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

This seems helpful

www.independentage.org/get-advice/health-and-care/paying-for-care/giving-away-assets-to-avoid-paying-for-care

I think they will still investigate, though.

Yes it will. Have you looked at the demographics? Birth rates are lowest ever, the baby boomers are starting to die off. Lots of big houses will come on the market through natural attrition

A lot will just pass them onto their children though. I live on a road of very desirable 4 bed semis. They rarely come on the market. When someone passes away the house just passes to family.

@Mentalpiece yours is a "home", not just a "house"
I would love my Mum to move a bit nearer to us. She's in a 4 bed with a large garden that she now needs help with, but it's where myself and my sister grew up. My Dad put his heart and soul into improving and extending it before he passed away (at home). My Dad, Sister and Grandparents are buried in the local church, and all of her friends are there. There are many happy memories (and some sad) within those walls. No incentive on earth would make her leave. Even if new, smaller properties were built next door (which they wont be as it's an AONB) she would hate to see someone else living in her house.

They can investigate all they want but if you were in good health at the time and it was over 7 years ago, they are pissing in the wind and won't be able to do anything about it

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain

Hmm yes see what you mean. The person who they transferred the house over too could potentially have to pay the care home fees/get into debt etc. Not a forgone conclusion then it seems.

My mum has downsized and my inlaws havent. The biggest barriers are the type of housing available and the effort involved. It's really stressful moving and then the new property takes work to get it how you like it. If you have the energy for all that you probably still host and enjoy the garden.

If older people down size they will be buyogn2.3 bed houses and pricing people out if the market for those homes
real issue is England is very overpopulated

They can investigate as far back as they want

www.independentage.org/get-advice/health-and-care/paying-for-care/giving-away-assets-to-avoid-paying-for-care

As I said, they can investigate as far back as they want but as long as it was over 7 years ago you did it and at the time you were in good health with no impending diseases or conditions, they can't do anything about it.

If it were 15 years ago and at the time you were already arthritic or suffering from a chronic disease or condition, then they could count it as deprivation.

If it were 15 years ago and you were healthy, they can't

I’m not sure this is correct? IHT is due over £325k.

There's no 7 years rule for deprivation of assets

www.ms-solicitors.co.uk/community-care-law/deprivation-of-assets/faqs-social-care-funding-deprivation-of-assets/

Hmm councils can investigate and do..... care costs have been widely known about for a long time.

We did this both in our late 50’s we’ve significantly upsized because now our children have partners and maybe 1 day grand children and we wanted more space and as we head to retirement a bigger garden. Personally I hate bungalow living and our house could easier adapted to enable us to live in it to well into old age if we needed too. It’s also been designed to be exceedingly energy efficient it’s much much cheaper to run than many of my work colleagues smaller houses electricity is averaging £80 per month and 1000l of oil last me 12~14 months. My only gripe is the council tax its top band.

They don't build the right houses for people to downsize to. It took us ages to find what we wanted and we had the cash luckily as loads of people wanted it. We didn't want loads of unused bedrooms or a pokey two bed starter home. We finally found one suitable two double bedrooms, two proper bathrooms - one downstairs, open plan living/ kitchen/diner but with another reception that could be a bedroom in years to come if necessary. It has plenty of parking but a smallish easy maintenance garden. Near a bus stop, a small supermarket and only ten minutes flat walk to doctors, cafes, shops, cinema, library, leisure centre etc

If you were fit and healthy and could not have imagined needing care and support
Strikes me this is a slippery and elastic phrase.... Governments will be looking to reinterpret as the costs of caring for increasing numbers of elderly frail people skyrocket

I sort of agree. We live in an "older" town where the average age is at least in their 70s but with lots of younger families coming through - in a town filled with housing estates with detached 3/4/5 bed homes, there's hardly been any properties on the market for the past couple of years. On our road alone, there are 5 properties out of 9 that you could say are being "hogged" by older people on their own, including one that's been turned into an airbnb!
There are lots of lovely, suitable bungalows for older people that are walking distance to town centre, but they're mostly bought up by landlords who then rent them out, or sold as soon as they go on the market for above value by property developers who then turn a £350,000 bungalow into a £600,000 home that's too big for an older person to manage the upkeep of.

