Jeremy Vine - people are morally obliged to downsize and free up property

[JoanThursday1972]

Currently have this on the radio. Suggestion is that people are not entitled to remain in and live in the house that they have bought and paid for. That they should downsize and free this up for more deserving occupants, ie families.

This is surely a personal choice and not an obligation? Anyone is entitled to live in a house they have bought, regardless of size.

If it’s a council property, they should downsize as council should only have to give an appropriate property for number of residents. If you’re renting or own, definitely your choice although personally I wouldn’t want a big house on my own

If you can't afford a bigger house then don't have a bigger family
We are 2 in a 3 bed.
All 3 bedrooms get used, I would struggle to downsize

Haha good one, try getting boomers to do that 😂

I’ve heard this argument before and yes, it’s weird. Of course people are entitled to buy and live in whatever sort of property they like, provided they can afford it. Is there a shortage of large ‘forever homes’ for families?

Why boomers? There are plenty of couples of all ages with more than 1 bedroom.

Well i think the government, town planners and building firms are morally obliged to set targerts to build the type of properties people want to downsize too.

Yabu. My mum upsized to somewhere with enough bedrooms for family to stay and the house can be easily adapted as she gets older.

Down sizing cost money. Stamp duty, legal fees, estate agent fees.

Often the properties to downsize to aren't suitable for older people, bungalows are few and expensive.

It's no wonder people don't want to downsize

Yes, people have the right to keep what they own. But rather than thinking of it as a moral obligation, I think the UK could do a lot to emulate countries where pragmatic planning for your older age is commonplace and talked about. Regardless of the issue of families unable to access larger hones, the UK - at least partially, I think, caused by the British obsession with houses and private gardens, and of leaving an inheritance to your children as a main goal - has a significant problem of older people living in large family homes which they can no longer adequately afford to maintain or heat and often confined to the downstairs because of mobility problems.

It would be far more beneficial all around to have a culture where old age and disability and older age care were spoken about pragmatically and without a lot of emotion, and people empowered to think about the “homes for life” idea of downsizing whilst you are still in good health and not waiting until you are desperately frail with fewer options and a move will impact your health; and retirement complexes which allow for residents to live completely independently in their own apartments whilst they are relatively able, but then able to access on site support gradually as they need it, and then ultimately live in care if they end up needing that.

Council housing - yes. Private property - no. I bought my house and am developing the garden so I have somewhere lovely to spend time in during retirement. All the proposed approach would do is stop people improving and investing in their homes.

i do find this one a bit ridiculous, although I understand why some people agree with it. But if I’ve paid for my house I’m going to live in it until a time when I don’t want to live it it anymore.

Surely, if people are downsizing that then drives demand for smaller properties which have historically been for people earlier on in the property chain, therefore increasing demand and prices and creating even more of a housing crisis?

I say that as someone who on paper has a house bigger than our needs and I have no interest in living somewhere smaller again 😁

I loved on a tiny property for a very long time and nobody thanked me for it.

Now live in a large property, have lots of spare space, and wouldn’t downsize for love or money.

Council tenants do pay rent, you know. Just not to pay landlords mortgages. The problem is the lack of them.
Incidentally, we did downsize because it was beneficial for us.
The problems faced by young people finding and paying for housing also mean tenants' offspring end up boomeranging in the same way others do.

Putting aside the obvious economic/ social mobility problems, he's not really wrong.

If you have a family struggling in a 2 bed house who are unable to get something bigger because there is a lack of supply caused by larger houses being occupied by say elderly couples with 3 spare rooms then yes, there is an argument that the right thing to do is for the elderly couple to sell up and free up the family sized property.

It’s a ridiculous argument that I doubt anyone actually agrees with.

How far does it go? Are single young adults morally obliged to move out of home so their parents can downsize for a family with younger children? Are people obliged to have fewer children so they can downsize sooner than if they had more? Are people who are selling to downsize obliged to accept less money than their property is worth so that another family can afford to buy it?

How do you know what the next stage of your life will bring? I am in a 3 bed property, sometimes alone, sometimes over crowded, it varies year on year, sons go to university, return home, bring partners, may raise children here eventually, who knows? We take in refugees sometimes, and foster children It would be a nonsense to downsize, even though there are likely to be only two of us in it for the next year or two. The third bedroom is acting as a home office

@ComtesseDeSpair I agree

The only times there have been enough houses are when the government has invested significantly in housebuilding. The government needs to do some actual governing and support construction of new homes, and good quality ones that people want to live in. And deal with the flow of foreign investment that leaves properties uninhabited.

You first millionaire media person

This argument is so flawed.

We are a couple with no children in a 5 bed. We pay all the bills taxes etc and maintain the property well.

If we can't or don't want children in the future would we have to sell up?

Houses are a status symbol not just an essential.

My Great Aunt lived alone for many years in a 4 bed house. It seems bonkers in a way. She didn't even enter half the rooms. It was the house her and her husband bought as a retirement property (no children)

I thought it quite a balanced discussion with people saying why they did downsize or why they have decided to stay.

The man from Dorset made an interesting comment that he wants to downsize but there aren’t enough 2 bed properties in his area because of second home owners. Plus cost of stamp duty.

I now rattle around in my house by myself for the most part (apart from the pets) and I chose and paid for it and now maintain/improve it and its garden because it suits me fine. It's my house in my colours with my art and collectables. There is no way I will give it up until I absolutely cannot manage anymore.

Others can save up just like I did.

Anything JV says goes in one ear and out the other with me.