To think more people should be incentivised to downsize?

[Sprockerdilerock]

I'm sure I will be flamed but here goes.

I know so many older adults who live in family size homes long after their children have left. Would it not be better for the government to offer incentives eg no stamp duty, removal costs paid for them to downsize to free them up for those that need them more?

We do have a housing shortage and I get that we could always build more homes, but we are also heading towards a climate crisis and surely it's better to use what resources we do have more efficiently and plough less energy into creating more.

My MIL is case in point - she still lives in the home my DH and his siblings grew up and often expresses a wish to downsize but she doesn't have a lot of money to spend on things like legal costs etc.

@Wotsitsarecheesy

"But surely the money to pay for the legal (etc) aspects of the move comes from the equity she will have freed up selling her family home?"

In many cases, because a smaller bungalow is around the same price as a family home there isn't any equity to realease by downsizing (unless to the the sort of 'starter home' that retirees generally don't want). A friend's parents found that downsizing to a smaller bungalow with a nice garden wasn't possbile as the 2 bed bungalow they liked was barely cheaper than the 4 bed house they were in (same area), and the small price difference was less than the stamp duty/legal fees. They couldn't afford to pay this, so stayed put.

This. Exactly this.

Many would have to spend all the money they get selling their house to replace it with something smaller. No thanks.

Or.... downsize, free up some equity and help your off-spring before you die

@Livelovebehappy

Loads of big family houses available where I live. It’s the smaller first time buyer houses that are in short supply. Its a myth put about by people with their own agendas.

Agreed. There is lots of 3 beds around where I am and for what I would say still quite an affordable prices. But! It looks like snobs realised this postcode might not mean they get murdered in their front garden so prices are rising quite quickly. You can still get a bargain sometimes.

I don't believe that paying out of public funds to fund the legal fees of people sitting in large properties that they will doubtless sell at a huge profit is a good use of public money. I suspect it would be better spent building affordable public housing. Wealthy people have no trouble buying bigger homes. The problem is affording to buy in the first place and having enough for a deposit or being trapped in poor quality private rentals because the govment have not invested in building social housing.

We've downsized, I hate it.

At least where I live, try looking for a 3+ bed home and you end up with a lot badly maintained HMOs & people trying to sell homes where every reception room is a 'bedroom', and that's before getting to entire streets where large homes have been carved in into smaller and smaller flats. There are far more business reasons for a lack of bigger homes than just older people.

If we divide up everyone into smaller houses, with a cooker in each house, and all the rest, that seems both environmentally and socially to have a long list of issues. We need to rethink housing anyways - for environmental and other social reasons, people are having small families, but even pre-COVID there was a lot of writing about the 'epidemic of loneliness'. There needs to be a balance between overcrowding and rattling around, but there is no reason to push people to live alone at their end of their lives.

Personally, when statistically I'm quite likely the last one standing out of the adults I currently live with and I'm already in the process of moving to accessible home, the idea I'm going to lose them and then be pressured to move, knowing smaller does not mean more accessible automatically, that fills me dread.

Ideally, if the statistics hold out and I don't need far more care, I'd like to have older lady housemates when I'm old - I know plenty of women who rent and likely will be in later life, I could rent out rooms for less than private, maybe leave a room for a shared live-in carer... it'll take some legal paperwork to make sure they're protected if I go first, but I'd rather have my home adapted for older age with older people in most/all the bedrooms rather than downsize because my children have moved out. I mean, technically I could be an empty nester at 45, but many adults end up back with their parents for a whole host of reasons or I could do a whole host of things with the other rooms for others.

I think it depends a bit what you mean by downsize and also plan.

I'm not sure governments should really interfere, but there should be more openess and discussion about planning for your life when you reach an age where you're frail. I know of a situation where someone is living in a place where you have to drive, it's very remote and family are 25 minutes (min) away. The relative is now overwhelmed by their house, but also by the prospect of moving and is also on the verge of losing their ability to drive safely. It would have been much better if while they were younger and more able they'd planned and settled somewhere with at least basic amenities (shop/bus route/post office), because they would have then been able to keep their independance much longer. As it happens, their reluctance to move will result in them becoming housebound before their time.

On principle I'd agree, but then you have people like my relative who doesn't want to leave the house she raised her children in, the garden with all the plants she took from her own parents' garden, where she sat with her husband before he passed, where she can enjoy peace and quiet and where her pets are safe. She'd have to manage emptying and moving from a large victorian house on her own. She's lived in 2 houses in her life, that one after she married and her parents' before that.

Even though the house is too big and she struggles to manage the garden, her whole life has been there. She was bitterly critical of my granny who was in the same situation on the 80's and wanted her to move to a retirement home. I'll bet she understands why granny didn't move now. Financial incentives and all the help in the world won't make her want to leave all that behind.

I believe in free will and free markets.

People should live where they want if they can afford it. Age and marital status are irrelevant.

wouldn't help with anything where we live there about 80% of housing stock are bungalows. The price of these are astronomical purely driven by the fact people downsize into them they have plenty to spend on them so push prices up .

