To suggest the government incentivising downsizing

[PoinsettiaPosturing]

There seems to be a couple of issues discussed very frequently here that could be potentially helped (not solved) by the government incentivising downsizing for home owners.

There's a significant issue of property availability to buy and rent, and a huge number of older people who are single/couples in 3/4/5 bed houses. This means that younger generations are stuck in their starter homes and priced out of long term homes.
MIL & FIL have a 4 bed detached and constantly complain about the cost to heat and maintain it, but hate that it'll cost them loads in stamp duty, moving fees & solicitors costs to downsize.

Perhaps Rishi could incentivise downsizing, so if you reduce the number of bedrooms when you move it over 60, then you're relieved of stamp duty, and perhaps receive a £2,000 (debatable) grant towards moving costs and expenses.

There are also constant complaints that older people stay in their homes long after they 'should' based on significant care needs, decreasing mobility and long term repair issues.

The incentive could encourage people moving to smaller houses, flats, retirement communities or even combining households with family members.

This would hopefully:

1. Free up larger properties for families/younger people wanting to upsize
2. Hopefully mean older people have less heating and energy expenses
3. Encourage older people to move into properties more suitable to reduced mobility & care needs longer term
4. Mean older properties are restored/better maintained

I appreciate there are loads of people who want to stay in their family home until the end, and this wouldn't change that view point, but maybe a social movement towards older people reducing the size of their homes would create a bit of social contagion where it's more openly discussed?

Also, house builders could be encouraged to build more bungalows/smaller homes specifically for this scheme which perhaps are built with stair lifts in mind etc.

YABU - this will never work, ridiculous suggestion

YANBU - this has legs, you should go into politics

I agree, @TizerorFizz My 85-year-old Dad can't cope with a house anymore, even a bungalow. It would take him forever to walk around a 5,000 sq ft house, poor man. A compact flat with other people around him to socialize with when he feels like it is exactly what he wants. Not everyone wants their own detached house when they're elderly.

Never really understood why bungalows are usually built with bigger gardens. Most bungalow estates around here have huge gardens, far bigger on average than 3 bedroomed houses.

It's often said that developers don't want to build bungalows because they can't fit many in a plot due to the large gardens required. Why are they required?
Surely lots of bungalow dwellers are older people who probably don't need a huge lawn for kids to play on and would be happy with relatively small plots to grow a few plants.

My MIL has a pretty small bungalow, but the garden is absolutely huge - at least 3 times the area as the house itself. She just had it all paved over as she just wanted a handful of pot plants which she's now left to die as she lost interest completely!

Anyone care to explain what I'm missing?

The only thing that would encourage people to downsize is a falling market, and now we have seen falls for the 4th consecutive month it might be that people downsize now. The issue is that due to interest rates being so high and COL, many people still can't afford these family homes if they aren't cash buyers, most certainly FTB can't. So even if they want to sell, they might not be able to without a significant discount. They would probably only sell if they need the money for pensions or care.

The housing market has gone massively tits up worldwide and it should never have come to this. A generation have been screwed over royally by their governments.

@PoinsettiaPosturing I agree . As I said in my other posts I think many in their 60s and 70s still want to be independent and don't want communal lounges or care facilities on tap and still want 'some' outside space and parking and separate kitchens etc but so many of the mainstream developers want to build more conventional 'villages' - so they can charge whopping service fees

@Kazzyhoward
When were the bungalows built? Not in the last 30 years I bet. Bungalows with large gardens were very sought after for most of the last century. By families as well as older people. Hence the bigger garden requirement. Plus land was cheaper (in some areas). Do you see bungalows in central London? In fact anywhere much in London except the suburbs? They typically are in larger numbers where land was cheap. With all the issues regarding land acquisition and planning now, bungalows are just not built. I know a few that have been built in the gardens of bigger houses. We cannot even do that - planning policies say no more buildings at all.

Where I live in Greater London most large bungalow plots have been torn down and large 6 bed mansions have been erected or a number of terraced 3 beds with shared driveways.
My mother isn’t going to downsize unless she literally can’t afford to stay in her house. She has a generous final salary pension. Yet her large 5 storey house is going to be a nightmare once she is less mobile. In the mean time she professes she could never live in a flat with, god forbid, neighbours. She needs a garden to take her dogs out at night etc etc but her son has to mow her lawn every week and do all the DIY and live in a flat. A flat is good enough for him and his wive and 2 kids.
My baby boomer mother’s carbon footprint is horrendous. She is in denial about old age and doesn’t want to lose her status, same applies to most of her middle class friends. The fact that she is more likely to fall and end up on a trolley in old age - she won’t discuss that. Her house is her home with 40 years worth of memories and whilst her bridge friends are all doing the same and that is still socially acceptable, she isn’t going to shift. It is selfish though - she really doesn’t need 5 bedrooms and almost 3000 square foot.

