Page 23 | Jeremy Vine - people are morally obliged to downsize and free up property

JoanThursday1972 · 2023-04-14T11:17:50+00:00

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.

EffortlessDesmond · 16/04/2023 20:40

I completely agree with the practical wish for more bungalows, but aesthically they are not usually the most pleasing unless you are in California. So often in the UK, bungalow is shorthand for cramped.

Sarvanga38 · 16/04/2023 20:59

No commercial builders are going to be building bungalows these days unless incentivised to do so - no profit in that, it’s all about how many properties you can get on a piece of lab.

howmuchcouldtheyfindout · 16/04/2023 21:02

So Jeremy has a 4 bed house from a quick google but I assume this only applies to lowly renters?

Daisybuttercup12345 · 16/04/2023 21:03

memoriesofamiga · 14/04/2023 12:20

Haha good one, try getting boomers to do that 😂

Why should they?

CleverLilViper · 16/04/2023 21:17

Swiftbushome · 16/04/2023 18:37

God this thread is so depressing. Of course people are under no obligation to move from their homes that they bought with their own money, but the attitude that they are horrified at even the thought of living with a bedroom plus a spare and a slightly smaller lounge plus maybe a smaller garden. And that they could not possibly entertain the indignity of living like that, but thinking it's totally fine for a couple and their 2 kids to live in the exact same property (but with twice the people) and that's totally fine, is something else.

Who chose to have the two children?

Ilovecleaning · 16/04/2023 21:19

A crap idea. I bet Jeremy Vine wouldn’t do it.

Swiftbushome · 16/04/2023 21:26

@CleverLilViper what difference does that make? Even if they didn't have kids why is it ok for them to have small homes if they're not good enough for the oldies. And if everyone stopped having kids then who'd pay for your pension?

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 16/04/2023 22:31

Swiftbushome · 16/04/2023 21:26

@CleverLilViper what difference does that make? Even if they didn't have kids why is it ok for them to have small homes if they're not good enough for the oldies. And if everyone stopped having kids then who'd pay for your pension?

Oldies?

Swiftbushome · 16/04/2023 22:37

Seriously? A pp suggested the housing problem is the fault of younger people for having children and the point you're picking up on is the use of the word "oldies" rather than "old people"? Ok then

pigsDOfly · 16/04/2023 22:57

DannyZukosSmile · 16/04/2023 14:53

Getting a bit tired of the same old tired attack on the 'boomers' to be honest. Not EVERY boomer had it 'easy' and had everything handed to them on a plate, but even if some of them did, so what? There are so many bitter, jealous people on here who are begrudging people having what they have worked all their lives for. It's pathetic, and tragic, at the same time. (I am NOT a boomer by the way!)

Saw a tweet on Twitter earlier from a guy called Alex Groundwater, that speaks volumes. Everyone and anyone who has any chances or opportunities will take them. If someone said to you now 'you can get a £200,000 house for £40,000,' or 'a £300,000 house for £60,000,' would you think even for a second 'no I'll give it a miss, coz it it may affect future generations down the line?' Would you fuck! You would take the opportunity. Do not lie, you WOULD.

And would you give up a lovely roomy home that is in a lovely area, and that you have spent 1000s of pounds on, that is near your friends/family/workplace etc, so another family with an extra member or two can have it? LOL, NO YOU WOULD NOT. Whether you were an owner OR someone renting a social housing home.

So much ludicrous hypocrisy from (some) millennials (and a few Gen Z.) They always bang on about 'the boomers...' taking sooo much from them (allegedly!) but in reality, the vast majority of 'boomers' have never done a thing wrong.

The bitterness and jealousy is so real on here (and on other platforms.) So much nastiness aimed at a generation who did nothing wrong, just made the best of the opportunities given to them. As I said, don't tell me you wouldn't all do the same, because you bastard well WOULD! Shame on some people for the way they talk about their parents and grandparents. Disgusting. As I said, THIS (on Twitter) speaks volumes...

