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 understand that house prices are wild whatever way you look at it.

It only takes a quick Google to find evidence that there is a UK wide housing shortage, assuming that applies to all housing types across the board.

Therefore I just can't see why we can't increase the supply of smaller homes (surely increasing supply drives down cost?) that require a smaller footprint (therefore less countryside being converted over) and encouraging people who don't need big homes to free them up. It could take into account issues like accessibility and proximity to amenities of course.

Better designed houses need to be built. So two bedroom places have a garage, drive, hallway, utility room and some storage. And three bedrooms etc all have the same facilities.
Plus a pp said it would really push up the prices of smaller places.

*concreted over!

Of course my flat’s value has gone up too, but proportionally the ‘rungs’ of the ‘ladder’ just get further apart over time, plus stamp duty rises.

Yes! I've argued this many times on threads on here. For many already on the ladder who want to move up falling prices are better (obvs not if in negative equity) because % wise it's less money.

there are obstacles to some who WANT to downsize - and stamp duty is a big one, especially in the many areas where a bungalow (if you can find one) costs the same as a house.

finding a right size house is a challenge when the choice is either a small flat/terrace or a huge 5 bedder stuck on a tiny plot. That's all the developers build.

sadly I don't think there's anything to be done in a democracy. 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.

My parents have said they would consider downsizing but they would only be willing to lose one bedroom and would be downsizing because stairs became too much for them, they wouldn't entertain a flat so ideally a 2 bedroom bungalow which I dont even think they are building any more. At their age (mid to late 60s now) they also dont want to start decorating a new place entirely to their taste as they have done to their current house over the last 40 years which is what they would want to do.
Realistically there isnt anything out there in their area for their taste so they will stay put until they either die or sell to pay for care.

@gamerchick

Well this is different to a council house thread. People have plenty to say on kicking people out of those

Hmm, I was just trying to reconcile this thread with the existence of, and support for, the bedroom tax.

@PersonaNonGarter

Housing is a SUPPLY SIDE PROBLEM. We have more households than houses. Never mind the issue with bedrooms.

The answer is to build more houses. Sorry. But blame all the retirees who turn up to council meetings demanding the dog walking field stays for dog walkers only.

Why destroy green fields to build houses when there are many, many empty rooms?

@savemymuu

It's called the housing ladder for a reason I guess. People start at the bottom in flats and small houses then go up the ladder as their salary/family/equity/needs increase.

I read a good article in the FT that the "ladder" doesn't really exist any more. Lots of people are stuck on the ladder.

Yes true. I guess the ladder was only really a thing in the "good old days" where people could afford a house then sized up as their family grew. It was the only thing I could think of to explain my thoughts.

I remember when I bought my first starter home an older colleague said "well now you can get married and in a few years when your salary increases you can have a baby and buy a bigger house". There was some old fashioned logic behind their thinking but needless to say my salary hasn't increased at the same rate as house prices like when they were young.

I do agree in theory, however it involves uprooting older people from neighbourhoods they’ve lived in for years, which can be problematic if they’re less mobile/on their own.

Can you imagine the moaning when baby boomers get blamed for snapping up smaller homes.

@MrsTerryPratchett well put to which I would add the misuse of land in out of town shopping centres, whilst town centres have empty buildings.

Housing is also arranged such that you cannot often move to a smaller property without leaving your street/area, and some people actually talk with and have friendships with neighbours. It's not all as some of the threads about problem neighbours seem.

Therefore I just can't see why we can't increase the supply of smaller homes (surely increasing supply drives down cost?) that require a smaller footprint
Developers make more profit on bigger houses. A small house still needs the same water, electric, gas, phone lines, sewer pipes and drains, it still needs the same roads and pavements outside, but it’s worth less. So the developer ends up with less profit. Our council has repeatedly done surveys that say we have a shortage of small affordable homes and an over-supply of big family homes, but developers still keep submitting applications for 4-5 bed executive houses because they’re more profitable. The government actually forces developers to build 10% small affordable homes on every estate, otherwise they’d just build the big profitable houses.