They can investigate as far back and as much as they like, but the fact that we were only in our early forties when we signed it over, with no foresight if ill health or death at that time means that they're pretty much investigating a brick walled dead end.
If I thought that they could overturn it, then I would have sold it to the kids for £500 each instead.
They would also have to prove that our youngest doesn't live here as their home when we either die or need care.
Child doesn't, but all the post comes here, the bank accounts etc are registered here and the electoral roll shows child as living at this address.
You just need to be savvy 😉

Off the top of my head, I don't think it'll help much because it would just create more froth in the market for certain sorts of homes. You'd have pinch points from both ends of the market, especially around two-bedroom houses; lots of young people trying to get onto the ladder or into their (maybe) second home, but also lots of older couples or solo people being incentivised to downsize.

As a country we need a big rethink of housing, and in its context as it connects to work and society as well. What's not helping is big developers throwing up huge estates of four- and five-bedroom houses on the outskirts of towns and villages, and not creating any additional amenities to cope with that extra population.

It’s a shame though. I’m not all ‘tax more’ in any posts but tax helps your dc too, as it funds various things.

Opting out just doesn’t sit well

@Soothsayer1

I should imagine so. Particularly with how skint councils are and how little they do actually want to spend funding care.

I mean it could work…. maybe!

But is definitely not a guarantee and I wouldn’t want to take that risk actually with my own kids potentially getting the bill for my care fees. Doesn’t really apply to me anyway as I’m in a council house and will have to accept whatever is in offer, please god euthanasia comes into play soon. I am sure this will once they realise how cost effective it could be 🤦‍♀️. I mean it’s not like they care about ethics.

I've said this so many times on here.

I genuinely think that if more bungalows were available, then older people would have somewhere to move to that would enable them to stay living independently at home for MUCH longer. It would massively ease pressure on the NHS through preventing bed blocking - imagine your an 80yr old in hospital with a fall. You may be fit and well to go home, but you can't manage stairs, in which case you're stuck in hospital until a suitable care home/nursing home place opens up. But if you lived in a bungalow, you could easily be discharged...

I live in an aging village. I would guess that a good 70% of the big 4 bedroom houses here are lived in by people aged 65-70+. Many of whom would be willing to downsize but quite rightly, want to remain living in the village. We've recently had 2 massive housing developments, with a total of 250 new homes built. Wanna know how many bungalows were built? 2. just 2.

I think the solution is for the government to say to property developers to put the same focus on last-time homeowners as first-time homeowners. That way, it means new stock becomes available - and within this, I mean homes that have low/accessible doors, walk-in showers downstairs, wide hallways.

My MIL lives in a large 3 bed house with her brother. His knees are shot. He literally can barely walk and is registered disabled. They have no downstairs loo or bathroom and he literally has to crawl up the stairs. They both admit they need something more suitable but nothing is available that they can afford. Anywhere! Yet they live in an area that has had HUGE development over the past 10 years. I would guess in the region of 500+ homes have been built within ten mins of where they live, yet absolutely nothing whatsoever for bungalows etc

Surely the stamp duty boomers would have to pay to downsize would be more than covered by the enormous gains they’ve made in property value? Our elderly neighbours bought their house for £25k 40 years ago and will sell for well over a million. You’re telling me they can’t afford stamp duty!?
Because of course this applies to all the hated "boomers" doesn't it?

Unless you are paying a market rate rent, and your children are declaring and paying tax on the income, you are conspiring to avoid tax. This will probably emerge at probate , if not before when you are expecting the state ( that’s me and all the other tax payers on MN) to pick up the bill for your care.