Alex Groundwater on Twitter: "I have yet to meet a member of my parents’ generation (boomers) who deliberately set out to ‘screw the kids’. Likewise any members of GenX. Every generation takes advantage of all available opportunities to secure their family’s future! That’s human nature 🤷🏼‍♂️" / Twitter

So, so true.

Seymour5 · 16/04/2023 23:05

Crikeyalmighty · 16/04/2023 15:20

@SquidwardBound Yep my FIL has exactly the same issue -apart from the fact he doesn't like where it is- it was very much chosen by his partner to be bear get family, who has since died.

He isn't keen on the idea of buying a flat- due to leaseholds- I think he would sell up and rent one though 'if' he could get the security- but rentals through the specialists like McCarthy stone are extortionate! And standard private rentals - well you don't wont to be doing multiple moves in your 80s!!

I think some retired complexes but built to rent , low rise and with no service charges to tenants would actually do really well. Slightly higher rents to reflect getting windows cleaned, gardens tended, lifts maintained etc reflected in price but no need for 'care' etc or vast lounges and all the stuff that create £800 a month service charges in many if these owner occupied complexes

Small Bungalows are really not easy to find in good order in some areas- and hence are often very overpriced

They would be ideal, especially for older owner occupiers of cheaper houses. They can’t afford McCarthy & Stone prices, but are often excluded from social housing rental options. Their capital would remove the need for benefits, they’d not have the worry of maintenance etc, and it could actually improve well being.

DH and I live in a three bedroomed house, with two reception rooms. We can’t afford to buy a bungalow, but we’d downsize happily to an affordable rented two bedroomed, one reception roomed flat in a complex. We’re in our 70s, don’t live near our DC, so we want one extra bedroom in case we need them to stay. Looks like we’ll be staying put.

Thesharkradar · 16/04/2023 23:16

Daisybuttercup12345 · 16/04/2023 21:03

Why should they?

Show quote history

and there you have it, no one is willing to take a hit, quite understandably which means we become more& more dysfunctional as a society due to inadequate, unsuitable & unaffordable housing

Crikeyalmighty · 16/04/2023 23:35

@Seymour5 exactly. My FIL like you doesn't want to spend all his equity on a grotty bungalow that needs work or a leasehold flat in a over 55 complex where you then struggle to sell and is wary of the insecurity on the normal private rental market.

There really is a market for good quality 1- 3 bed rentals for over 55s , low rise with balconies or patios at a decent rental including some services- but not what McCarthy and stone are asking. !!

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 17/04/2023 00:49

Swiftbushome · 16/04/2023 22:37

Seriously? A pp suggested the housing problem is the fault of younger people for having children and the point you're picking up on is the use of the word "oldies" rather than "old people"? Ok then

You implied that the people in larger homes were selfish, shallow and happy to for a couple and two children to live in unsuitable homes. The response you got didn't surprise me. Instead of addressing the actual poster you doubled down on the selfish 'oldies' also labelling them ungrateful because who do they think is going to be paying their pensions?

Why is it selfish not to want to move into a house that does not meet your needs so that someone else's needs can be met? That's effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul and makes no sense. Why is the larger homeowners fault that there is no suitable accommodation for the young couple or for themselves to downsize into? Why is your attention not focused on the government? It's successive governments and their policies which have led the the current state of affairs. I don't intend to downsize voluntarily. You talked about this thread being depressing. Have you seen the cost of care homes? £3000 per month (council - not an expensive one and those costs keep rising as greater care is required) or even been in one? Do you know what else is depressing planning for old age, infirmity and death. We wont be able to retire until at least 70 if we are lucky, pension won't be enough, nor will we have saved enough for care provision. We could downsize but we would still need at least four bedrooms for the space we would need downstairs and it would cost almost as much as the house we have at the moment to stay in an area where we have a great support network / neighbourhood are close to a hospital and other amenities. There is a shortage of adapted housing and so we would then have the costs of adapting at to this stamp duty and other legal fees... We might as well burn that money. We picked our house with a view (Once DC's move out) to being able to accommodate elderly parents/ siblings/ DC's needing to move in/ back in and/or in the event that one of us needed adapted living. One of the reception rooms can be turned into a bedroom with space for a hospital bed and any medical equipment etc. It still leaves another reception and the kitchen for whichever of us is the primary carer. The utility becomes an adapted shower room. Should we need an overnight carer there is a spare room for them and also other bedrooms for family to stay. Should we prioritise the family you mention over planning for a dignified, and as self sufficient as possible retirement and end of life care? hell, no!

