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.

@anon666

Our culture and tradition in the UK is built upon certain principles, which means I'm likely to get flamed here too.

But our housing market is one of the only in the world where you can hold onto assets virtually free of charge.

Elsewhere in the world, taxes are higher on simply owning wealth and property.

Here the only tax on property ownership is "council tax" which is specifically hypothecated to councils and people identify as paying for local services.

If there was instead a recognition in the tax system that by owning property, you are effectively sequestering an irreplaceable asset (part of the severely limited housing stock) then I think that would encourage more healthy movement.

If instead of taxing only on moving, there was more tax on occupation/ownership, it might incentivise people to only utilise what was appropriate for their needs.

The main problem is our attachment to property - we all culturally aspire to "own our estate", and we imbue it with incredible emotional attachment.

Hence if we changed the tax system now, it would bring an enormous backlash from the Daily Mail/Express reading middle England.

I think we're stuck with that culture for now, whilst the younger generation have been entirely ripped off - in my opinion.

We do pay stamp duty and buy the properties out of taxed income. Also pay interest on mortgages over the years'

I would like more taxation on overseas investors and landlords owning several properties

Mum mum pays considerably less on tax where she is than I pay on council tax. Even with the fee for bins it's CONSIDERABLY less.

Just to add, her 2 bed flat (not in the UK) is same value like my 3bed house. Maybe few thousand less. No more than 10k.

And what about a sizeable amount of Grandparents who regularly take care of their Grandchildren while the parents go to work. Many, including my own have to stay overnight as the parents work four days and four nights and then five off. Also, sons and daughters who want to come back to live after relationship breakdowns etc etc. New builds are so small you can't swing a cat round in em either!!

If there was instead a recognition in the tax system that by owning property, you are effectively sequestering an irreplaceable asset (part of the severely limited housing stock) then I think that would encourage more healthy movement
that makes sense, however it seems we are happy to view education & healthcare as public goods but 'an english person's home is their castle'?

Yes I agree - but for the sake of the planet more than anything. We should all be living in homes that we use every inch of IMO!

Mark Carney said it and he has the sexiest voice ever so I agree

@anon666

If instead of taxing only on moving, there was more tax on occupation/ownership, it might incentivise people to only utilise what was appropriate for their needs

People pay enough tax already

@VinylDetective

That’s such a shame *@PolkadotsAndMoonbeams*. Maybe part of the answer is to stop giving planning permission for all these extensions, the fashion for vast kitchens with bifold doors has a lot to answer for.

So for people that need a bigger house, but can't afford the additional cost of a larger house and stamp duty etc, they should just stay cramped rather than extend?

Looking over the fence at what other people have has replaced even attempting to hold the government to account; One example is housing shortages and allowing developers to lie that they are going to provide social housing - then instead they build properties that only the monied can afford.

Yes extending worked for us, we couldn't afford a larger house

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

You are not alone.

Like other posters we worked hard, made sacrifices. However we didn't "earn" property inflation which massively outstrips what we paid for this house. I also work in an area which is high paid - I could have worked just as hard in my first, more socially useful job and be nowhere near as materially well off. Our DC have benefited from this growing up already, any inheritance will equally be unearned in much the same way we didn't earn house price inflation.

This rhetoric of assets equal "hard work and sacrifice" and the implicit point that those who lack these things have done neither stinks of prosperity theology.

All the OP asked was if we should incentivise people to downsize at some point. Something which could be beneficial to older retired people and something which used to happen at least in public sector housing until it was largely sold off. Anyone would think she was suggesting putting aging widows on the pyre.

There is no one size fits all which makes any national policy difficult. Many older people would like to downsize but not into a rabbit hutch and young people shouldn't be asked to move into a rabbit hutch. Older people would still like room for their children or grandchildren and keep some outside space for gardening or just be near a park where they can walk, be central for shopping and deliveries and transport links. Bigger houses aren't affordable so the ladder stumbles.

@C8H10N4O2

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

You are not alone.

Like other posters we worked hard, made sacrifices. However we didn't "earn" property inflation which massively outstrips what we paid for this house. I also work in an area which is high paid - I could have worked just as hard in my first, more socially useful job and be nowhere near as materially well off. Our DC have benefited from this growing up already, any inheritance will equally be unearned in much the same way we didn't earn house price inflation.

