To think this is a ticking time bomb (people priced out of housing)

[Batmanisreal]

It’s becoming clear that there is a problem with people not being able to afford housing like they used to be able to. This has been made worse by the introduction of right to buy by Thatcher in the 80s which reduced the numbers of council houses. The price of housing is going up and up, so more people are having to rent on the private market.

So what happens to these people who are privately renting homes, when they get to retirement age? If they can’t afford their rent?

I was lucky enough to be able to buy my house. I have young children who, by the time they get to the age I was when I bought my house, will probably not be able to afford to buy like I was. There’s a very big chance they will have to rent, possibly for the rest of their lives.

People who rent on the private market are at the mercy of whatever rents the landlords want to charge for those properties. And with more properties being rent out as short-term lets this is only going to make the situation worse.

I worry that we are heading for a situation where elderly people will end up on the streets, because there won’t be enough affordable or social housing to supply them with housing if they become homeless in the event of them not being able to afford their private rent anymore.

As a parent, I just find the whole situation so depressing.

And i posted on here what happened to my friend when he tried to make provision. So why do you keep gasilghting

Have you ever heard of Robert Maxwell.

www.theguardian.com/money/2003/jun/07/pensions.jobsandmoney2

Not all pensioners are the same. Why are you tarring them all with the same brush?
My gran got to retirement age with fuck all, because she was a carer for my grandad for most of their marriage.
I am glad she got her own little flat with a garden after he died, and it was a council place too. She was not depriving anyone else of that place.

I said how I was renting a place alone. I could afford it on MNW.
NMW since then is twice what it was, but the rent I was paying is 4 times what it was.
How is that a failure to make provisions for myself?

Well @mrsm43s as someone who is child free by choice im happy that my taxes pay for couples and their kids. Will also point out that i obviously havent used NHS maternity services. But i dont moan about it because im not like you

That's right. There's nothing left to save every month

£29k total was pitiful pension provision, it was never going to provide for a decent retirement. BTW, the £6k was almost certainly tax rather than 'taken by the pension provider', not sure if that makes it better or worse.

P.S look up 'gaslighting'. You are not using the term correctly.

Anyway, I need to go to sleep. Work in the morning, need to pay my taxes and top up my pension...

Are you divorced?

Why are working 30 year olds in house shares paying for pensioners to have lovely houses with gardens? No 30 year old is paying for my flat, I pay the rent myself.

I'm retired and renting, how is it so difficult for a working person to rent? They have far more disposable income than I do.

Presumably you used maternity services when you were born? And benefitted ftom a state education, child benefit paid on your behalf, childhood vaccinations, possibly free milk in schools and free school dinners. Free optical, dentistry and medical treatmrnt as a child... You took out as a child, and as an adult paid in for the next generation of children (assuming you are a net tax contributer)...

We're not talking about people who pay their own rent, who can make whatever choices they see fit, obviously. We're talking about people who can't afford to pay rent and are relying on state benefits to pay for or towards their housing in retirement. That's the whole point of the thread, with rising rents, the state pension alone doesn't cover renting a house/flat and basic living costs in much of the country.

What's that got to do with anything?

But someone that is 35+ is given the housing element for living alone (in theroy anyway). Why do you think it should drop down to house share rate (under 35) once someone hits pension age?

So, under 35 - you are expected to house share,, so you get a smaller amount of the housing element of UC.
35-66 you get more so you can live alone.
66+ - the amount you get is reduced so you have to house share.

Why?

I think there shouldn't be a differential between what an under 35 is entitled to or anyone else of any other age is entitled to. If the shared room rate is good enough for under 35s, it's good enough for everyone. If it's not good enough for people in their 60s and 70s, it's not good enough for under 35s. (I'm pretty sure I answered that before earlier in the thread)

There are already elderly people living in rented shared homes. The numbers will simply increase.

But there is the assumption that peopel under 35 are still working their way up in the world/work/housing.
Why go backwards when someone hits pension age?

No, not go 'backwards' when someone reaches pension age. Simply apply the same criteria to all, regardless of age.

And why would you assume that todays 35 year olds need to 'work their way up' when you're excusing today's 50 and 60 year olds, who had far, far better economic conditions when they were that age from having to do so?

I will agree on that.

Fine when people are older and healthy.
But in fairness who wants to house share with a stranger that needs a carer coming in every day and lots of adaptations to make the house accessible?

By progressing beyond minimum wage in the 20+ years you’ve had to do so?

Other folk that need carers coming in and lots of adaptations?

It could actually work out for the best if you had houses intended to be shared by the elderly that had all the adaptations in place (done once to one house rather than multiple with the added admin of getting them done), others in similar situation that can relate to, and one house for the carers to travel to to see multiple clients (saves journey time between).

This would seem a lot more efficient setup for the cases of those that can’t provide for themselves.

Exactly. Housing costs are massively out of sync with wages. Because demand for housing whether renting or buying has never been higher, especially rents.

Also low paid work is some of the most essential work: carers, cleaners, cooks.

But people move into an ordinary shared house and at some point have a crisis and need carers.
It would be fine if shared houses were set up for the elderly, but that is not what happens.

I understand they aren’t at the moment but it could be great if they were in the future. It’s something I’d consider (even if I could afford to live independently) as it would help avoid isolation that many suffer in old age.

I agree with this. Bespoke shared housing for the elderly would work well, could ease elder isolation, and could provide easier and more efficient care visits and well thought out adaptations, keeping people out of care homes and more independent for longer. Something akin to student halls buildings where a group of a few elders could live together in their own private ensuite rooms with shared kitchens and socialising spaces. It would need to be heavily regulated though, so that costs were maintained at a sensible, affordable level and people could continue to live there and feel secure until such point their needs meant they needed to go into care.