And no, we are not boomers, nor are we the only ones planning as we best we can.

SquidwardBound · 17/04/2023 04:25

This is classic getting everyone to point their fingers at each other and complain of selfishness etc.

When the problem is the inadequate housing in this country.

Socrateswasrightaboutvoting · 17/04/2023 07:50

SquidwardBound · 17/04/2023 04:25

This is classic getting everyone to point their fingers at each other and complain of selfishness etc.

When the problem is the inadequate housing in this country.

It is and it has been mentioned on this thread several times. But we are still back at the selfish the selfish oldies.

KimberleyClark · 17/04/2023 08:08

CleverLilViper · 16/04/2023 21:17

Who chose to have the two children?

Show quote history

Well yes, what about the moral obligation to not have more children than you can afford to comfortably house.

Jonei · 17/04/2023 08:12

KimberleyClark · 17/04/2023 08:08

Well yes, what about the moral obligation to not have more children than you can afford to comfortably house.

Show quote history

It's a reasonable point.

Jonei · 17/04/2023 08:14

Crikeyalmighty · 16/04/2023 23:35

@Seymour5 exactly. My FIL like you doesn't want to spend all his equity on a grotty bungalow that needs work or a leasehold flat in a over 55 complex where you then struggle to sell and is wary of the insecurity on the normal private rental market.

There really is a market for good quality 1- 3 bed rentals for over 55s , low rise with balconies or patios at a decent rental including some services- but not what McCarthy and stone are asking. !!

McCarthy and stone is a terrible deal imo.

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 17/04/2023 08:26

Mcarthy and stone can’t sell their properties near me. A 4 bed semi is worth 500000. A 2 bed flat with them is 98k. A smililar normal flat would be about £190

Thinkwicebeforeyouleavemylife · 17/04/2023 08:30

Ridiculous suggestion. Me and DH and our cat have a 2 double bed and 1 box room semi. We use all the rooms and in the future we may have kids. Equally, an older person may want to pass their house down through the family. Houses are more than just bricks and mortar, they're family memories.

Spendonsend · 17/04/2023 08:32

There are other retirement flat providers. Mccarthy and stone seem to have particularly high service charges and be very hard to sell on.

fairypeasant · 17/04/2023 08:34

The world would be a much better place if those who had more than they needed only took what they need, until everyone has what they need.

Of course you can buy a big house to store your greed that you don't actually need, while families suffer from a shortage of housing stock. Just as people can create food waste while others starve.

It's not morally right though.

Jonei · 17/04/2023 08:37

Spendonsend · 17/04/2023 08:32

There are other retirement flat providers. Mccarthy and stone seem to have particularly high service charges and be very hard to sell on.

McCarthy and stone are by far the biggest one. No one in their right mind would opt to have their life savings significantly reduced by this retirement flat scandal.

Jonei · 17/04/2023 08:44

fairypeasant · 17/04/2023 08:34

The world would be a much better place if those who had more than they needed only took what they need, until everyone has what they need.

Of course you can buy a big house to store your greed that you don't actually need, while families suffer from a shortage of housing stock. Just as people can create food waste while others starve.

It's not morally right though.

Maybe people should make sure they have the right housing they need before opting to grow their families.

It's also not morally right to think older people should give up their homes / memories / and downgrade to rip off retirement flats.

If you want to blame anyone blame the government for rapidly increasing the population with no care or consideration to how they / or the existing population are going to be housed.

Blame it on government initiatives such as the serco rental scheme, who are rapidly stripping the rental market with lucrative deals to landlords, so that there's less housing available for those who want to expand their families.

Rather than targeting older people for living in the houses they've spent all of their lives paying for.