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 should have guessed nicebreeze worked on the sector. I really hope it's not paid by the taxpayer but it probably is"

Why do you say that, @AcornAutumn?

@theleafandnotthetree

I find it really odd that people make decisions to stay in a far-too-large for them family home with all of the cost and hassle involved with cleaning, heating, maintenance for the sake of what is in most cases, the few nights a year that grown-up children/grandchildren might stay with them. God forbid they might stay on a sofa bed or children sleep on a blow-up mattress. It makes me think of those Escape to the Country programmes where people are downsizing but must have a dining room for Christmas dinner (and maybe Easter). Ok, so you want to spend 20 or 30 k extra on a house for the sake of a couple of days of the year...

You may find that odd, but it's choice - if that's what gives someone pleasure then why shouldn't they have a dining room? For many people being able to eat in a separate room, away from distractions, is important and they dislike open plan living for that reason. Choice is key

@nicebreeze

Everyone always talks about "affordable housing" but it needs to be somewhat specified what the affordable housing actually is. That should be done by regions.

It's defined as 80% of market rate - sale or rented. Does that mean affordable?

In my postcode even without is is affordable. 3 postcodes away. That would make it about 250k?

Surely affordability is about the relationship between income and the cost of housing, if working people can't afford homes then homes are too expensive
as said homes are not the same as other goods, if diamond necklaces aren't affordable it doesn't matter all that much, things like health care education and housing need to be within everyone's reach because they are basic requisites for life, you cannot be a functioning member of society without a home

@theleafandnotthetree

I find it really odd that people make decisions to stay in a far-too-large for them family home with all of the cost and hassle involved with cleaning, heating, maintenance for the sake of what is in most cases, the few nights a year that grown-up children/grandchildren might stay with them. God forbid they might stay on a sofa bed or children sleep on a blow-up mattress. It makes me think of those Escape to the Country programmes where people are downsizing but must have a dining room for Christmas dinner (and maybe Easter). Ok, so you want to spend 20 or 30 k extra on a house for the sake of a couple of days of the year...

It's also not odd at all! As people get older they have growing families (grandchildren, great-grandchildren) and as mobility decreases they socialise less and less (crap bus service, community facilities closing, etc) and time with family becomes increasingly important. Social isolation is a HUGE problem for older people. This, coupled with the fact that children/grandchildren often don't have space for parents and grandparents to come and stay, means staying in a larger home is often the only option!

redsquirrelfan "People always have excuses for why they need a 4 bed house when there are only two of them, "

What's an "excuse"? If you want the space, you can afford the space, have the space.

@Yohoheaveho

Surely affordability is about the relationship between income and the cost of housing, if working people can't afford homes then homes are too expensive as said homes are not the same as other goods, if diamond necklaces aren't affordable it doesn't matter all that much, things like health care education and housing need to be within everyone's reach because they are basic requisites for life, you cannot be a functioning member of society without a home

Exactly! The formula for a local authority to work out their house need takes account of affordability. So expensive area = higher housing target.

As though flooding the market with more of the same will really lower house prices. What happens is developers drip feed the homes to keep prices high.

The affordability definition doesn't take affordability into account at all.

99.9% of people wouldn't be able to afford the house my DP's "rattle around" in so unless there was some sort of scheme where either they would be short changed on something they have chosen to spend thier money on, or the Government intervened to provide the shortfall (which is just what we need, more state intervention - NOT) this scheme really wouldn't work.

In addition, there is talk about mental and physical anguish if old people stay in the houses they have had for all these years. Really?! Especially now, when most older people have had all the cornerstones of their life taken away by lockdown, there are people who would genuinely move these people out of a place they know for their own good?!

Finally, those who say they can't afford to move. What a load of rubbish. Using a simple maths example - if a house if worth £500k, even if cost of moving was 10% or £50k that would leave them £450k to downsize. They can afford to move, the majority chose not to.

Coming back to my first point, the problem is money not housing, and as i say unless you are shortchanging people or encouraging government intervetion, it won't work.

@Sprockerdilerock The only way I can see your idea working in the way you wish, would be for those in large houses to downsize and their large house with associated decent plot be replaced by two or three more modest homes? It seems that would make the most difference to the market, providing more and more modestly-sized, family homes?

You may find that odd, but it's choice - if that's what gives someone pleasure then why shouldn't they have a dining room? For many people being able to eat in a separate room, away from distractions, is important and they dislike open plan living for that reason. Choice is key

Oh absolutely, but often people don't make choices as such, or have proper conversations about these, they just drift into situations where in some cases people end up in wholly unsuitable living situations because there are assumptions or lack of decision-making on all sides. Elderly parents think they have some kind of obligation to keep the 'family home' and provide bedrooms, storage space etc for grown up children and their offspring. Offspring might find that suits them too or don't want the hassle of helping their parents to move or are afraid to raise the topic so situations just drift on which ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE PARENTS BEST INTERESTS. I am not at all for putting pressure on people to move if things work for them in terms of community, feelings of security etc. but I think what often happens is that in the absence of some really good life planning and honest conversations, people genuinely do end up in houses which are totally unsuitable for them and a source of worry and stress (I can't keep the garden the way I like, how can I afford to fill the oil tank AGAIN, I can't keep it as clean as I would like, etc.)

