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.

I'm a young person who lives in a smallish place and yet this makes me so angry, what a ridiculous suggestion. It's the government's job to fix the appalling housing situation in this country. When will they stop and put the blame on common people for something the government is refusing to do even though we pay them for it!?

Maybe there should be services that make it easier for older to people to downsize if they want to.

Packing up a house full of possessions, sorting out moving, actuallyoving, putting things away after the move. These are big obstacles for elderly people.

Perhaps there could be some sort of scheme where the council can buy your house for a slightly reduced price (increasing council stock) in exchange for a packing and unpacking moving service. Perhaps with a gardening and cleaning/ maintenance service for life?
Of course this option is only available to rich people, not normal people.

Also I expect that things could be very difficult emotionally. I also expect bungalows or flats with proper sound proofing and gardens. When my nan was ill and dying she couldn't leave the house, but she could manage to get into the garden with some help. If she had downsized to a place with a small garden or without a garden she would have been so unhappy .
As it is she had her sons living at home with her until she died so she was morally OK. There were also grandchildren moving in and out whenever it was needed so it's not completely black and white.

I know a couple who live in a 4 bed with 3 reception rooms and a massive garden. No children. It seems like a waste of space but it is a lovely house. They obviously bought it for the garden. We need bigger gardens for smaller properties. That way people with children have enough space and everyone else does too.

So offer incentives, then, Jeremy - e.g. reduced stamp duty for downsizers. Often it's not the idea of living in a smaller house that is offputting, but the hassle and upheaval of moving - you need to incentivise it.

Yes I agree here - it only took 4 posts for this thread to turn toxic.

The same people who insist on equality for all with regards to sex, gender, race etc (as is correct) seem to be the first ones to shout "Boomer" or "Karen" when they see something they don't agree with.

Not acceptable.

It's ok for Jeremy and his millions, he can afford to downsize to an exclusive retirement village with a boules green, sound proof apartments, private gardens or terraces and concierge service. Stupid idea which does nothing to address the real issue.

I know a couple who remodeled their house and divided it into two, and their daughter lives there with her husband and 2 kids. The parents live in the smaller part of the house.

Win win for both, although obviously this wouldn't work for all families. Not sure how they sorted it financially either.

Bungalows are bloody expensive where I live. There’d be very little left over if we sold our three bed semi for one.

When did he get elected?

Jeremy Vine show is meant to be provocative. That's the whole purpose.

It's very expensive to move...
My friend in a 1 bed HA flat told me a few years ago that single occupancy/couples in 3 bed flats in the block were being offered £5,000 to move out if they were interested! There are all sorts of financial motivations from the government for people to save - best one is a 50% bonus for people on benefits, there's also the 20% bonus on Help to Buy ISAs - what financial incentives could be offered for downsizers? Would a 50%/100% reduction on stamp duty or £5,000/£10,000 prize help to persuade anybody? It's got me thinking!

I know a couple who live in a 4 bed with 3 reception rooms and a massive garden. No children. It seems like a waste of space but it is a lovely house. They obviously bought it for the garden. We need bigger gardens for smaller properties. That way people with children have enough space and everyone else does too.

This is us, and 2 of our NDNs - one downsized from a 6 bed to a 4 bed.

When people choose to sell their home to move somewhere else, they will.

Nobody has the right to tell someone to leave a home they have paid for.

Why do MPs need 2 residences? What about Rishi, how many homes does he need? He could sublet his free flat (number 10) and Chequers.

I had no idea boomer was considered offensive! What should that generation be called?

If he is proposing it, yes it is directly relevant. If he is just presenting the topic for debate and being devils advocate, then not relevant.

There has been a huge amount of new building around here, many are bought by insurance companies and banks to let out. Thousands of multi £1 million flats have been built in London and other places, bought by Chinese, Russians etc and left empty. This is what needs to stop

This!

I actually think stamp duty should only.be paid on the price difference in houses,
Currently own £250k
Bigger house £350k
Stamp duty on £100k

Also houses for many is seen as an investment not just a house to live in.

Ah, yes. Buy a flat instead so you can get to pay extortionate service charges that would overshadow any decrease in heating any extra bedrooms. Also, how about property "investors", read hoarders who own goodness knows how many properties and have not paid stamp duty or enough taxes because of loopholes?

Just saying it's what he should be advocating, not that he could do it.

Given that this particular "boomer" built half my house, I'll leave when I'm good and ready, thanks.

1. JV is hosting a debate. It's not his personal idea.

2. It's not necessarily a stupid idea.

There are plenty of families out there who would need to move to bigger houses but can't due to the costs of doing so and/or unavailability of suitable properties.

Likewise there are plenty of people in houses which really are too big for their needs and can't afford to heat/run/maintain them but are also unable to move due to the costs of doing so and/or unavailability of suitable properties.

So a scheme which puts these groups of people together would, on the face of it, help quite a deal.

It's an interesting question but to my mind totally misdirected. Second homes / holiday lets are surely the obvious target for a 'moral obligation' to sell up? I live in a very desirable village location with a high % of retirees and holiday homes. Of my nearest neighbours 1 is a family, 2 are holiday lets and 3 big houses with elderly inhabitants. I would 1000x rather see the holiday homes sold to families to live in rather than the older residents kicked out before they're ready and it would do more good.

It's the second one. He's a talk show host, hosting debates is literally his job.

Before finger-pointing at people in "under occupied" houses, these bright sparks could start instead with holiday homes, buy to let and Air BnBs....

This - both my DP and IL looked.

The "extra space" is probably used more now than every before because they are in the house so much more than when they worked.

There was a money box program on Radio 4 ages ago where they had a few callers who had downsized regretting it as when everything was paid out included unexpected work on new house they really didn't have much freed up money and had had a lot of hassle and worry.

Flats tend to be spacious, but the fear of flats is noise from neighbours after you are used to detached, worries about any maintenance costs rising, worries about the lack of lift or lift breaking, wanting some private outdoor space to sit and bbq, lack of storage if you have bikes, camping equipment etc.

Its why the idea of a bungalow is popular but they arent cheaper.

Terraces solve outdoor space, but are often smaller than flats and still have stairs and noise.

I cant see why people would downsize unless they needed to financially.

There are two of us in a large four bedroom house, never had children. I reckon by the time my husband hits 70, the large garden will be becoming a stretch to cope with and I have it in mind that we would look to move then, not necessarily being set on any particular area.

Certainly in this area (South East) I would echo previous posters who have said that there is nothing smaller and appealing that would actually cost much less - and many would cost more - which seems bizarre but is true.

I don't think that anyone should be forced or morally obligated to downsize, but I do think that it would be personally advantageous to many older people living in overly large houses to down-size, while they are still young enough to integrate in to a new community and before it is too traumatic to do so. This just isn't going to happen without the right properties available, though.

Removal of stamp duty for down-sizers is certainly a good thought to incentivise, although fully agree that with most down-sizers moving from mortgage-free properties, it is a mental block rather than a financial one.