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 think we should be going in a different direction towards multi-generational homes. I know that the council in Hastings has already started this. Think about it - granny in the house to help with the grandchildren and then later, children can look after granny when she gets too frail to look after herself. Why are we putting all our old people in homes? I accept that people need their independence but I think we should be incentivising granny annexes and mullt-generational livng.

But people are also part of their community and this becomes more important as they get older. smaller houses often lack the thinks people might need as they get older ie. bigger rooms to be able to manouver in properly, ground floor for easy access etc.

The bedroom tax was supposed to solve this for social housing but it doesn't for reasons you've stated OP plus others. Some people might be happy to move to a smaller property if they could be in the community they want, the type of property they want and have assistance to clear out and move their belongings. That's the rub though as they want people in larger houses to move out of the areas they live in with very little choice or support.

@Glenorma

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.

One piece of land is owned by the local council yet still can’t bring themselves to admit that there is a need for bungalow. They have full say on what is built on their own piece of land and are doing their own planning application.

I'd have thought it would be more space and resource efficient to build additional batches of smaller homes than additional larger ones?

Developers make more money out of 4 bed houses with relatively tiny gardens than they would from smaller houses. It’s supply and demand.

We bought our 4 bed when our kids were much younger and we combined families. They were absolutely horrified at the suggestion we down sized because it’s their family home and they want to come and stay with their children.

I have a family sized house that will soon be far too big for just me as my dc move out, so I’d happily take an incentive to downsize, as I’ll probably want to do that eventually anyway.

Problem is, no one would offer an incentive because there are loads of four bed houses around here because that’s what all the developers seem to prefer building.

Surely the current social care financial assessment system in (England & Wales) is also a disincentive.

If you need care at home and are in a £2m property but don’t have much capital (less than £24K roughly) you would be entitled to help from the council to fund your social care.

If you downsized and had some more money in the bank instead then you would be expected to pay for all your own care (which could be £100s per week) until your savings deplete to £24K.

How will care be funded in the future though?

@NailsNeedDoing

I have a family sized house that will soon be far too big for just me as my dc move out, so I’d happily take an incentive to downsize, as I’ll probably want to do that eventually anyway.

Problem is, no one would offer an incentive because there are loads of four bed houses around here because that’s what all the developers seem to prefer building.

Also you don't need an incentive because it's what you want to do anyway.

@savemymuu

Also no one builds big houses any more

hah!

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

Bedroom tax only exists for people on benefits. A lot of people in SH aren't on benefits.

Still their homes though.

For most people moving from a 3 bed to a 2 isn’t worth the bother.

My thoughts exactly. Too much shit and hassle.

hah!

I don't particularly see those homes as big just lots of bedrooms.

Developers build the houses that there is the most demand for. If they didn’t they wouldn’t sell. That’s why most new build estates are a mix, with the most of the most in demand types. They also need to put in a percentage of affordable housing. They don’t build what makes the most profit, because quite frankly that would be stupid. They build what they can sell the most of, which cumulatively makes the most profit, and sells the fastest releasing their money.

And yes, paying people do downsize would cost a fortune and make the problem a shit tonne worse.

If you made it more financially attractive to people to downsize, it would instantly make smaller properties significantly more expensive, thus eliminating even the small number of people already in the market for them.

I downsized from a 2 bed decent sized house to a 1 very large bed pretty much the same size overall with a nice sized garden plus a huge garage and big shed. I doubt I will have to move ever again.

Also it means I can't have relatives staying for weeks on end when they constantly move house.

The housing market has experienced an average compound interest increase of a around 10 percent every yr since the boom.
5.5 tn of this wealth is tapped with the long living baby boomers, this group contains the wealthiest people in the UK.
They also experienced wage growth.
Since the 2000's wage growth has been comparatively stagnant when compared to the previous 20yrs.

People in these groups need to stop pretending they actually deserve that increase in wealth and understand they just happened to be born in the right era.

Developers build the houses that there is the most demand for
That’s not correct. They build the houses that are the most profitable. Which is the big 4 bed detached houses with tiny gardens. The greatest demand is for small affordable homes and bungalows, but developers don’t want to build them because they make less money off them.

You work hard to pay a mortgage off. Of course you want to enjoy what you just spent 25 years buying. Lots of things take up the same amount of space whether 1, 2, 3 or 4 people are using them. I'd still want my friends to come for dinner and my family to sit in the lounge when they visit.
But i do think some people would downsize more readily if moving was cheaper because they would then have more money for fun. But if it mainly gets eaten up in stamp duty, estate agents, removal vans and then decorating the new place in your style - what have they gained?
I do think this might be more of a south east problem too.

The answe is not down sizing but more inter generational living.
How often do you see a thread on here calling a 25 year old man a mummies boy who needs to cut the apron strings as he still lives in the family home?
I have a reasonably large home with 3 adult generations living here. I don’t expect it to last forever and maybe one day there will just me be left here but if I do at any stage downsize I don’t want a new build with a kitchen in the lounge, no parking or outside space. And even if by some miracle I found something decent that I wanted to buy my present house will still be expensive for someone else to buy.

Since the 2000's wage growth has been comparatively stagnant when compared to the previous 20yrs.

Good point. Even very good salaries have stagnated in some industries.

If you downsized and had some more money in the bank instead then you would be expected to pay for all your own care
Yep. As a couple, if one of you remains in the family home then it can’t be sold to pay for care. Whereas if you lived in a smaller property and had the excess cash in the bank it would be seized.

I'm not stupid or entitled @Haffiana but thanks for your pointless contribution

Some good points well made on here. Sometimes things just seem so clear in my mind, it's good to be brought back down to reality with a bump

I agree in theory. My grandma lived in her big 4 bed detached house alone until she died before Christmas. It was suggested a couple of times after my grandad died that she move into a flat but she said she couldn't leave because she felt close to her husband there and just didn't want to lose that. So I feel a huge amount of sympathy for older people who are still living in their family homes

In many areas the cost of a two bed isn’t significantly lower than the cost of a three bed, plus you then have fees, physical moving costs and you need to spend money decorating.

People often want fewer bedrooms when they’re older, but they don’t want a smaller living area downstairs which is what you get when you downsize.