Ponders End High Street as they're all written in a language that is foreign to me. Years ago I could understand them all as they were written in, you know, ENGLISH! As it should be. Seeing as we are in ENGLAND!

How are you defining indigenous? As in "indigenous English person" ??

Really disappointed we never got an answer to this one.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

Or even Ponders End High Street. Spot an English shop on that stretch...

Presumably all the one-shop businesses are English, 'cos, y'know, they're in England and registered in England.

Unless that's not what you mean? Be more specific in your language.

It's not that difficult Rick. English shops = English businesses, shop front written in English, goods inside English or British. Not a shop front that an indigenous English person couldn't understand. I can't understand any of the shop fronts that are in Ponders End High Street as they're all written in a language that is foreign to me. Years ago I could understand them all as they were written in, you know, ENGLISH! As it should be. Seeing as we are in ENGLAND!

How are you defining indigenous? As in "indigenous English person" ??

Really disappointed we never got an answer to this one.

I think it's someone who's never worked? Oh hang on, that's an indigent English Person.

It has to be said, mind you, that very few shops round here are run by indigenous English persons, and I would guess it's the same in Wales and NI too.

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Personally I would remove as many benefits as possible and use the savings to increase the tax free allowance. This would reduce admin costs which would free up more money and reduce disincentives to work.

Have you done the maths on this or is it just one of those ideas that sounds superficially ingenious but would be basically disastrous? Eg the amount of money saved would be a fairly small benefit to low income workers but the very worst off would be massively penalised (as they'd be paying for it).

For the lowest paid, this would have zero benefit at best, possibly negative.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

ukiboy wrote:

indigenous English person

How are you defining indigenous? As in "indigenous English person" ??

Really disappointed we never got an answer to this one.

I reckon we all know the answer to that. You and I would both fit as we look and sound English.