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.

I love ina town full of old folk and just about to retire couples whose kids are all adults. We can’t move from our way too small house because rarely do properties come up For sale publicly and the area is so desirable that when they do they’re over priced. Houses that do change hands generally get passed down to their kids or grandkids at a family rate but for the most part it’s couples in their 70s and 80s rattling around in large houses while young families like us squeeze into tiny homes with not enough rooms for us all

Oops forgot to add I do think there should be incentives to move people to smaller more appropriate homes

@Stinkywizzleteets

Oops forgot to add I do think there should be incentives to move people to smaller more appropriate homes

So how would that be to your advantage? As you imply the houses you want are out of your price range.

Define a large house the housing crisis is a result of several factors including ever increasing house prices and the cost of renting not to mention a lack of suitable housing so not sure how this would help.

I don't actually think building more small cramped new build style houses helps.

An example - I live in an area which is relatively cheap in the UK. We are currently in rung 2 (skipped 1 as it was overpriced and thus price difference was negligible to get to rung 2) - standard 3 bed semi, one car drive, alright garden. Roughly around 250k

We need to move to rung 3 - 4 bed semi or detached, drive for 2 cars, garage out front and bigger garden (it is work related and family related so necessary). You cant get this for 450k which is our new budget. Its 650/700+

Therefore I see no alternative than to go into BTL with our spare cash over the next couple of years to enable us an income to afford the big jump.

Many people I know in my area are having to do similar and are buying up starter homes all round the country.

We my conclusion is we need more decent 2nd/3rd rung type properties so FTB can move on up and make way without buying up loads of other small properties.

I currently live in a 5 bed detached so quite big, but there is no point in downsizing as there is nowhere to save the equity. Savings rates are zero so I'd be earning nothing on the money and living in a small house.

@nicebreeze 'enjoying spending the equity' - the trouble is, as we get older, we find that we have most things we need, so there is not a lot to spend any potential equity on. Not everyone likes cruises! Returns on investments, for the cautious investor, are very poor, so it makes sense to put (or keep) money in property where at least one is getting some enjoyment and security out of it. The 2 of us have plans to move, but to another 4 bed or even 5 bed, with a large garden, as that is my hobby. We want to spend our retirement in a lovely home with a lovely garden, not crammed into a retirement flat, where, heaven forbid, we would have to start sharing a bedroom again!
Anyway, there is absolutely no shortage of 3/4 beds here in the south west (they are building huge estates of them all the time), but, as I said before, they are too expensive for first time buyers.

@echt So how would that be to your advantage? As you imply the houses you want are out of your price range.

Because if more family homes were on the market, there would be less price pressure on family homes. Scarcity increases price. This would filter down. There might be more price pressure on 2 bed flats, but they require less space and better for families to be able to.ajift out of them and effectively swap. Definite need for basic economics lessons in this country, based on responses on this thread...

@OverTheRubicon

that's what makes community....we are all under lockdown right now to primarily protect the older generation

@nicebreeze

there is plenty of evidence that staying in family homes causes so many people mental and physical anguish

I see, so you would not just be happy 'killing grannies', you would like to seize their property too

Yes, your hearts are glowing with sheer benevolence and solidarity

Hypocritical to the extreme

@Stinkywizzleteets

for the most part it’s couples in their 70s and 80s rattling around in large houses while young families like us squeeze into tiny homes with not enough rooms for us all

How sweet...

Hasn't it occurred to you that they own their homes and they do not want to move? Why should they surrender them to you? Maybe you should have decided to have fewer children so you wouldn't be 'squeezed'?

[quote trulydelicious]**@OverTheRubicon

that's what makes community....we are all under lockdown right now to primarily protect the older generation

@nicebreeze

there is plenty of evidence that staying in family homes causes so many people mental and physical anguish

I see, so you would not just be happy 'killing grannies', you would like to seize their property too

Yes, your hearts are glowing with sheer benevolence and solidarity

Hypocritical to the extreme[/quote]
Don't try to paint me as something I'm not, please @OverTheRubicon. Housing and public health is something I spend a lot of time (academically, in my free time and professionally) thinking about and talking to people about. It's something that matters to me.

Some people may be perfectly happy with the status quo - lucky them - but there are many who struggle and the third sector spends a tonne of money and resource helping them and their families to cope. Why shouldn't the support be there in the new homes that are built? Why not look at better models, types and styles of homes that work elsewhere in the world? We have an ageing population and the way we deal with these problems now is just not unsustainable - the crisis of the future will be suitable homes and care for older people. It's completely avoidable, but there are so many people who can't see past their own experience (and some of them their own inheritance) to consider the problem and how to improve things for people.

The comment someone made about equity was that "old people have all they need and many don't like cruises". What about those for whom all their money is tied up in their house? What about new pastimes, learning new things, days out with family, friends, short trips, experiences, etc etc.