@Aleaiactaest I was talking about my Dad’s downsizing plans recently with a friend who works for Social Services, mainly with elderly people. She said that in her experience, many people leave it too late to downsize and she feels that70 to 75 is the ideal window for most people to do it. Don’t wait until you’re no longer so mobile, etc. My Dad’s mobility has declined massively over the last decade and it would’ve been much easier to move 10 years ago. Oh well.
So I completely understand why you’d be worried about your Mum.

@HamBone - thank you. My mother is 74 and we have shown her so many places but nothing is good enough for her. We are on the verge of giving up.
She won’t even spend on adapting her own house. She won’t really be a burden on the system as she has a large pension and private health. However, it would be better for her and society at large if she moved somewhere else soon. She moved into her house when I was a baby. She just won’t listen and digs her head in the sand. One cannot insist on an elderly person moving away from local friends and family and what they have known most of their life though. I have realised that the large house gives her a sense of importance and status and she is scared of being very elderly, vulnerable, with no status and no inheritance to give. She seems to think the promise of some sort of inheritance will make family visit and involved. I think she wants us all to do chores for her in her house so she sees more of us. It is such a shame because it would be a wonderful family home for another family and my mother would be safer elsewhere, in the right kind of place. Rather than downsize now, she is going to end up in a care home because her house won’t be suitable (she has diabetes and vision issues), when she could have afforded almost live in care until possibly the very end of her life. This is a well off rich lady with a university education.
The irony is that she bought her house from a lovely couple who had brought up their kids there who were downsizing in their 60s. As you would do, if sensible up to mid 70s.

@MereDintofPandiculation
'The real problem isn’t that the bandings were done in 1991. It’s that the long tail of houses in the top band weren’t divided into further bands, and that although the highest priced houses are more than 10 times the price of an average house, council tax for the most expensive is much less than 10 times the average'
I agree, house prices in London and SE have escalated dramatically since 1991 so a resident in a house worth several million living in London could easily be paying less than someone in another region.
Obviously, there won't be the political will to re-band but a property tax, like in the US could be better and fairer.

Agree with @HamBone and @Aleaiactaest that downsizing can be a really positive and much safer option and that it is best done in before 70/75 depending on health, employment, whether adult children still live at home, etc. Lots of older people seem to cling on stubbornly even if their home (like the 5 storey one) is clearly unsafe or will soon become so.

Agree with @HamBone and @Aleaiactaest that downsizing can be a really positive and much safer option and that it is best done in before 70/75 depending on health, employment, whether adult children still live at home, etc. Lots of older people seem to cling on stubbornly even if their home (like the 5 storey one) is clearly unsafe or will soon become so.

The problem with this is though a downsizer at say age 60-65 probably won’t be ready to move to a place that suits a person of 80 plus, it seems on here that people aged 60-90 are being lumped together when they are completely different generations with very different needs and requirements, someone aged 60 now may downsize but will probably still have to do it again when they reach 80 plus.

MereDintofPandiculation · Today 12:09
Which freebies would they be? My husband is 64, we get no freebies from anyone. Just pay lots of taxes and insurance.

“Already you are no longer paying prescription charges, soon you will get free bus pass, winter fuel allowance. You probably get reduced entry to stately homes and other attractions. OK, it doesn’t add up to a lot in money terms, since if you are paying al lot of tax and won’t use some of these.”

Not sure which country you’re in? We’re in England. We pay prescription charges. We won’t get a bus pass because we drive, hope to do so for a good ten years more. Not eligible for one for several years anyway. I have no idea when the winter fuel allowance kicks in. No intention of claiming it. If we get it automatically, we’ll donate it to Shelter or Crisis. My husband won’t be eligible to retire until he’s 67, I think it is (though fully intends to continue working and contributing to the national coffers for as long as possible).

That’s all by the by, though. Every generation has its challenges and pitting one against the other is pointless. We all deal with the hand we’re dealt. I paid up to 15% interest on the mortgage on my first flat 🤷‍♀️

There are semi detached bungalows in my town but I hate the look of them they are completely without character.

'The problem with this is though a downsizer at say age 60-65 probably won’t be ready to move to a place that suits a person of 80 plus, it seems on here that people aged 60-90 are being lumped together when they are completely different generations with very different needs and requirements, someone aged 60 now may downsize but will probably still have to do it again when they reach 80 plus.'
Absolutely. I don't think anyone has lumped people of 60-90 together though. People who downsize and plan in their 60s may be able to stay happily and safely at home but it's all individual.
Developers not building the type of housing that people want and need is a big problem too.

@MrsSkylerWhite people in England get free prescriptions from 60 so presumably you are younger. The prescriptions rules are very out of date and need to be changed.

@MrsSkylerWhite people in England get free prescriptions from 60 so presumably you are younger. The prescriptions rules are very out of date and need to be changed.“

I honestly had no idea! I’m 58 and pay for mine. My husband is 64 and pays for a prescription pre-payment card, has done for years. No-one has ever told him that he doesn’t have to! (I think he has a dad arrangement?) Anyway, thanks, I’ll be looking into it tomorrow!

