A SENSIBLE measure aimed at cutting benefits abuse or a cut targeted at North East Lincolnshire's poorest residents?
Grimsby Telegraph readers – like the rest of Britain – are divided on whether the Government's sweeping welfare reforms are, as it claims, a means of bringing "fairness back to the system".
As reported, in North East Lincolnshire, one in five of Shoreline Housing Association's tenants – up to 1,600 people – under-occupy their homes and are in receipt of benefits due to unemployment or because they have such a low income.
It means many people claiming benefits who "under-occupy" their homes by one room are being faced with the choice of paying an average of £14 per week to "top-up" their rent or move to a smaller property.
Those with more than one spare room will have to meet a shortfall in their housing benefit of 25 per cent.
Many claim they simply can't afford the additional expenditure, but the costs of moving – both financial and emotional – also have to be taken into account, with some families being forced to leave behind family, friends and community support.
However, many other readers feel levels of benefits are already higher than they should be, adding they should be there simply to cover the basics to tide people over while looking for work, not to fund a way of life.
Here are a selection of your comments:
FOR REFORM Mr_Normal: "Every time I go to a warehouse, a cafe, a shopping centre or visit a farm, I find Eastern Europeans happily working there – in other words they've got on their bikes and got a job. I worked on a farm, I worked washing up in a restaurant, I worked in an amusement arcade, I worked as a security guard...I did all this while looking for and eventually getting a better job. I very strongly suspect the UK's generous welfare provision is a disincentive for many of its beneficiaries to go and get a job. AndyThursday: "The sooner we move away from an absolute right or entitlement for people on benefits to have the same lifestyle and luxuries as those that pay for it out of their own pocket the better. The welfare system was not designed for, nor can afford to pay people for internet, TV, nights out, cigarettes, alcohol etc. It is only there as a safety net, so people don't starve or live on the streets, and this is something I completely agree with. I don't agree that our taxes should pay for any luxuries, including TV. notworthit: "We are very fortunate to have a welfare system that is the envy of greater parts of Europe and perhaps the world. Where we are unfortunate is because of that system some feckless duckers and divers have avoided their responsibilities in providing for themselves and their families. The burden for doing so rests instead on the taxpayer. In my opinion social housing has proved a cancer in our society. I recall living among people in the 1940's and 1950's who were so grateful to have such wonderful council housing away from the grotty slums that made up so much rented housing in Grimsby. Now, some areas have been allowed to decline because the tenants just do not appreciate what they have and how easily they have come to it. I suspect those who express resentment at a policy which has allowed this growing problem to remain unchecked are those that have worked hard in order to provide for their families and feel the burden of taxation is increasingly being placed squarely on the shoulders of ordinary working people, who already have enough problems of their own to deal with." by anono25: "I'm all for the cuts. It was done to private housing a few years ago. Why should the Government and tax payers pay for people to have spare bedrooms when often working families are over crowded and can't afford to move into bigger housing? As I have always said, the more you pay into the system the less you get out. If people want to live a life with luxuries then this has to be worked for, not handed on a plate. I work for my money, my husband works and at young ages my children already know Mummy and Daddy go to work for pennies to buy nice things for them and if we didn't work we wouldn't get pennies." delboy1900: "Why do these people who claim benefits and live off the state feel so hard done by? There is an alternative....get a job! This country does not owe you a living and neither do I as a taxpayer! I'm sick and tired of hearing all the moaning in the press from people living on benefits! I work over 50 hours a week and I have to juggle finances. I don't have Sky or Virgin. AGAINST REFORM theshunter: "To all you hard workers, you might have a job now but for how much longer? Think about your kids and their kids. Will there be jobs for them, or even benefits?! To those that keep telling people to get out and get a job, have a look around and see what jobs are out there, then look and see how many people are out of work! Please come back and list all the jobs you find! Benefits ...It could be you." by lizidrip: "I can see how successful the Tory propaganda has been locally. There are so many comments damning those on benefits, with no consideration as to whether or not they actually made that choice. Comments as usual are rife with discrimination and racism and there is so much anger and hatred against anyone living in a house that some rich Tory finds inappropriate. There has been no sympathy shown for those who are now below the breadline, those who are on benefits due to no fault of their own, or those who have a disability. There has been no anger at the way the NHS has been decimated and how treatment is cost dependant. No concern that the price of food and fuel has increased rapidly since the Tories got in and concern that tax and NI have gone up, but services have gone down. No one seems to mind that although "we are all in this together" the Tories have still got their huge pensions, their rent free/subsidised housing, their subsidised bars and eateries and do not forget their expenses. But then why should anyone mind if someone has to move out of the home they have lived in and paid rent on for 40 + years? The Tories don't and it looks like most of the inhabitants of Grimsby don't either. You shame what was once a great town full of great and caring people" by Corrina1971: "We do class luxuries as essentials nowadays. For example, it is expected for children to have access to internet and a printer for school. It's not a necessity, as there are other places to get free internet other than home, but it's the stigma of not being able to afford home internet. Since losing my husband two years ago, my whole life has gone belly up. It has been hard to organise finances. I've sold sentimental stuff to stay afloat. But it's just stuff. I'm lucky I had stuff to sell. I'm getting there, I will get a job in the next year. The way I see it, when my daughter leaves home, I will need to be self supporting. I'm lucky to get as much as I do, but it's only because I have my daughter. Her father has paid nothing, but I wouldn't set the CSA on a rabid dog. My husband supported her as his own, and she has really taken his loss to heart. She still goes to school in Louth every day. Why should she suffer losing friends too? It's crippling to cope, but you have to cut your cloth accordingly. Life is hard, very hard. We see it as the norm to have cable/sky tv, fast internet, takeaways etc, but it's not. I'm so lucky. I have my daughter, and because of her I can scrape by, living in a house, keeping my dog and cats (my lifeline since my husband died). It's hard because I want to give her more. Without my daughter, I would have nothing and be in a bedsit or shared house. You have to get things into perspective. I think we are lucky to have a welfare system. It may not be perfect, but at least we have one."