That's the entire point though! Property is in part so outrageously expensive because people are holding onto much larger places than they need. It's not like diamond necklaces, where your owning one doesn't affect how others have to live

So then would you agree that childless couples also shouldn't live in large houses with more than one bedroom?

Because if you are going to adopt that viewpoint it should apply to EVERYONE not just people over a certain age.

Also- people with one child shouldn't live in houses with more than 2 bedrooms- after all, they only need two right?

People with 2 kids shouldn't live in houses with 4 bedrooms either because thats one extra that could be used for a family of 5.....

The old people your complaining about op often brought up 4 dc in a 3 bed house.

I've never had my own bedroom. And yet MN constantly harp on about dc having their own rooms. Not very environmentally friendly.
I'm not saying bring up 8 dc in a 2 bed house but it's not a hardship for 2 dc to share.

@theleafandnotthetree

You may find that odd, but it's choice - if that's what gives someone pleasure then why shouldn't they have a dining room? For many people being able to eat in a separate room, away from distractions, is important and they dislike open plan living for that reason. Choice is key

Oh absolutely, but often people don't make choices as such, or have proper conversations about these, they just drift into situations where in some cases people end up in wholly unsuitable living situations because there are assumptions or lack of decision-making on all sides. Elderly parents think they have some kind of obligation to keep the 'family home' and provide bedrooms, storage space etc for grown up children and their offspring. Offspring might find that suits them too or don't want the hassle of helping their parents to move or are afraid to raise the topic so situations just drift on which ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE PARENTS BEST INTERESTS. I am not at all for putting pressure on people to move if things work for them in terms of community, feelings of security etc. but I think what often happens is that in the absence of some really good life planning and honest conversations, people genuinely do end up in houses which are totally unsuitable for them and a source of worry and stress (I can't keep the garden the way I like, how can I afford to fill the oil tank AGAIN, I can't keep it as clean as I would like, etc.)

Completely agree. I think also the current generation of over 75s are often the first generation to own their own homes and have had decades of being told owning their own castle is the pinnacle of progress and also an "investment" for their children.

Upshot is, as you say, people start off keeping the home for emotional reasons, they like the garden, they want the grandchildren to stay and they can afford it. By their 80s the grandchildren have grown up, they can't maintain the house and garden themselves, their income is less than it was wrt costs of maintenance. The house may be difficult to adapt for mobility and health issues.

Lack of life planning is definitely an issue and I've seen it in my own family where the younger generation has really wished their over 80s in poor health had made the move in their 70s rather than hanging on to a large property to ensure an "inheritance". Most of us I think would prefer our elders to enjoy life including in the 4th age than max out every last £ of an inheritance.

Really ageist, jealous rubbish being touted. It's quite simple really. Pe6who have worked hard to save and move up the property ladder get to a point where they can enjoy it. Many didn't have golden ladders many established lifestyles that made it more affordable.
Married or committed couples are in a better position than single parent households usually. Maybe dont have lots of children you can't accommodate? Maybe save and get on the ladder before having children?
Move around to take advantage of cheaper housing. Take on properties you can do up or extend and put the work in.
Go without many of the luxuries young people now consider essential.
We're thinking about up sizing or extending ss we approach retirement. We can do ladders just fine. We can maintain our properties just fine. In fact, we had to fit our daughter's new dishwasher because young people have no ability to tackle such things.

W want enough space for the children to stay with any children they may have. We want income from use as Airbnb accommodation.
We want sufficient reception space to party.

The problem with this policy is that there will be a very high level of deadweight. Many older people will be downsizing anyway so you would be effectively paying them to do what they would be doing anyway.

Property owners already have the option to downsize
However, imagine that a person has lived there for 70+ years. Perhaps they don't want to move away from their family, friends, neighbours. Perhaps their social clubs, doctors, shops, hospitals & local transport are easy assessible. It is not just about the property, but their local community

Some people don't like change, they like familiarity

However, I have downsized & it didn't have any negatives.

In fact, we had to fit our daughter's new dishwasher because young people have no ability to tackle such things

Ain't that the truth. My daughter moved house to be closer to us
as we age. (Late 60s) My dh had to go clear their drains this morning and fitted their washing machine last week. We're more capable of maintaining their property than they are. Never mind Learning curves.

because young people have no ability to tackle such things.

That's ageist too😂

@ChippyChickenChips

In fact, we had to fit our daughter's new dishwasher because young people have no ability to tackle such things

Ain't that the truth. My daughter moved house to be closer to us
as we age. (Late 60s) My dh had to go clear their drains this morning and fitted their washing machine last week. We're more capable of maintaining their property than they are. Never mind Learning curves.