60 seems very young to be getting free prescriptions. Most people work years beyond that. Makes no sense.

anyway, my point I suppose was that there seems to be a lot of boomer-blaming on this thread 😁
We pay our way, always have. Everyone is born when they’re born, they have no say in that! We all do, I hope, the fairest and best we can given what we’re dealt. Blaming previous generations isn’t very fair. We have kids too and worry about them and their futures (and do everything we can to help them: plus our elderly parents who are in dire straits, though that seems to be ignored). Current economic circumstances aren’t the fault of your average 60 year old Jo/Joe.

Not a dad arrangement 🤣 A DD arrangement.

I have two experiences of this.

My aunt sold her 3 bed bungalow to moved to a retirement village at 70. She has a good pension and can pay the large fees. She loves it there and says she doesn't know why she didn't do it sooner.

My mother is rattling around in a 4 bed, 3 storey Victorian house but does not want to move. She's 76 and losing her sight. I worry about her falling all the time. Her house is not in a great area, but it's probably worth 300k. The cost of a two bed place at the retirement village is similar, but then with huge service fees that my mother (who has no savings and relies on state pension) cannot afford. Also, the flats do not appreciate in value like a house does. She says she worries that this won't leave as much for my brother and me. I tell her, I don't care about any of that, that I want her to be safe, in a manageable home. I've offeered to show her smaller houses, but she does not want to. She has lots of 'stuff' and memories there. Ideally, she wants to stay, but it's dangerous, impractical and cold.

Actually baby boomers have huge advantages. I no longer pay NI. Nor does DH. Why? We know older people use services more. Not education but the health service. So those pensioners who pay tax on their income pay less tax than working people because they don’t pay NI.

We have houses that have multiplied in value. We had a 15% mortgage. The house was relatively cheap though so no big deal. We could easily afford it. You would need to be earning a lot more than we were (relatively) to buy it now. Boomers are better off than any other younger member of society. No university fees. Plenty of jobs. Gold plated final salary pensions. Even non contributory pensions! Generous early retirement deals. These things are distant history for the young now.

Boomers are better off than any other younger member of society. No university fees. Plenty of jobs. Gold plated final salary pensions

Seriously, what percentage of boomers do you think have good plated final salary pensions? I'm one of the lucky ones because I was a teacher. But none of my boomer acquaintances do. They didn't work in those kinds of jobs.

Be grateful for what you have, but don't feed the unfair boomer criticism by spreading this sort of inaccurate information.
I've just been talking to a friend my age who is in desperate straits due to the cost of living crisis. A reduced state pension (she paid the married woman's contribution for a long time) is all she has.-he's worked for most of her life, but before every employer (very recently) was forced to offer occupational pension support.

Also only a tiny percentage of boomers got to go to university, of course. So no university he's didn't benefit 95% of my peers one iota

TizerorFizz · Today 23:42
Actually baby boomers have huge advantages. I no longer pay NI. Nor does DH. Why? We know older people use services more. Not education but the health service. So those pensioners who pay tax on their income pay less tax than working people because they don’t pay“

Why don’t you pay NI? We’re boomers and we do. We’re not pensioners and won’t be for at least 4 and 9 years respectively?

I also bought my first home in 1987. It was a one bed flat and cost me £62,000. I earned £11,500. I was only able to afford it because I worked for an investment bank which had an in-house brokerage which basically fiddled the books to make it happen. Most 22 year olds had no hope of buying any more then than they do now. My interest soared to 15% a couple of years or so later too, I went into negative equity and had to sell at a loss. It wasn’t all roses then either.

Bungalow plots tend to be quite wide, to fit in the extra rooms at ground level. This results in wide gardens, but they’re often short (although not always).

By contrast, many of the terraced houses in my area have fairly long, narrow gardens. They’re not necessarily smaller than the bungalow gardens, just a different shape.

I live in a street of 60s bungalows BTW. Our short, wide gardens back onto the short, wide gardens of the bungalows in the street behind. My favourite thing about this arrangement is that my north-facing garden catches plenty of sun (apart from one dreary corner).

If you are retired you don’t pay NI @saraclara . I’m retired. So is DH.When you retire you won’t pay it. I’m 67. DH is older. We both have incomes in addition to pensions.

Regarding Final salary pensions, Local government has changed it now, but everyone older than me has it. Also nhs had it. Also civil service. And when DH went to university, 10% went. Early 1970s. There was a huge expansion of university education in the 1960s when numerous universities were built and also the polytechnics. Millions benefitted from this.

Our first house was £20,000. Borrowed £18,000 which was 3 x DH salary and 1 x mine. 15% interest. 1978. We have moved twice since then. I am perfectly clear that we have had advantages and that many younger people won’t get what we have had.

I agree with this. People of approx 55/60-80s have enjoyed many advantages that younger generations do not.
They had a lot more genuine opportunities regardless of family financial situation, free University for those who were capable, secure jobs, far better pensions and employment t&c, ability to support a family on one income much more often and, a huge one, affordable houses.
Obviously, life wasn't always 'roses' but those were huge advantages which are simply not available to younger people, particularly the very young.