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.

That’s the recipe for making an area uninhabitable - overcrowded and with a creaking infrastructure. We need to generate jobs in places where there are people and there is housing. In fact this is now starting to happen with various big firms moving their workforce north.

It's not THAT bad area the £1 houses. At least the one I know about. It's on great bus route, walking distance from ASDA, aldi and other shops, close to schools etc. Problem was that the houses were left alone for so long they honestly had probably just bearing walls left. And with that came antisocial behaviour. You have empty streets with boarded up houses, they will attract that. Issue was with how it was done. They got owners in there one by one basically without working on the area so there were issues. I think it calmed down now, but it could have been done better. Number of families in now lovely houses.

Councils up and down the country have empty homes. Now these should be femanded to put back in use.

We need affordable homes in decent areas with good amenities and access to jobs
this is true but those affordable homes are like a magnet for people with money to invest...this leads to an investment bubble and the home is no longer affordable
we need to disincentivize investment in property because it needs to bad outcomes for the rest of society

[quote trulydelicious]@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[/quote]
Don't you dare say things like this on MN. When I did I was virtually abused by those telling me that if you have more than most, you have a duty to society to subsidise them because they weren't as 'lucky'. You can't win - apparently we are supposed to make money to pay for those who choose to have an easier life.

@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.

This is awful. It's pretty much why the last election became the ABC election (Anyone But Corbyn).

Punish people for daring occupy a ."more than one bed property" alone. Is that really the road some posters want to go down?

I'm single and childfree. I cost the taxpayer a lot less than most households, if you want to look at it like that.

the problem is the MPs do not want to this incentive eyes investment in property because lots of them have got lots of money invested in property
they don't want to put an end to the gravy train that they are currently riding

@trulydelicious "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"

I can only apologise for saying this but....I think I love you. 😂

[quote trulydelicious]@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.[/quote]
Of course you are right, in many cases. But I am aware of quite a number of elderly people who did drift into exactly the kind of scenario I outlined, perhaps you haven't

Glenorma

Ref housing Up North

There are jobs, but some people don't want to do certain types of job
Or
Don't want to commute
Or
Don't want to relocate

Some areas are now knocking down old rows of unused terraces & building more expensive new build eco friendly properties

@jcyclops

It could be encouraged through the council tax system

Why should smaller households be penalised so that others can have more children?

In idle conversation, a group of our friends have joked around the idea of buying collectively a huge house and garden in our dotages and dividing it up into four or five smaller flat-like units, while leaving a large central room/hall accessible for socialising and parties. With a central lift so wheelchairs and zimmerframes didn't leave anyone stranded on the upper floors. Sadly, we can't agree where we'd like it to be! But it would be one answer to avoidance of social isolation, even if we ended up having to buy in maintenance services.

as @AppleJumbke321 said: many people don't want to relocate or commute. Then the size of the house or garden is not that big a deal if leaving the area or travelling further to go to work is not something you'd be happy doing.

@XingMing

In idle conversation, a group of our friends have joked around the idea of buying collectively a huge house and garden in our dotages and dividing it up into four or five smaller flat-like units, while leaving a large central room/hall accessible for socialising and parties. With a central lift so wheelchairs and zimmerframes didn't leave anyone stranded on the upper floors. Sadly, we can't agree where we'd like it to be! But it would be one answer to avoidance of social isolation, even if we ended up having to buy in maintenance services.

I think we've all had this discussion with our friends

It may not be a bad idea!

@Sprockerdilerock

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

How about don't have so many children 'for the sake of a dying planet'?

😂

@Glenorma

Our neighbours are gay men who are never going to have any kids

Your post is discriminatory and ridiculous.

First of all, these men could adopt, you shouldn't assume they are going to remain childfree for ever. Second, most likely you didn't have your children at gunpoint. You made your decision, so live with it.

There isn't a lack of homes. There's a lack of affordable homes.

If we pay people to move out of their mansions how will that enable struggling young families to afford anything?

@AcornAutumn

I think the OP is trying to wind us all up

Let's incentivise the royals to give up their vast homes. So many spare rooms in all of them

I'm sure I need to RTFT but I havent.

OP...YANBU

Nobody should be forced into smaller accommodation if they are happy where they are.

However if they WANT to downsize and this will improve life then I see no reason why there shouldn't be incentives to help people do this. I don't care if their home is worth £2m and they only paid £40k for it.

Nobody should have to move though.

Everyone keeps saying "affordable"

What would be classed as affordable ?

What criteria are you suggesting should be in place ?

Your post is discriminatory and ridiculous. First of all, these men could adopt, you shouldn't assume they are going to remain childfree for ever.
They aren’t going to adopt. They are never going to have kids. That’s their choice.

Second, most likely you didn't have your children at gunpoint. You made your decision, so live with it.
I am living with it. I never said I wasn’t. My point is, just because I have a greater need for the garden, doesn’t mean I can afford it. If anything, people with kids are less likely to be able to afford the large family properties than people who are child free.

@StoneofDestiny

Let's incentivise the royals to give up their vast homes. So many spare rooms in all of them

Yes. And all these poor families in overcrowded 1 bed flats will afford to buy them. Maybe if they are up North😂 The mansions, not the families

One massive problem with downsizing is a lack of smaller detached houses. Me and DH bought a large house in the 80s mostly because it was detached and the neighbours were far enough away even though we didn't need all the rooms. DH is now dead and it's hard to downsize because if I wanted a 1 bedroom round here I would be sharing walls with someone and I do not need screaming kids, unemployed or teenyboppers annoying me on a daily basis.

And gardens. I just checked and in my postcode zoopla shows 1 2 bed semi with garden. It costs very much like my 3 bed one🤷🏻 Everything else has a tiny 2x2m yard or is a flat.