I like the maisonette solution - 2 dwellings in 1 building, each with their own front door and (if designed right) access to their own bit of garden. The downstairs one functions as a bungalow, the upstairs one more suitable for younger people (but before children, pushchairs etc become an issue). I don't think many are built now, though.

I agree OP.
FWIW we downsized - best thing we ever did.

I intend to sell our family home when I'm about 68-70 (if I'm lucky to live that long). I want to move nearer to the shops and facilities (drs, dentist, optician) so I don't have to drive. I don't want the hassle of maintaining a large house and garden. i want to be somewhere that works when I get frail. I do not want to be MIL rattling around a large house, worrying about maintenance and dreaming dreams of big family get togethers which will never happen. But I'm not sure DH will agree.

Downsizing doesn’t mean just getting a smaller property. You could move to somewhere a lot poorer and cheaper like the North.

@Walkacrossthesand

I like the maisonette solution - 2 dwellings in 1 building, each with their own front door and (if designed right) access to their own bit of garden. The downstairs one functions as a bungalow, the upstairs one more suitable for younger people (but before children, pushchairs etc become an issue). I don't think many are built now, though.

Read the washing machine at night in a terrace house thread.

But then we have even more of an "affordable" housing crisis.

People are not struggling getting hold of 7 bed houses, it's affordable 2/3 bed houses.

Hmm not really. I don’t think there’s a lack of larger properties, it’s just some people can’t afford them. The incentive could be for them to get better paid jobs?

If someone owns their house, they can do what they want with if as it’s theirs and funded by them.

I do agree with the above incentive for housing association/council properties though. It’s the HA that owns them and there’s such a shortage of affordable rental properties, that it doesn’t seem right someone can be sitting with a 3 bed property as a single person.

I think they should move people accordingly for the greater good.

@BubblyBarbara

Downsizing doesn’t mean just getting a smaller property. You could move to somewhere a lot poorer and cheaper like the North.

But what if you are already the poor one in the north😂

@Walkacrossthesand

I like the maisonette solution - 2 dwellings in 1 building, each with their own front door and (if designed right) access to their own bit of garden. The downstairs one functions as a bungalow, the upstairs one more suitable for younger people (but before children, pushchairs etc become an issue). I don't think many are built now, though.

Again, London is chock full of them

I don't think the world is full of people who want to downsize to one of those either. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood but it seems as if you are presenting that as a solution? I realise many will prefer a maisonette to a flat with communal doors but that's the only difference isnt it?

@BubblyBarbara

Downsizing doesn’t mean just getting a smaller property. You could move to somewhere a lot poorer and cheaper like the North.

You might already live there.

And drink alcohol and have sex in the morning, just like people in the South. And all over the world. (sorry, it had to be done)
😂

Where I live there has been thousands of new builds, all described as luxury 3/4/5/6 bed houses, yet people around here want and need affordable starter homes.
I think the government needs to delegate more harshly and insist that local councils elect to more realistic housebuilding. All that we're currently doing is attracting even more Londoners ( I live in Kent.) We need local, affordable housing.
However, I live in a four bedroomed detached house and have lived here for over 20 years. It's our family home. However, you'd be more than welcome to bid on it...there are no en-suites , as there's no room for one, our kitchen is small with no room for even a tiny table and the main bathroom is so tiny that if you were wanting to swing a cat , you literally wouldn't be able to.
I gather that my four bedroomed house would now barely fit a 2/3 bedroomed new build.

So no, I don't agree with you.
My husband and I have spent over 30 years , both working with only a couple of years of my staying at home, to afford our nest. Your proposal does not seem fair.

A woman I spoke to said she only bought hers because she was worried the council would force her to later on
Often people buy them on interest-only mortgages because they’re afraid of being evicted. My mum’s neighbour had to go and look after his mum when she was dying. After 3-4 weeks people started reporting him to the council. Saying it was a disgrace that he had a council house he wasn’t using, he should be evicted and the house given to someone else etc. The main culprit was probably the lady three doors along who wanted the house for her daughter. Bear in mind this man was paying the rent etc. He was worried that when his mum died he wouldn’t have a home to come back to - so he bought it on an interest-only mortgage with a big discount.

I don’t think there’s a lack of larger properties, it’s just some people can’t afford them
This is the problem. Our council has done numerous assessments showing we need starter homes and bungalows but developers just keep building 4 bed detached. I actually think there needs to be a quota and developers shouldn’t be allowed to build unless they’re building the most needed house types.

@BubblyBarbara

Downsizing doesn’t mean just getting a smaller property. You could move to somewhere a lot poorer and cheaper like the North.

And leave all your friends and community. Why would you? Why should you?

Some posters seem to be assuming that older people would HAVE to downsize, whereas the OP is only suggesting some incentives to do so.
It wouldn’t be mandated, there’d simply be some tax benefits/assistance available if you decided to do some. That was my assumption anyway, but people are getting so upset!