To STILL not want to downsize?

[toconclude]

Live in Victorian smallish semi - technically 4 bed but three bedrooms are singles and DH uses one as a study and always has. Downstairs bathroom which we've managed with so far.
Ongoing options are: convert one bed to bathroom so one on each floor - then as we get older would improve safety (currently average age late 60s)
Or downsize to smaller bungalow. In our town that means almost inevitably spending more money as land is pricey, and getting rid of DHs bulky Edwardian heirloom furniture
Also would lose my lovely neighbours of many years and my lovely garden.
Have already given both kids significant lump sum towards buying their own house.
A reaction to a comment in another thread about selfish boomers "hoarding" family houses.
Don't feel like a hoarder but maybe we are😳🤷

@toconclude Yes obviously it's location specific but many do downsize to smaller & cheaper homes. I paid a load to move up the ladder & certainly resent it but it would certainly be more palatable if I had a shit ton of equity.

I don't understand the reluctance to pay SD if downsizing as the vast majority will have made far more than that in gains over the decades.

It's one factor among many to think about when you're moving. If there are other factors that outweigh it, then I guess you move. But if there aren't (and you basically like where you live) then you stay. It will inevitably affect decisions at the margins.

It's well-documented that taxation affects decisions and behaviours. If in aggregate we want to encourage or discourage certain behaviour then changing the tax system is a good way to do it. It can be neutral as to the total tax take. Eg cut stamp duty for downsizers, pay for it by taxing those staying put.

Boomer bashing and home ownership bashing is a sport on MN, don’t feel guilty over history.

It's well-documented that taxation affects decisions and behaviours.

And yet the gov are going ahead with the tax band freezes & tax hike.

@Gowithme

If you downsize you'll be buying a smaller cheaper house that a first time buyer would be more likely to be able to afford so to me it wouldn't make any sense. Anyway you bought and paid for that house so you can 'hoard' it all you like

I agree. I'm trying to get on the housing ladder now after a few years renting and twice lost out to a cash buyer, which could well be a downsizer although I don't know that obviously.

Surely more of an issue is how many families could afford these large family homes even if they did become available?
These problems are systemic and not up to individuals to solve imo.

@MadMadMadamMim

Agree with those saying the word 'boomer' is so insulting.

I'm mid 50s, so actually miss out on being a 'boomer' by a couple of years or so - but frankly people can fuck off to the far side of fuck if they think I owe them my home after all my years of work.

The idea that old people who won't fuck off and die or crawl off to somewhere smaller and let others have their home once they are deemed as old and useless is the MOST selfish and entitled attitude I've ever come across.

My parents (mis 80s) are still alive and in the large family home they've lived in for 50 plus years. They have no intention of going through the stress of moving house to gratify some entitled stranger who is eyeing up their home.

So does my dm and mil and I totally agree with you.

Will you inherit anything? Will your parents circumnavigate IHT? Personally I think that's a big issue, some inherit lots but others don't & for many an inheritance is the only way to get on the ladder. Plus against the backdrop of very high taxes I do understand why the young may feel resentful tbh

Who knows? They may outlive me. I have some health issues. They may end up with dementia/needing care and the care home fees will likely swallow up any spare money.

I will have paid off a 30 year mortgage before I see a penny of it, anyway, (and have several siblings) so if an inheritance had been the only way to get on the property ladder I'd have been retired before being able to buy. Not sure why anyone 'young' should feel bitter about this. I don't personally know anyone who bought with an inheritance apart from one person - who points out that they'd rather not have been orphaned in their late 20s.

@BanjoKnickers

I don't understand the reluctance to pay SD if downsizing as the vast majority will have made far more than that in gains over the decades.

It's one factor among many to think about when you're moving. If there are other factors that outweigh it, then I guess you move. But if there aren't (and you basically like where you live) then you stay. It will inevitably affect decisions at the margins.

It's well-documented that taxation affects decisions and behaviours. If in aggregate we want to encourage or discourage certain behaviour then changing the tax system is a good way to do it. It can be neutral as to the total tax take. Eg cut stamp duty for downsizers, pay for it by taxing those staying put.

Its not about what you make in gains over the years. Its about what your new place and the costs of moving will cost. If the new place doesn't cost significantly less than the one you live in and the existing one still suits you, or can be made to suit you, then why move and lose money? For many people there will be reasons not to move as well as plain old not wanting to and I think that taxing people who choose to stay put in a home that they own, and have paid for (or are paying for) with money that has already been taxed at least once, is just unfair.

If you could potentially live in the downstairs rooms stay put. My grandparents have a converted bungalow advertised as a 3 bed with a downstairs bathroom, they used to have two large doubles upstairs but put a shower room in so now have one large room and one perfectly good sized double and upstairs toilet/shower. Downstairs they have kitchen, big bathroom, living room, a brick conservatory/sunroom that they use as a casual dining room mostly and a formal dining room/hobby room (advertised as third bedroom). When my grandad was unwell that last room became his bedroom. He passed away and my gran now lives there alone. She has no intention of moving as the house works for her even if a time comes when she can't make use of upstairs, it's still good for guests or even carers should that be needed. She also has lovely neighbours and a social life built around the small market town. Why on earth should she move?

I’ve looked at bungalows where I live, and intend to stay, and I’d have to pay more to move to one.
So I’m staying, as I love where I live.

Not sure why anyone 'young' should feel bitter about this.

