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.

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
and this is the fault of governments, their job is to legislate and regulate markets for the long-term benefit of society as a whole
instead they set things up so that a few people can get rich quickly at the expense of the rest of us 🤬

@AlexisCarringtonColbyDexter

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.

Yes I absolutely think it applies to a childfree couple in their 40s, for example, with a 4 bed house. But no, not about a couple in a 2 bed flat, of any age, as there's a huge difference in land use.

As with the OP, I think this should be about incentives, not punishments. There are plenty of older people, and their families, struggling to maintain large properties and to live safely in them, but without the free cash to move, or appealing alternatives, or feeling pressure from middle aged children who have fond memories of their family home, or less fond desires to maximise inheritance. There also isn't a great push against being in an oversized house, when council tax bands have been frozen for so long in many places, meaning people in a large house often pay a far smaller percentage of their housing value than someone in a smaller flat. Incentives can help in this situation.

Yes I absolutely think it applies to a childfree couple in their 40s, for example, with a 4 bed house. But no, not about a couple in a 2 bed flat, of any age, as there's a huge difference in land use

Why in their 40s? thats discriminatory. What about a couple in their 30s with 2 kids in a 4 bedroom house? they should downsize too right- after all, they have an extra bedroom that a family of 5 need

We are in our 40s with extra rooms. We use them as offices for work . Are you proposing we stuff ourselves into a small downstairs, blurring our working and home life?

It alsmost sounds like people who haven't used their reproductive organs in certain way shouldn't have gardens and space... Or the ones who are old.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

It alsmost sounds like people who haven't used their reproductive organs in certain way shouldn't have gardens and space... Or the ones who are old.

It is isnt it?

Funny how its always "other people" who need to make the sacrifices isnt it? so easy to be generous about other people's property and money rather than your own.....

I live in a five-bedroom house (one currently used as an office). I have no intention of downsizing because when I retire I want to be able to have parties and have my friends stay over so they don't need to get a taxi.

so easy to be generous about other people's property and money rather than your own

Exactly. I've made decision to stay child free for peace AND SPACE. Absolutely valid lifestyle decision

@SchrodingersImmigrant

It alsmost sounds like people who haven't used their reproductive organs in certain way shouldn't have gardens and space... Or the ones who are old.

That's your projection. In my culture it's very common for extended families to live together, and I would see that as the same need as a young family, or similarly for people sharing a house.

If you're going to make this about discrimination, I'd point out that by far the biggest group of people with houses where bedrooms significantly outnumber occupants are privileged white people, and those stuck in crowded housing are disproportionately people of colour and those who did not have a background that gave them.a good shot at a high earning job, nor had parents to help with a deposit. These groups also suffer significantly from issues like commute-driven pollution, and have fewer options to move to large properties outside of major urban areas due to costs of relocation and/or travel costs.

But yes, the true victims here are the owners of large properties.

That's your projection. In my culture it's very common for extended families to live together, and I would see that as the same need as a young family, or similarly for people sharing a house

I'm not old but this is exactly why i will never downsize. When I'm retired, I want lots of space for my future grandchildren to stay over and visit. I want big family events and a full house of people who visit but dont actually live with me. I really dont give a fck if you think that makes me immoral or whatever. I do plenty for my community and I have a clear conscience that I do my bit

I wasn't "making it about discrimination" just pointing out about how it sounds.

Priviledged white people... I came to UK with thousand quifd in a pocket (which my family saved from my birth as is normal there) and quite broken English. Sorry to break this to some but it can be done. And let's not forget that there is such thing as "not white enough" when you have EE accent and name.

jcyclops Thu 21-Jan-21 12:58:26
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 made me laugh. When I bought my first house the “Rates” were £200 a year for a small terrace house. Within 6 months the Pole Tax was brought in and it went to £2000 a year due to it being bases more of how many people lived there. While some people living in big houses saw huge drops in there tax bill.
The council tax as it is seems a bit fairer as you pay more if you have a larger house but also includes a discount if living alone. Surely if your living alone you use less of the council facilities so why should they pay as much as a household with more people in it.

Ive no intention of leaving my 4 bed home when the kids are gone.
It’s in a fantastic spot.
We will have a bedroom each, DH has one as an office, and we will have a spare room.
I’m not leaving my lovely house unless I’m in a wooden box ⚰️

What so then young childless couples are priced out of one and two beds?

I think it all depends - we’re in a 4 bed detached but it is in no way a big 4 bed. (100sqm) It wouldn’t feel greedy to stay here in old age and the size of the house and garden makes it manageable . However a bigger 4 bed detached might feel too big.

@CorianderBee increase supply of 1 and 2 beds for couples of all ages so as not to price anyone out. More smaller houses can be build on x amount of land than larger ones therefore less land is needed.

Living within our means collectively for the sake of a dying planet.

There have been housing incentive schemes

1
Ghost town in Italy with under 10 residents. The mayor was offering property for £1 & a loan for people to relocate there & build a new community

2
Some UK northern towns with rows of empty terraces. Have been sold for £1 & a loan to renovate. I believe the condition was that the new residents had to remain there for 5 or 10 years. Again, they rebuilt a community

3
In contrast the UK Government has 1000s of MOD properties empty & unused. Which could potentially be used

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
That’s how a capitalist economy works. Our neighbours are gay men who are never going to have any kids, because of that they have a lot of disposable income and bought the biggest house on the corner plot with a huge garden. Massive lawn, loads of room to play football or install a swing set, but no kids. While we are squashed in a smaller property with just a patio and nowhere for the kid to play. We obviously have a greater need for the garden but how can we get it? Even if they offered to sell us their house we couldn’t afford it.

All the bungalows near me are getting their attics converted. They’ll be none left soon.

I have a friend who had to move his widowed mother from a large property. They struggled to find anywhere appropriate. She had a lot of large furniture she didn’t want to replace and everywhere they looked at was tiny. Downsizing stuff was actually quite difficult.
He lives in 6 bedroomed house with no children (with a partner) they have refurbished it from top to toe themselves as a project. He knows they will need to downsize but I can’t imagine it will be that small.

@OverTheRubicon

Property is in part so outrageously expensive because people are holding onto much larger places than they need

And who gets to say what size house anyone needs? Should it be centrally dictated by bureaucrats or 'researchers' theorising in parasitic 'think tanks'?

It's time we stopped subsidising with our taxes the very same people who enjoy leeching around, concocting ways in which to snatch other peoples' hard earned possessions

That's how a capitalist economy works
This is very simplistic, markets/economies are regulated and these regulations impact on the way that things play out.
Perhaps you are talking about some form of unregulated free market capitalism? Of course there are many and significant downside to this sort of capitalism.
Capitalism is not monolithic!

I live in a village with lots of bungalows.
Families want to live here, as the schools are very good, so buy a bungalow and extend up and out. They then move to a family sized house leaving a bungalow that’s too small for a family, but too big for an elderly couple.

I know someone single who lives in a property with many rooms
Instead of a pension, they have invested their wages into property
At retirement, they hope to sell & relocate to somewhere warmer & smaller & live on the remaining profit

AppleJumbke321 There have been housing incentive schemes
The village in Italy with only 10 residents was supposedly depopulated because it was run by the Mafia. The £1 housing up north was in an area that was poverty stricken with no jobs. Not places that anyone wants to live. We need affordable homes in decent areas with good amenities and access to jobs.

@theleafandnotthetree

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

Why when people do not agree with others' decisions they say that they haven't thought about it properly, they've been duped, etc?

Most likely they have assessed the situation properly and 'shock horror' they've made a different choice to the one you would have made.