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 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.

Yes, often people with kids are indeed less likely to be able to afford the large 'family' properties than childless people. But that's their decision. They could, I guess, have chosen to not have kids and be able to afford a bigger home. They were probably aware of that. But they still went ahead and had children. They cannot now criticise those who chose to be child free and live in bigger houses.

DH and I are retired and live in what is I suppose a family home, three bed one bathroom semi. We have thought about moving to a large flat but what is stopping us is that we like the area and we have friends and neighbours round here, as well as it being within walking distance of shops and other amenities.

I've actually been looking at properties with a view to downsizing. Currently have 4 beds but have 2 DC in university, 1 lives at home all the time,the other away term time. 4th single bedroom needs cleared out as being used to store stuff we probably don't need. Anyway issues I have with it are that I would want to live more rurally so would still want to have bedrooms available for DC to come and stay with their families in the future, i still want a utility room and more than once space for DH and I to be as we'd drive each other up the wall with just one living space so it's actually hard to downsize and still have things that we want, so our downsize wouldn't be to a one or two bed flat somewhere. So other than wanting to release equity to help DC when they finish Uni or wanting a different location, there is little incentive for us to move.

I appreciate that sounds very middle class and it probably is but isn't DH or I's background as both brought up in poverty in overcrowded council houses.

There are some people on this thread who really bolster the (increasingly popular) argument that the general public should be removed from the decision making process when it comes to new development. Not a position I agree with, but i can see why many do.

It seems people just can’t be trusted to make choices for the benefit of other people because they can’t look beyond their own situation (“I’ve got a 5 bed house and you’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands”) and overcome the irrational fear that poor people are trying to take from them. Wake up! Keep your house if you want it. Stop obstructing other people from having somewhere to live they love too!

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.)*

I agree, the large family home is often in an area with few amenities within walking distance, and when the parents can't or don't wish to drive any more they can end up socially isolated except when their children come to visit.

Yohoheaveho I agree that for too long it's been set up for a few people to get rich quickly at the expense of the rest of us, and incentivizing downsizing won't fix any of that without a lot of other changes.

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.

My city has already been doing this for years - we have so many recent new build 1-3 bedrooms homes and flats where the mindset has clearly been to shove as many as possible. They're not fit for purpose for either older people or families or anyone with accessibility in mind and many of them have been bought up by landlords who turn any reception rooms into "bedrooms" & try to rent them as more beds than they actually have (and priced accordingly). They've done fuckall for the local community.

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

Not sure how us all living in little houses does anything collective or for the planet. Why not encourage actual collective living in larger homes?

I want a house that's accessible for a bunch of old people, that has room for mobility equipment and carers and for people to visit in an accessible area. I'm in the process of hopefully moving into one that almost already set up for that in a local market where 60%+ of 4 bed+ homes on sale are those carved up by HMO landlords (many of those not actually four beds, they're just advertised and priced that way).

In less than ten years I could be an empty nester, that just makes me want to plan a future of living with friends who would benefit from not paying market rental prices into old age. There are more options to living within our means than living smaller on our own. That suits some, but I don't see why it should be incentivized or how it would be more eco-friendly to carve up land into even more tiny parcels.

Nicebreeze "Stop obstructing other people from having somewhere to live they love too!"

Who is causing obstruction and how?

Keep your house if you want it. Stop obstructing other people from having somewhere to live they love too!

But that's not what some of the PPs are saying - their point is that people in big houses with spare rooms should downsize in order for people with multiple kids to move into them! In your mind, how are you seeing us keeping our houses and not obstructing others from having somewhere to live they love? Because you are not making much sense atm.

@AcornAutumn exactly. Not clear.

@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.

Sounds a lot like a variation of poll tax to me. Those of us who are old enough remember how well that went.

Also not seeing the obstruction. The question is whether we should incentivize - through tax breaks or funds or adding extra taxes onto those who have homes that are too big by some standard - people to 'live where they love' if they downsize from a larger property.

It's not going to make things more affordable for those who want to buy a larger home, it's not even automatically going to make more larger homes available as people have discussed the current trend towards carving up large houses into smaller units to rent out or sell.

While it would help some people 'live where they love', the barriers to that are similar to most other people struggling with that issue stamp duty, removal costs, and so on and the benefits being touted as to why people should downsize - environmental, so young families won't be 'squeezed in', and so on - aren't really convincing as people being incentivized to downsize doesn't really do anything about the environment and doesn't automatically solve anything about young families affording homes in area they'd love to live in.

We live in a community. The environmental impact of a growing number of households, with many in larger homes than needed, and the need to concrete over more of our small nation and create more pollution commuting around it, is borne by all of us, but is not paid for by the home owners themselves, nor reflected in house prices. In economics terms, it's an externality.

Do you also think that a country should have every right to dump pollution in the ocean on their doorstep, or fail to regulate air pollution or nuclear powerplant safety, on the basis it's 'their land', or should they acknowledge that we all share the earth and have to find ways to live together?

I also don't like the 'my hard earned money / they worked hard all their lives' arguments, when many people worked very hard all their lives, but due to their starting point or their luck, will still be renting as retirees, and when those who were lucky enough to buy 20 or more years ago did so.at far lower salary multiples and were the beneficiaries of massive and unearned property price rises.

Or if you still believe that people deserve whatever size of house they wish because it was 'earned', do you also believe you should be able to leave it to your children? An inheritance is unearned, and will further privilege those who already benefited.from parents able to afford and maintain a large family home.

I'm a home owner and don't usually consider myself very left wing, but feel like Corbyn compared with some of the entirely self-focussed posters on this thread.

