AS reported, the issue has divided Grimsby Telegraph readers between those who are for the reforms and those against. You can comment on this at www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk
Here are a selection of your comments:
FOR REFORM
robyn27: "The bedroom tax is not putting people out their homes. It's merely saying if you want a bigger house you have to pay for it. Social housing has the cheapest rents available. I am a single parent and I work two jobs to support myself and my daughter. I have a two bedroom property, which is all I need to keep us in the right catchment area for school and able to afford to pay bills etc. People have a choice and yes, people will say there are no jobs, childcare issues and inflexibility with employers – at what point do these become excuses?"
andygy: "I would like an extra bedroom, but it would cost me circa £40,000 to move up, or £25,000 to extend where I currently live. It would cost me a lot more than £20 a week. If they are not happy about the new parameters on benefits, then get a job and pay your own way, or downsize. You're getting something for nothing and still complaining!"
AGAINST REFORM
Chixxey: "I don't think the issue here is about releasing larger under-occupied properties for families that are currently living in overcrowded conditions. I know it's a contentious issue, but I have four single pensioners occupying two three-bedroomed and two four-bedroomed properties within yards of where I live, but they are all exempt from the bedroom tax. They are hardly likely to have any more children, thus justifying them staying in such large properties. For those who have commented that they are working and therefore paying via taxation for benefit claimants to reside in such large properties, how do you feel about "paying for" these folk? There are something like 750,000 pensioners, most living in Spain, who all still claim their winter fuel allowance and Christmas bonus, as recently reported, so it isn't just the working age folk who appear to be "scroungers", is it?
AndrewClee: "Why do we all assume that the people who are unemployed now have always been unemployed? My brother is going to be affected by this but, I have to say, he worked solidly for 40 years and paid into the system for 40 years. He had no children but 60 per cent of his council tax still went into children's services. He has until recently never asked for a thing back. Now he has fallen on hard times, after financing several families over the years less fortunate than himself he feels that he has been cast adrift. Can we all remember, not every unemployed person is lazy ... this is just what Cameron wants us workers to believe. How many MPs will have spare bedrooms in their second homes financed by us?"
plodplayer: "The whole point is there are not any smaller properties for people to move into and, with unemployment rising, they are using it as an excuse to tax the poor. The majority of people on benefit are not scroungers and would work if they could. There are those who milk the system but charging all to deal with the minority is not the answer."
MufftyWednesday: "I can understand this applying to people with a dozen or more kids being housed in million pound-plus houses, but that's using common sense which nobody in this government seems to have. Why can't they be housed in two or three normal houses next door to each other ... got to be a cheaper way of doing it?"
A letter writer is for change – Viewpoint pages 14 & 15.