I understand that some feel resentful when they are paying a lot of tax, seeing their pension age move out & pay very high housing costs. I don't think it's rocket science. I think the NI hike is wrong personally.

I don't personally know anyone who bought with an inheritance apart from one person - who points out that they'd rather not have been orphaned in their late 20s.

And I don't know anyone including myself who didn't have help. Plus people don't have to die to give help & plenty lose parents & have no inheritance.

We had no help to buy our house. And I wouldn’t have asked for help.

@GeneLovesJezebel

Well that’s what my DM plans to do when the time comes, live entirely downstairs. She says the only time she is leaving her home is in a box 🤣

You must be my dc! I moved here last year and said it’s my “carry me out in a box” home. Or at least when I don’t know I’m being carried out or where I am It wasnt a true downsize but has ground floor bedroom and bathroom I can use when I can’t manage stairs

@Gowithme

If you downsize you'll be buying a smaller cheaper house that a first time buyer would be more likely to be able to afford so to me it wouldn't make any sense. Anyway you bought and paid for that house so you can 'hoard' it all you like

Bungelows are much more expensive for fewer rooms.

@fogglez

Not sure why anyone 'young' should feel bitter about this.

I understand that some feel resentful when they are paying a lot of tax, seeing their pension age move out & pay very high housing costs. I don't think it's rocket science. I think the NI hike is wrong personally.

I don't personally know anyone who bought with an inheritance apart from one person - who points out that they'd rather not have been orphaned in their late 20s.

And I don't know anyone including myself who didn't have help. Plus people don't have to die to give help & plenty lose parents & have no inheritance.

Ive never had help to buy any of my homes.

I think that taxing people who choose to stay put in a home that they own, and have paid for (or are paying for) with money that has already been taxed at least once, is just unfair.

It's an interesting question of tax ethics I think.

There's a good argument that home owners have a huge unfair tax advantage in that their capital (the house) produces very valuable income (rent-free accommodation) that goes untaxed. Compare that with someone who has their capital in some other assets like shares. The income (dividends) are taxed.

Like I said, we'd be down sizing toot sweet if a system like that was brought in, and I do think overall it would be fairer (and better for a host of other reasons) to shift the tax burden away from earned income towards asset ownership.

Ive never had help to buy any of my homes.

and your point is?

The Bank of mum & dad is the 9th biggest lender so I'd say statistically it's fairly common.

We’re in our fifties and are in the middle of buying a 4 bed house. I didn’t realise it was another thing we weren’t meant to be doing. I’m disabled so we looked at plenty of bungalows but they just didn’t work for us. The ones we could afford were just too small.

The house we’re buying is very new so the light switches and sockets are all accessible, the doors are wide enough for a wheelchair and we can convert the main bathroom to a walk in shower room really easily. The stairs are straight up and down so a stair lift won’t be a problem, either.

Honestly people need to get a grip. No one is “hoarding houses” they’re living in their homes.

@fogglez

Ive never had help to buy any of my homes.

and your point is?

The Bank of mum & dad is the 9th biggest lender so I'd say statistically it's fairly common.

My point was in answer to someone who said that they didnt know anyone who didnt have help. I also dont know anyone who has had help, probably only because of the mixture of people I know and we're all from the same background (ie not well off), so its horses for courses.

You absolutely don't have to move and you shouldn't feel pressured to. I'm probably the opposite to you as I'm 39 and live in a large open plan bungalow, I'd never consider living on two levels it just doesn't appeal and I'd be most aggrieved at someone telling me what I should do!

I wonder if I'm considered as taking up housing stock for an older person! ?

What's a 'boomer'? And what's the issue with it?

Hopefully it’s not one of my comments on the other post that’s upset you I don’t think anybody should be forced to downsize at all but I do think that house prices shouldn’t be allowed to run away with themselves to the point where at the beginning of the journey it doesn’t cost more than three times a young person salary to get on the ladder.

After that I guess it’s open season and the lady with her millions in on paper equity can continue to convince herself that she’s earnt them 😉
As for your situation I would say don’t put the bathroom upstairs because a four bedroom house can command a premium I remember looking when DC3 was a baby for a four bedroom house and it was just impossible to find anything.

My point was in answer to someone who said that they didnt know anyone who didnt have help

That's was me because I don't. That doesn't mean I believe everyone has help because they don't but nonetheless lots do.

@BanjoKnickers

I think that taxing people who choose to stay put in a home that they own, and have paid for (or are paying for) with money that has already been taxed at least once, is just unfair.

It's an interesting question of tax ethics I think.

There's a good argument that home owners have a huge unfair tax advantage in that their capital (the house) produces very valuable income (rent-free accommodation) that goes untaxed. Compare that with someone who has their capital in some other assets like shares. The income (dividends) are taxed.

Like I said, we'd be down sizing toot sweet if a system like that was brought in, and I do think overall it would be fairer (and better for a host of other reasons) to shift the tax burden away from earned income towards asset ownership.

Its never "free" owning a home vs renting, I am amazed that you should think that it is. if you own your own home then all repairs and maintenance fall on you, also buildings insurance including third party cover. As a purchaser vs a renter, you have chosen to "pay rent" ahead of time by taking on a mortgage. ....oh and you pay insurance premium tax on insurance premiums too. How often should people have to move in order to not pay "staying put" tax.....maybe it should also be charged to people who rent but stay put too? after all starter rentals are needed?

oh and PS...all the repairs maintenance and insurance are also payable at the same time as the mortgage is....it doesn't just kick in once the mortgage is paid off.