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.

if you own your own home then do what you like imo btw

OvertheRubicon: 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

Possibly slightly more controversial, but I'd add on landlords to those who leave homes to get in a state of disrepair, or at least better support for tenants to be able to take such landlords enforce the laws that already exist, but often can't afford to do much about it. I'm in an area where a lot of HMO landlords are jumping ship and the obvious lack of care which will make it very difficult for any family to buy and repair to usable level is ridiculous.

It's really hard to find accessible housing in many places, I've spent a long time looking and seeing the mess in my area - but that lack is not simply because people aren't downsizing. Environmentally or socially, encouraging downsizing (and more people into smaller homes, leading to more encouragement of larger homes being carved up than there is now) does nowt, this all sounds like a lazy election promise that talks about coming together as a community, but never actually encourages communal living or thinking.

Is there a "housing shortage"?
We keep being told this, but I don't know whether it is true.

More an excuse to build pokey leasehold flats in every spare inch of space.

As for incentivising I doubt Government has the money to prioritise this.

This is a big problem in my village. It has a limited number of large houses with big gardens, and these are all occupied by elderly people who have lived there for decades. Meanwhile the local large families are crammed into small houses.

Interestingly the old people all say they want to move: they find the house and garden too big to clean and expensive to heat/tax. But, and this is key, they want to stay local so they don’t lose the community contacts and support they’ve built up here. The solution is more attractive retirement housing flats scattered around little villges and towns not just in big ‘complexes’ set far away from everywhere else. And yes incentives to move would make sense but I think the government is probably a bit tight for cash right now...

@Justajot

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.

Definitely that, the garage is incorporated & the downstairs is open plan.

I think they should give incentives but not force people out of their homes

We are downsizing now the bigger kids are settled with their partners. Taking full advantage of no stamp duty while we can. By moving, we are reducing our mortgage payments and will be mortgage free in 5 years!

We need to build more houses in the right areas, to bring homes down to an affordable level.

Throughout modern history, till post WW2, the average house cost three times the average salary. Now in many areas, new homes are an investment only the wealthy can afford. Incentivising downsizing might help a bit - but the solution needs to be much more radical.

@partyatthepalace

We need to build more houses in the right areas, to bring homes down to an affordable level.

Throughout modern history, till post WW2, the average house cost three times the average salary. Now in many areas, new homes are an investment only the wealthy can afford. Incentivising downsizing might help a bit - but the solution needs to be much more radical.

True although I feel we also need to find some way of regulating and restricting the amount of ££ people can invest in property (I'm not saying that's a simple matter)

I am a council tenant and live in a 2 bedroom house with my dh and ds. Mine is one of only 3 still owned by council, in a small st of 12 houses. The other 2 are 3 bedrooms occupied by single men with no children 1 in his late 60s and the other early 70s who are brothers???
This is so wrong on so many levels. When my fil passed away both he and dmil were in a 3 bed council house, and council moved my mil to a 1 bed bungalow because of under occupancy albeit a different council from where I live but it does actually state in contract about either over or under occupancy.

@LindaEllen. Totally agree with what you say. People work hard to get a decent size home. It's not just about the bedrooms, it's having several rooms downstairs and room to move around and keep possessions and do hobbies. Over time it is what you get used to and many small homes do not have gardens, drives or garages. I would not want to go backwards. I like the space

Italy perhaps has a good solution.

When your spouse dies, the estate is automatically split between the other spouse and dcs. So, three dcs, the widow/er gets a quarter. Either the widow/er buys the dcs out, or the property is sold in order to facilitate the inheritance or, in most cases, one or t’other of the dcs takes over the house.

I’m sure i wouldn’t relish being thrown out of my home by the dcs (!) but it does stop large properties being occupied for years by one person.

Oh yes that’s a great idea Ima.
Then when one person is already grieving because they’ve lost their life long partner, they also have to face nit having roof over their head. Because 1/4 of the price of a house will not buy you a house in any country.
Exactly the type of situation you want all widows to be in.

Changes were made to benefits to try to encourage social housing tenants to downsize. However pensioners were exempt which probably keeps more empty bedrooms than anything.
There are several houses on my street that are social housing all having disabled adaptations installed.
Whether people would move to a new build well insulated bungalow of the housing provider built some is another matter.
However people struggle to heat and maintain the home and garden when it gets too big.
It's a huge issue but often seen as ripping old people from their family home.

If you own it and need care families get upset that there's nothing to inherit and want society to find their parent's care so they get an inheritance.