This rhetoric of assets equal "hard work and sacrifice" and the implicit point that those who lack these things have done neither stinks of prosperity theology.

All the OP asked was if we should incentivise people to downsize at some point. Something which could be beneficial to older retired people and something which used to happen at least in public sector housing until it was largely sold off. Anyone would think she was suggesting putting aging widows on the pyre.

But you still have to pay as much or more for another property if you stay in the area and stamp duty. It's only on paper to some extent

This really isn't the problem. The issue is lack of decent, social housing with secure, affordable, life time tenancies, like it used to be before Thatcher sold them off. I'm retired and live in a 4 bed house. I have no intention of downsizing, I want to be able to accaccommodate my adult children and their families when they come to stay as they all live +2 hrs drive away. You don't necessarily need less space just because you have aged a bit

We live in a family size house. I can imagine that we will be happy to switch to a house with fewer bedrooms when our DC own their own homes. But I think we will still want as much living space as we have now. We will still want a utility, study (or two if we are both still working) and good size kitchen, lounge and dining room. We will still want a garden too. The current housing stock and particularly new builds don't generally offer the living space of a large house with few bedrooms. Many new builds are the opposite way round - the footprint and living space of a 3 bed with 2 extra bedrooms under the eaves to make a 5 bed. Or a 4 bed with an integral garage cutting into the living space.

If we want family homes to go back into the housing stock then a new type of "retirement house" is needed. But the difference between that and a family house is probably just a couple of bedrooms, so probably not worth building.

Maybe a disincentive to stay in them would work, like the property tax the government has floated that it would never implement as it would alienate core Tory voters.

That’s a good point about new builds. I hate the open plan downstairs and many shitty little rooms.

I think an incentive is good but no heavy handed-ness. My mum owns her house, modest 4 bed in London and she could move to a smaller one but it’s her home.
It’s her marital home, it’s where she shared her life with my dad until he died there, it’s where she raised her children and looked after her grandchildren. She’d be devestated to leave those memories and for those reasons I think it’s really good to offer great incentives for owners and those In social housing but I’d hate to see the elderly bullied out of social housing by more spare room taxes etc - more carrot than stick. Imagine being moved into a little flat on an estate at 80 when you’ve lived 60 years of your life in a house or flat elsewhere. It’s a really hard one when it’s social housing and I think the incentives need to be there and available for each bedroom you drop as a child FB lees the nest - if they want to! Mind you, in London once they get divorced the men all go back to the family home anyway!

@Sirius99

“we are a friendly close”

😱😱😱

A house is not always just a house whatever its size - in myriad cases, it's a HOME. Why the heck should somebody who loves their HOME be expected to leave it for somewhere else? Would you suggest that if people have more than 2 kids they give up some of them to childless people? No, don't think so. And that's because they are attached (one hopes!) to the little rugrats. It's not different to be attached to your home. Mine isn't big, but if it was I certainly wouldn't be trading it in for something smaller: this is where my late husband and I built so many wonderful memories, and it would destroy me to have to leave.

@Toomuchtrouble4me

Imagine being moved into a little flat on an estate at 80 when you’ve lived 60 years of your life in a house or flat elsewhere

What they are suggesting is barbaric, really

Who is going to pay all these incentives for people to move?? "The Govt"? That means the tax payer. We will be paying off Covid costs for the next 50 years. The nation is broke

@Mexico1986

Who is going to pay all these incentives for people to move?? "The Govt"? That means the tax payer. We will be paying off Covid costs for the next 50 years. The nation is broke

Well that’s the thing you see! These ideas always involve other people making the sacrifices, never the OP and they always involve money that doesn’t exist! It’s pure fantasy lol

I think those in social housing should only have enough rooms for their family size and not be permitted to swap inbetween themselves. See sp many social housing swaps on Facebook - in their houses pictures (yes I'm nosey) are xboxs, massive Tvs, sky boxes and lots are blaming better kitted out than mine! Then I see that the rent is £90 a week for a 3 bed and I think why the hell am I busting my ass working full time to pay for my 1k a month 3 bed?!!!ugh