*not sustainable

This outlines some of the issues of older people stuck in unsuitable housing:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/_data/assets/pdfffile/0013/41440/factsheetolderrpeopleanddhousingmayy2007.pdf

• fuel poverty
• lack of adaptability / accessibility
• social exclusion
• trouble with maintenance of house
• poor access to services and facilities

Haven't read the full thread, but I completely agree OP. It seems such a pragmatic decision to me.

According to AgeUK

• Currently 9.3 million households are headed by a person over retirement age. By 2033, this is expected to increase to 13 million; an increase of 40 per cent on figures for 2008

• DCLG (now MHCLG) has projected that older households over 65 will represent almost half (48 per cent) of all household growth up to 2026

• By 2033, 19 per cent of the household population of England is projected to live alone, compared with 14 per cent

in 2008.

Another option would be to have a system like in some other countries where people build their house rather than buying it from a developer.

Then people can build their house with the number of bedrooms they want, with or wo stairs, etc etc.

The issue here is the lack of variety. You get whatever developers have decided is good FOR THEM. That means lots of bedrooms but very small rooms. Now houses built on 3 levels rather than 2 etc...
and surprise surprise you end up with houses that are very expensive, not always suitable for the needs of people but can put plenty of money in the developer pockets....

We have a large detached home .However my DD is still living at home and her friend rents a room as well! My friend (In her 50s like us)is moving to a bungalow but after some small renovations will probably not be much better off TBH. My SIL and my cousin (both in their 70s!)both have large detached properties but no wish to move .Older people have worked ,saved and paid high interest rates for many years.Now as we are getting more comfortable we are all supposed to move "down" and make way for younger people? No one did that for us!Most women then stayed at home or worked PT ,and the houses were cheaper but with only one main wage still a struggle to afford

@nicebreeze, this is why much earlier in in the thread I was saying that one of the big issues IS NOT the lack of family homes but the lack of bungalows etc.. suitable for older people (I’m thinking accessibility, size etc... there).

If there isn’t anything better around for older people, why will they move from the house where they have all their memories?

@dottiedodah

We have a large detached home .However my DD is still living at home and her friend rents a room as well! My friend (In her 50s like us)is moving to a bungalow but after some small renovations will probably not be much better off TBH. My SIL and my cousin (both in their 70s!)both have large detached properties but no wish to move .Older people have worked ,saved and paid high interest rates for many years.Now as we are getting more comfortable we are all supposed to move "down" and make way for younger people? No one did that for us!Most women then stayed at home or worked PT ,and the houses were cheaper but with only one main wage still a struggle to afford

This isn't about forcing people who love and are happy in their home to move and make way. It's about the many people who aren't! Everyone should feel as safe and happy as you do in a home that's right for them.

@nicebreeze you are misquoting me. I said that 'we have all that we need', meaning us as a couple. I wasn't relating that to everybody.
Yes, if money is tied up in your property and you are in need of cash, you might consider moving to a smaller house (never equity release, please). But we are not in that position, and in normal times we have plenty of sightseeing holidays and the other things you mention. (Not so sure about new experiences though - I don't fancy skydiving or swimming with sharks!). To be honest though, my biggest pleasure is horticulture, I would rather be dead than not have a garden.

@dottiedodah

the houses were cheaper but with only one main wage still a struggle to afford

House prices in general and the difficulty to afford them on one wage is probably the issue. The solution is not to kick the elderly out!

@dottiedodah, yep due to the fact there are very few bungalows where I live, one small bungalow with 1 bedroom and 1 box room is the same price than our 3 bed detached house.

I don’t think it’s as straight forward that downsizing = release equity....

Unless you assume everyone has a 4+ beds house...

I do think, like many above, we need better properties. We talk of downsizing, but even our 4 beds are rather pokey. Properties need to be better and more varied. People need to be consulted on their needs across all age ranges. I can't see myself downsizing, but I'd side step into a configuration that worked for me, with less bedrooms. Only there isn't anything out there. Maybe by the time Im older, someone would have sorted this out.

[quote TonMoulin]@nicebreeze, this is why much earlier in in the thread I was saying that one of the big issues IS NOT the lack of family homes but the lack of bungalows etc.. suitable for older people (I’m thinking accessibility, size etc... there).

If there isn’t anything better around for older people, why will they move from the house where they have all their memories?[/quote]
Well, quite! It's what I've said repeatedly here too. Under the current system there isn't enough benefit for many people in moving / downsizing, so people stay in homes that are too large and spend money adapting them, often to the detriment of their own health and well-being.

Imagine if we had subsidised, high quality schemes built close to shops, etc. with plenty of opportunity for moving around, mixing with other people in the community (young and old), some single storey, some just built to Lifetime standards to be liveable long terms. Or to HAPPI principles:

• Space and flexibility
• Daylight in the home and in shared spaces
• Balconies and outdoor space
• Adaptability and 'care ready' design
• Positive use of circulation space
• Shared facilities and 'hubs'
• Plants, trees, and the natural environment
• Energy efficiency and sustainable design
• Storage for belongings and bicycles
• External shared surfaces and 'home zones'