@IrmaFayLear and @TonMoulin

When your spouse dies, the estate is automatically split between the other spouse and dcs

It's customary in those situtations that, if the DCs are decent human beings they will not request the estate to be sold/split until the surviving spouse dies as well (hence they stay in the family home). Once both are dead, they proceed to the sale

We live in a 4 bed, but one bedroom is my WFH office, we have a spare room for DGC, DD is in another, and DH and I in 4th. Really not practical for us to move. When DD moves out, we will need her room as a spare , as DGS is getting older and will need a sep bedroom from his sister. Pointless really. Plus I like my house and we have just done a fair amount of work to it, and more to be done.

*And the old 'build more, we don't need any land' is the cry of those who think food grows in Waitrose. We have lots of derelict/empty housing in towns/cities, near to amenities - but the incentives are skewed towards concreting over land.

don't come blubbing to me if you get flooding as a result.
*
Exactly this.
In the local town here there are so many boarded up houses, derelict areas, and waste land where old council buildings have been demolished, yet they are still putting compulsory purchase orders on green fields to build estates of 4-5 bedroom executive houses, selling at 420,000 - 675000 each - hardly affordable. Renovation and reinvestment into the urban areas would help preserve our countryside, be better for the environment and sustainability, yet that's cheaper and easier for the developers, so they can make bigger profits.
Also, its far harder now (and far less common) to have a lodger. When I left home at 16 to work, I rented a room in the home of a couple whose children had left home. It meant my rent was low fortunately, as my pay was too) and, as I got older and better paid, I could save a bit of money towards a deposit. The majority of my younger friends and colleagues did the same. Now, it's pretty much unheard of here. Most mortgage lenders don't allow it, insurance companies don't like it, and people are far less trusting and tolerant of others, so would probably be wary of a 'stranger' in their home.
I've worked so hard to get the house I live in now, foregone holidays, luxuries, lived in some pretty grotty places, and done renovations myself. It's still very much a work in progress, yet our children will be leaving for uni in the next few years. Surely we're allowed to actually enjoy what we have worked towards, rather than being forced to downsize?

Some people don't like change, they like familiarity

True, but....My parents lived on the same cul de sac all their married life. When I was growing up it was quite a little community. People rarely moved away. My father died when I was in my teens and neighbours were so supportive. But then as mum’s neighbours got older they began to move closer to their own children, to go into care homes or die. They were replaced by people who were nice enough but it wasn’t the same.

And when my mum no longer wanted to drive she could no longer access her social life and public transport where she lived wasn’t brilliant. So she became isolated.

Nothing stays the same for ever.

And a lot of people my age (50s) didn’t buy their houses for 37p - we had to pay top dollar and don’t have oodles of equity and the price hasn’t gone up 400 times. So penalising me for having a spare bedroom seems more unfair than penalising the neighbour who has three spare bedrooms and bought their £1m house for £3k.

So, basically, you can never make it fair! Also, why should the taxpayer financially incentivise my neighbour to downsize when she is sitting on a mahoosive pile of wealth?

We downsized when we sold my 5 bed and dp's 3 bed and bought a 2 double bed detached together.
It took us ages to find a place to suit us as we didn't want a 3 bed but most of the 2 beds were too small, we weren't looking for a starter home.
There are not enough downsizing properties about to tempt people. Developers need to get the memo.
Eventually we found a large 2 bed, 2 bathroom, living/kitchen/diner plus separate living room and utility room. With double garage, essential for the motorbikes, large driveway.
It's perfect.

A single, retired ex colleague of mine, who’d lived with her mother for many years in a nice, reasonably spacious and very conveniently located 2 bed flat, used an inheritance to upsize to a 3 bed bungalow with no neighbours on top of her or close either side - that being the main reason. And this was after her mother had died.

Since she and her DM had bought the flat (in a small block in SW London), many which had previously been owner-occupied had since become buy to lets, with tenants who didn’t give a toss about whether the old dear downstairs was bothered by e.g. loud music or dumping their rubbish in the car park.

@IrmaFayLear

Italy perhaps has a good solution.

When your spouse dies, the estate is automatically split between the other spouse and dcs. So, three dcs, the widow/er gets a quarter. Either the widow/er buys the dcs out, or the property is sold in order to facilitate the inheritance or, in most cases, one or t’other of the dcs takes over the house.

I’m sure i wouldn’t relish being thrown out of my home by the dcs (!) but it does stop large properties being occupied for years by one person.

I’ll stick with UK inheritance laws, thanks.

@IrmaFayLear

And a lot of people my age (50s) didn’t buy their houses for 37p - we had to pay top dollar and don’t have oodles of equity and the price hasn’t gone up 400 times. So penalising me for having a spare bedroom seems more unfair than penalising the neighbour who has three spare bedrooms and bought their £1m house for £3k.

So, basically, you can never make it fair! Also, why should the taxpayer financially incentivise my neighbour to downsize when she is sitting on a mahoosive pile of wealth?

Why would I want to give away my property before I chose to just because my husband had died?

Great idea op! This is very logical