Yeah, I think its extremely lame to suggest older people should downsize because they cant maintain their properties.

When I was in my 20s I had no clue about DIY, house maintenance or anything to do with repairs and neither did any of my peers. Thats why you hire people to do it

It could be encouraged through the council tax system.

At the moment a 3-bed house with 4 people could pay £1200 council tax whilst next door, a single person in the same 3-bed house pays £900 with their 25% discount. For this 3-bed house, a real "bedroom tax" of £200 per unoccupied bedroom would result in 3 or more people paying £1200, 2 people paying £1400, and a single person £1200 (£1600 with 25% discount). Maybe the 25% single occupancy discount could be reduced as well.

Something like this would give a real financial incentive to downsize, with more savings the quicker you do it.

@jcyclops

It could be encouraged through the council tax system.

At the moment a 3-bed house with 4 people could pay £1200 council tax whilst next door, a single person in the same 3-bed house pays £900 with their 25% discount. For this 3-bed house, a real "bedroom tax" of £200 per unoccupied bedroom would result in 3 or more people paying £1200, 2 people paying £1400, and a single person £1200 (£1600 with 25% discount). Maybe the 25% single occupancy discount could be reduced as well.

Something like this would give a real financial incentive to downsize, with more savings the quicker you do it.

That just wouldn't go down well because essentially you are fining owners for doing ebtter than some think they should

I would love to not have to have a 4 bed house with garage, 2 car drive, large garden etc. Because it would mean we can afford all manner of gorgeous unique houses for our budget.

We run a landscape design, construction & management business from our standard 3 bed semi (2 double, 1 box).

We do NEED a decent four bed because we need a double room for our office rather than the box - think a1 printers, scanners, computer stations etc.

We need a two car drive minimum because we need to run vans.

We need an accessible garage because we have a lot of equipment to run and we need a bigger garden because half my garden can be filled with sundries and peoples plants at any one time.

Its easy to say oh no one needs that. I would love to not need that honestly. I would buy a gorgeous 2 bed flat in a converted country house with shared communal gardens and giant georgian windows and that would be easily within my budget.

No one builds houses with land and drives any more. That is where the shortage is and thats what we need.

So if everyone sold there big housed and downsized wouldn’t that put a huge pressure on the affordable end of the market forcing the house prices up? Thus pushing up rent on these same houses at the same time.

And what are these people supposed to do with all that money they will have in the bank?
I gu see they could sell there big house and buy two smaller properties, live in one and rent one out to give them a second income

If you want a house there are cheaper places to move to in UK or if you look further afield they can get even cheaper.

It's a false argument to put 'incentivise people to downsize' against 'concrete the countryside'. It's more complicated than that when we have many empty houses and other issues in housing and concerns about an aging population in rentals that it can be seen as a little crass to be focused on those who own outright. Also, smaller homes are not automatically more accessible and may contribute to isolation and environmental issues too which gives me concerns about incentives.

Part of the issue is yes many people drift into housing in their younger years that may be unsuitable for later life and the new stock of houses meant to solve housing issues, even on brownfield land, are pretty shit even by the basic Lifetime Home Standards. Nothing around me has been built with longevity or accessibility or local needs in mind for years. It's all about squeezing as many homes onto a plot of land. Right now, I'm down the road from a hospital that was knocked down (much to local frustration) to put up a bunch of these tiny 1-3 bed houses. The new estate right next to it is still struggling to sell homes and they're advertising largely at BTL investors to rent out to uni students and other temporary residents as they're well out of price for the area they're in (spending 300k for an inner city house next to an industrial estate and busy ring road makes little sense in an area where 4-beds go for about half that). Even of our stock of old houses is getting hacked up with profit rather than living in mind. That's where the incentives currently lie, nothing encourages maintaining large homes for larger families or for multiple couples to live in in later life.

The house I'm in process of trying to buy already has a ramp to the front door and out the back, beautifully done handrails in the hall, shower room with inbuilt seat, and has generally been lovingly adapted for mobility even if the heating is decades out of date. It's near a community centre which pre-COVID had a lot of activities for older people, shops, buses...maybe it's because I'm a disabled 30-something in a situation where I'm buying for accessibility with the long-term in mind, but unless I get care needs that require professionals, I'm not sure how most smaller houses will be more accessible even though it's a 4-bed. It seems more environmental and socially aware to be open to having others with mobility needs live there than selling it off in my old age to likely be hacked up like so many other houses around here.

We do need people to have children though otherwise who the hell is going to pay for our aging population?

We're going to go through a population bulge. It's going to have problems, some countries are already facing some as they're closer to it -- but it's not a reason to have more children. It'll likely lead to some societal shakeup for better and worse, including economically, but if you're going to complain that older people not downsizing means young families are 'squeezed in' (which to me is looking very much at the wrong people), then people aren't unreasonable to question what exactly is squeezed in and if those choices are right too. Can't just judge old people for their family choices and not do it to younger ones too...