So what happens when we're all old and we don't own our homes?

[user8665410]

Genuine question.

I'm a millennial with no hopes of ever buying a property despite earning a decent income.

There are many in my situation.

What happens when we're all in our 70s, 80s and 90s - which we will be because medical technology keeps letting us live longer - and no longer able to work. Where will we live? Who will support us? Will we just get kicked out of our homes we've been renting for (potentially) decades??

My current rent is £2,585.00, the State won't be supporting that I'm sure.

Yep. There are lots up my way and not all in dodgy areas either. There’s a beautiful 3 bed semi with garden for £165k first time I looked.

I got a job first.

A family home in an expensive part of London costs considerably more than that.

Near us for 3 bedrooms you're looking at £750 a week (£3k a month) and that's not even for anything special. Four beds seem to start at around £4k, and a lot of people paying even more for e.g a decent garden.

I have a colleague living in a not particularly nice part of east London paying £2.5k for a two bedroom flat.

London rental prices are ludicrous. When I lived in a house share ten years ago I had to pay £1.5k for a room in a house I shared with four others, in an area where I got mugged three times.

I eventually felt so unsafe I had to move somewhere else at even greater cost.

My mum had to top up my salary each month until I progressed up the rungs. Even then I was permanently skint for ages.

It wasn't till I was in a couple with two incomes that things improved really.

Worth it in the end, as now have a very good salary as does my husband. But actually, the only reason we're in a good position house wise is because DH is quite a lot older and so has equity from getting on the housing ladder back when that was much easier.

So when all the people like the OP are moving to the city your dd lives in, and youll find that house prices skyrocket (because they are so used to much much higher prices) and unemployment goes up (because there are more people living there vs number of jobs on offer), what will happen?

Will your dd move to another more enpoverished area to be able to cope? Or will you expect the poorer from that city to do that?

The cheaper areas are not extensive areas that can simply absorb newcomers from expensive areas Wo any impact on said area.

Fwiw, I’m in the NE.
My house is worth about £200k. 3 bed detached in a nice area.

Similar house to rent is over £1000/month.
£2500 doesn’t feel crazy when adjusted to house prices tbh….

I’m a boomer,never voted Tory. None of my friends are Tories. I think people obsessed with the gender issue are far more likely to get the Tories re elected than boomers are.

We have free movement in this country last time I looked.
DD went to uni there and quite sensibly decided to say
She will buy a property there shortly and will work and contribute in that community.
She earns 30K not 30 million.
What would you like ?
Northern cities to become ghost towns with no key workers, services, talent, arts,wealth ?

a lot of Boomers and their children vote Tory to benefit from their own generational wealth.

That is true @desperatelyseekingnoone, as we can see on this thread. The problem is that many people forget that there's an element of luck in life - the difference between being a first generation university attendee in 1965 compared with today.

Of course people will vote from self interest but there comes a point in which fewer and fewer people will benefit from the current situation.

I was reading through all the replies above and had a sudden depressing thought that perhaps those wealthy enough to own their own homes are also more likely to be old enough to need care in their old age. Apparently the gap in life expectancy between the most deprived and the wealthiest has widened, mostly because the life expectancy of less wealthy people has shortened. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/25/growing-gap-in-healthy-life-expectancy-between-poorest-and-richest-in-england

Somebody upthreadvsaid she fears poorhouse will come back, but we could have large blocks of one bed flats. Basic but safe. There are so few one bed flats where I am even tho there are a really high number of single people now. It's "clogging" up two bed flats or 2 bed town houses/arts which are the normal size of home. 3 bed houses are similarly often inhabited by couples.

So build THOUSANDS of one beds.

This is what 2.5k gets you in Ealing: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/138571847

And in Walthamstow: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/135765638

And in Brixton: https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/138497039

None exactly palatial. It's mad.

@SusiePevensie the last one is balham but I agree

According to ONS only 35% of homes in owner occupation were owned by over 65's. Most of those will probably have their assets seized to pay for care anyway, and according to MN lore, anything the state doesn't get must be equally shared between whoever thinks they are entitled to inherit to the point where their share will possibly cover the cost of a meal after the funeral. By the time the houses appear on the market as affordable they will be vacant slums.

McCarthy stone certainly seem very active in my area with their shared ownership and rental schemes.

Despite the whole houses being sold for care thing actually it's only 15% of the elderly who go into CH.
Out of those 35% are self funders and 65% state funded( ONS stats)
The vast majority pass on their wealth.

@Notamushroomwearer the model will have to change though as it's not sustainable with an ageing population. Care in the home will likely have to be self funded or there just won't be much care available.

I think there will be State owned and run retirement complexes. Basic bed-sitting rooms with toilet and shower but communal meals. The State could withhold State Pension of each occupant apart from a modest amount of "pocket money" each week.

I'm not advocating such a scheme but I can see it being so.

the model will have to change though as it's not sustainable with an ageing population

Especially if we continue to be so hostile to migration.

& before someone says care in the home is means tested the model doesn't include house wealth in that.

I completely agree. I bought my first house with a 100% mortgage. I’d still be renting now if that hadn’t been an option.

Perhaps 100% mortgages should become standard as long as the eligibility for them is based on a proven record of meeting rent payments over a year or 18 months. Probably not much more innately risky for lenders.

My parents didn't have their own home and I don't know any of their contemporaries that did. Home ownership was quite rare. However they had a council house so secure tenancy and their rent was paid or heavily subsidised when they were no longer able to pay it themselves.
Home ownership isn't necessary when there is enough good quality social housing.
Sadly people were sold the dream of owning their own home, council houses started being sold and they were never replaced.

Aye, the middle class ponzi leasehold scheme

Surely that would just push up house prices further by increasing the number of buyers without increasing the number of properties available?
What we need is more houses/flats. I've said before, the private sector has completely and utterly failed to provide decent affordable homes for people. It's long past time the state should has stepped in with mass building of council houses. Big problem with that though is NIMBYISM. Older people, comfortably housed (just like me) who have no idea how tough things are for young people (or just don't care) object to building. They are also a very powerful voting lobby so, in fairness to politicians, will boot out any politician who dares try to stand up to them.

I completely agree. It would be in my manifesto if I was a prospective PM - what a vote winner!