@Glenorma

I'd have thought it would be more space and resource efficient to build additional batches of smaller homes than additional larger ones? What we need is bungalows for older people to downsize into. But developers don’t like to build bungalows because they’re less profitable. They have the same footprint as a family home but are smaller because of only having one storey, and therefore worth less.

I agree, we do need more bungalows. I suggested that to the local council as they want to destroy all green belt in the area with houses. I was looked at as if I had 2 heads.

Can’t of course cram as many badly built bungalows onto the land as they can flats and houses?

Op, I’m not sure if you’re confused

There is no Uk wide shortage of big homes. Irrelevant of your local area.

You need people to stay in these houses and not drive up the price of smaller houses.

There is a shortage of social housing and affordable housing. Getting people to give up big homes helps no one.

Yes true. I guess the ladder was only really a thing in the "good old days" where people could afford a house then sized up as their family grew. It was the only thing I could think of to explain my thoughts.

I know quite a few people in their 40/50s who made 500k-1m because they were already on the ladder in the 90s/00s.

I looked at a doer upper that was a great buy but it was after the lending criteria had tightened up & we couldn't borrow that much. A developer bought it & sold it for 700k more in 3 yrs.

I am looking at down sizing when I move but do not think incentives should ever be involved. Yes I will pay stamp duty and have moving costs but will have made a good profit on the house and will move to something within my means. Why should the tax payer pay my moving costs etc.

[quote 2bazookas]Your MIL (or anyother older property owner) who wants to downsize but can't face the hassle, can easily find property developers who specialise in doing it all for them , and will organise everything. Free weekend trial visit to new home, buying the old one, organising the house move including all packing and unpacking, legal fees paid.

www.mccarthyandstone.co.uk/moving-made-easier/[/quote]
I wouldn't advise anyone to touch that company with a bargepole...

I don't see why taxpayers money should be used to help comfortably off people move to, which they are if they're staying in a house bigger than they need.

The only people who would take it up would be people planning to move for their own reasons anyway.

In lots of ways, once DC are adults you "need" a bigger house. DS1 and his DW and kids(if/when she exists) won't be very comfortable staying in his box room and the dining room that was fine for 6, isn't so suitable for family dinners once those children have partners and children. Lots of reasons not to downsize just because DC no longer live at home.

I can't see anything wrong with people enjoying the home they probably spent their life paying for if they want to!

Downsizing is usually not just reducing the number of bedrooms, but it also means having smaller rooms throughout. It's not terribly appealing for everybody.

If you make it financially interesting and people are happy to, why not. Nothing wrong either way.

I do disagree with the mindset that someone dictates the exact number of room you are entitled to, that a house is too big for you, and that people getting older should have less and start giving away everything.
If someone is happy in a house, they should not feel guilty to enjoy it.

I am a middle-aged mother of 4 (with a rather large mortgage!) and I still have my bedroom in my parents house, and so have my siblings . We still use it when we visit, and my parents are happy with their home.

The problem is that land owners and developers decide what to build. And they want to build the kind of houses that make the most profit. Not the kind that provide much needed accommodation for the youngest and oldest but generate less profit. The council unfortunately has no say - they can only say yes or no to a planning application, they can’t tell a developer who wants to build 4 bed houses to build bungalows instead.

How would you guarantee that a family bought the large property, not another single/couple?

Our DC are technically adults now - still at uni. DH and I plan to move but we can't easily downsize. We both work from home in separate offices. We want both DC to have a comfortable room to call their own when they come to stay at Christmas, and longer term if they have partners or children. So we need a fair bit of space. We'd be looking at 5 bed or 4 bed 2 reception rooms to make that work.

I’ve downsized to free equity so that I can give my 3 children a deposit to buy a house. I also want cheaper bills, council tax, and utilities in my retirement.

Downsizing won't solve the housing crisis in fact will make it worse
Cash buying baby boomers snapping up flats and starter type homes will make prices higher and less available