All old people should sell up family homes for families.

[benigogo]

Not really an AIBU, more a hypothetical question really. This view comes up a lot on MN, and I'm interested in the detail of what people actually imagine when they say it. What type of property should they be giving up? What type of property should they be moving to? How old is old? What about younger people who under occupy a property? For example 2 friend couples, have recently downsized. Both from a 4 bed detached, one to a 4 bed semi, and the other to a 3 bed semi. Their homes were bought, one by a young professional couple, and the other by a couple in their seventies, themselves downsizing. If you hold this view what do you visualise?

I’m happy to go along with your suggestion if, in addition, you agree that all single people without dependent children must live in small apartments without gardens, that the government should force you to sell your car unless you only drive with all four seats occupied, that vaping be banned in public and in your own home, along with drinking alcohol. I could go on, but as I said, I’ll go along with your high handed suggestion about how other people should live if you agree to my equally nonsensical rules. Over to you OP.

No I don't think they should. But something needs to be done for younger buyers.

Bless, I was starting to think I lost it. People really need to start reading OP posts not just title.

Of course you can't make people sell their homes. It's a pointless question.
Me and DH live in a 5 bedroom house. Both DC have left home. We clearly don't need this much space, but it's our home. This house will increase in value more than our money could grow in a savings account, so there's no point to down sizing. Why live in a smaller house, and be financially worse off in the long run? Imagine if the Government could just take a house that you've paid for, or even force you to sell it. Ludicrous.

I have no opinions about the size of house people live in, as long as they don't require my help to look after it.

If I could be grated one wish though, it would be that well-off people gift more of their money before they die, to help their kids and grandchildren.

A financial advisor once told me that even extremely wealthy people believe they 'need' all their money and that they only just have enough.

I can't imagine not sharing what I have with the people I love and hanging onto it until the tax man takes 40% and the rest goes on care home fees.

Some countries do this and you can never under occupy properties especially smaller islands. It does make sense.

But I think U.K. enjoy the freedom of choice.

How about NO?!

When my parents pass away I will inherit their fairly ordinary 3 bedroom 70s house. That’s the only way I will ever own a property. When I pass away it will go to my daughter. If she has children it can go to them and so on and on.
Isn’t that the whole point of owning a property ?

And where are all these homes suitable for downsizing to magically being built?

And what about foreign investors buying uk property? No one seems to mention them buying up property and often leaving it empty.

people mention this all the time plus many have benefited from the knock on equity gains.

So what’s your view OP? Why are you not able to tell us?

Op is asking people to explain themselves basically. Let's be honest, many of us would be interested in how they imagine this could possibly work instead of just "they should just move"
This view comes up a lot on MN, and I'm interested in the detail of what people actually imagine when they say it.

Downsizing before it becomes critical for care purposes is a very sensible idea.

My Ddad (75) has a 3 bed house with no downstairs loo, should either him or Stepmother have any issues they'll find themselves in the excat place MIL did when Step FiL suddenly became ill. With a large human body stuck upstairs and her unable to move him round. He died and she's now living downstairs as she hates the "sick room". Won't move though.
My DMum however at 70 sold the family home and had a lovely 2 bed flat by the sea. She feels safer and more confident and freed up some cash to spoil herself with.

My mum and dad are moving, only because even with the adjustments they have put in place they now can’t get around the house due to health issues :( they are moving to a flat and I am very worried how my dad will cope without his garden :(

WHY?

We brought up our children to become independent responsible adults like us.

We worked hard to make them strong and healthy, well socialised, We made sure they went to school on time, did their homework, learnt to read, swim, drive, cook, clean, organise, manage a budget, chose a career and went to work to support themselves.

We didn't pay for their mortgage deposits or weddings, never bought them a car, we didn't repay their student loans, they did all that themselves (like we did)
By middle age they all earn higher incomes than we live on, they have bought their own homes, paid off their own mortgages, invested their own money.

When my parents pass away I will inherit their fairly ordinary 3 bedroom 70s house. That’s the only way I will ever own a property. When I pass away it will go to my daughter. If she has children it can go to them and so on and on.Isn’t that the whole point of owning a property ?

You can only afford a property if you inherit, what about those that won't? At least we used to have more social housing.

In my road, when old people move out the houses are usually snapped up by student landlords, not families...

Downsizing before it becomes critical for care purposes is a very sensible idea.

I do agree with this, I've seen too many older relatives/family friends who put it off & then they are too late & end up a bit trapped.

Unfortunately, as we age so do our friends. I meet many older people where all of their friends have died. In London, the elderly can be surrounded by people but be completely alone. A retirement flat can be a cheaper and more sociable option. They have other people are of a similar age, activities are run, ( one in my area has a weekly physio, arts classes etc) there is secured access, bills such as cheaper compared to running a 4 bed house. Plus there are often wardens, fall alarms etc.

No, your home is your home and if you want to continue living there you should not be forced to just because it has a bit extra space

What about if I had the money to and purchased a large 4 bed house to live in all by myself? At age 30. Should I be told to move out as well because I'm over occupying or am I entitled to whatever I purchase

Even with council housing and housing association I don't believe people should be forced out, especially not those who are working

Also can't believe I have just read a reply here that young people expect everything handed to them 🤦🏼‍♀️complete ignorance

You legitimately buy your asset you have no right to be stripped of it.

Now the argument is those in lifetime tenancies who under occupy their social housing.

DH and I are looking at this now.

Right now I'm retired, DH is still working, we want to stay in the area we have community connections and support and where we are still contributing . If we downsize now it would be from 4 bed to 3 bed, and the costs/upheaval etc just don't make any financial sense.

The tentative plan is to downsize when we really need to - which probably won't be for another 15 years.

That said, my mum used to look at all the new housing being built and wonder why on earth there was such need (she assumed it was because immigration was high, and was happy with that). I did point out to her that at well over 90 she really should be dead/in a care home/in sheltered housing or in other ways not occupying a nice 3 bed family home near a good school.

This always annoys me as for years we have used my parents 'spare' rooms for 4-6 weeks every summer when we visit home from overseas and they use the 'spare' bedrooms for grandchildren to stay and even more importantly now that my dad has early Alzheimer's he is much more comfortable in his familiar surroundings than when visiting other homes - if he had moved a few years ago he would be so confused by his new surroundings

I can't imagine not sharing what I have with the people I love and hanging onto it until the tax man takes 40% and the rest goes on care home fees.

The trouble with that attitude is that if everyone does that where does the funding for the care come from? Why should a care worker have a shitty wage & no hope of owning so that someone else can inherit as much as possible?

I would like to give another perspective! I currently live in a 4 HA property, i only have two of four dc still at home who will both be moving out within the next 5 years. I would happily downsize to a smaller two bed property with a much smaller garden but it would mean swapping my lifetime tenancy for one of the newer 7 year tenancies and also instead of pay the old style cheaper rent I would be paying a much higher " affordable rent"! Who the hell in their right mind is going to give up a secure lifetime tenancy and pay more in rent for a smaller property? I most certainly wouldn't!