Lol

Bedroom tax oh that’s such a good idea NOT! Yes it can work in social housing to get people to move to smaller properties to free up the one they live in for a family but in the private sector you’ll just be judged as punishing those people that have worked hard and sacrificed things to allow them to be able to afford the big house in the first place.

Also noticed someone mentioned the £1 houses sold in some cities up north to regenerate areas and to give families an affordable home. Another good idea but when you then get told by someone they got two of them houses even though they already own a large property. makes you wonder how they managed the allocation of the properties.

@BiBabbles

The question is whether we should incentivize - through tax breaks or funds or adding extra taxes onto those who have homes that are too big by some standard - people to 'live where they love' if they downsize from a larger property

Money doesn't grow on trees. These extra taxes will have to be paid by someone so that 'families' can live in a house they 'love' in a 'popular' area

@OverTheRubicon

do you also believe you should be able to leave it to your children

You can leave it to whoever you want, why not? You are talking nonsense here

I keep giggling at terms "large homes" when talking about English housing. Please, people stop suggesting we build "smaller houses"! We could just pitch up a tent then

This thread is incredibly frustrating and I’m glad I can actually do something about thjs in the real world and don’t need to engage with some of the awful people on here.

The last thing I’ll say is that it doesn’t require financial incentives, just more research on what people want and a clear requirement on developers to deliver that. Developers want to build what sells and many want to build decent communities as it makes it easier for them to get planning permission in future - what they like is certainty and that’s why the same crap housing is churned out (because it sells). If certainty can be provided in good national and local policy then that’s half the battle.

No sane person wants to force people to sell a house they want to stay living in. It’s not about that in reality. It’s about allowing the many people we know are not enjoying a good quality of life in the homes they lived in in their 40s and 50s a better option - the incentive should be about quality of life, not tax exemptions etc.

Another good idea but when you then get told by someone they got two of them houses even though they already own a large property. makes you wonder how they managed the allocation of the properties.

I've seen the application for that houses. Impossible they just got two of them when it was 1300+ applications AND only few houses. They are telling porkies.

It's a difficult one
I do believe that a contract for a social housing home should be reviewed, the amount of 2 and 3 bed council homes in my area which are now occupied by one or two people is a real issue. A lot of them end up buying the property as well at a really big discount too so it's another home out of action and many end up in the private sector.
It's not right that someone with a partner and two or three young children could be given a 3 bed home now and still be in it when the children have left home in 20 years time
The sad fact is for everyone old couple of individual who is affectively "bed blocking" a council home, there are plenty of families in b&b it having to rent expensive private rents because in my area alone there so many people on the housing list (it's currently a 6 year wait for housing) with nowhere to build houses and constant flats being built which aren't practical for families. Yet there are whole estates of people under occupying homes.
However, to those people, it is their home, their memories and they don't want to move. Perhaps a financial incentive would work for a few but with the economy being the state it is no doubt these older folks are going to be pressured by family to buy their council home to either help look after their elderly care via remortgage or as a home their families will own on their death.

Interesting thread. OP, I think in principle there's nothing wrong with the incentives you're suggesting because it would enable some people who'd like to downsize but perhaps can't afford it to do it.

At the same time, I agree with the very first post, housing has become a commodity, or as some see it, an investment (in terms of owning multiple properties). That I think has gone too far and created difficulties in the housing market. I know some measures have been introduced to address this but they don't go far enough. I think perhaps a better incentive would be not to penalise people with savings and offer decent rates for savers instead of what we have now, and encourage other forms of investment. But maybe I'm talking nonsense! Anyway that's what I'm trying to do personally, educate myself in other forms of sustainable investment to save up more for the retirement and leave something for the children.

MIL could rent her whole property out

Spend the income living somewhere smaller & cheaper
Or
Travel the world
Or
Stay in the property & rent a room out

[quote trulydelicious]@OverTheRubicon

do you also believe you should be able to leave it to your children

You can leave it to whoever you want, why not? You are talking nonsense here[/quote]
What I'm saying is that people here keep saying that they've earned the money and bought the home, so no-one can tell them what to do with it. So if people deserve a house because they did the work and earned the money, why do their children - who did neither - deserve the inheritance? For that matter, if it's about hard work, did their contemporaries who didn't benefit from a good education, or people who were born post-housing-boom, work just as hard but have to live with the downsides of large underoccupied properties and second homes (like higher prices, longer commutes, reduced green space, increased pollution), as well as unempathetic people shouting about their home being their castle and wanting to be able to Airbnb a room later?

It's not rubbish, there's a pretty long history of thought on this, from John Stuart Mill to Proudhon and Marx and beyond.

One thing that is bigger and should be less controversial though is massively increasing the cost of owning a second home, and for those who leave a home totally vacant and often in disrepair (many of these are public sector groups including councils and the MOD, as well as foreign investors).

having been inspired by this thread to look at what's available in my city should i wish to downsize I am now utterly demoralised. Poky 1 bed retirement flats are affordable. The so called 2-3 bed with very little living space are £500K depending on area so if I want to be near amenities go to the top end. My detached extended bungalow 2 miles away wouldn't sell for much more than this, so where is the incentive?

Developers need to be brought in line and stop exploiting the market frankly for huge profit. Also they need to realise that people now longer wish to live in a postage stamp flat just because they are retired.

and for those who leave a home totally vacant and often in disrepair (many of these are public sector groups including councils and the MOD, as well as foreign investors).

I absolutely agree with that and honestly, when I realised how many houses in a state where the roof fell in councils owe, I was gobsmacked.