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.

You are right to call it a ticking time bomb. I have heard it mentioned only a couple of times but the shit is certainly going to hit the fan in 20/25 years time. For those who are renting, privately or in HA properties, once tenant’s become too unwell or too old to work (whichever comes first), they will be eligible for Housing Benefit, until they die. Although Housing Benefit rarely covers rent in full, all renters who are too unwell or of pensionable age will be eligible for it, & they will need it to help pay their rent until they die. Consequently, 20/25 years from now, the Housing Benefit bill is set to soar & taxpayers will be clobbered.

But the government knows all this & they’re doing nothing about it. They’re kicking the can down the road, creating problems for current & future generations. The government fears the wrath of current home owners, so will do nothing to bring house prices down & make homes affordable again. This is a political choice & a consequence of this choice will be a Housing Benefits explosion further down the road. Successive governments have failed to deal with the issue of housing becoming completely unaffordable. Home ownership is now out of reach for many & this trend is set to continue with no real light on the horizon. The amount future government’s will have to spend on Housing Benefit is going to be astronomical but they won’t be able to claim they didn’t see it coming.

And the hell is going to buy them? Millennials and younger generations aren’t suddenly going to be able to get enormous mortgages just because the houses are now available.

Flats are fine, but it's understandable if people are put off buying them because of fears that service charges will sky-rocket, they'll find they have flammable cladding or they might live above or below someone who's anti-social and makes a racket or causes other problems.

We need a fall in the market - and annual property tax would achieve this, encouraging people to sell larger properties and move into more suitable accommodation, freeing up cash for the care they need as they age.

The property tax collected can buffer the housing benefit needed for those of that age group who do not have any assets at all and need basic (and it should be basic) shelter.

I don't think you can have one group who has everything - the housing, the assets, the triple locked pension, the free healthcare, expectations of free social care , free prescriptions who somehow expect the group who does not have these things to pay for them.

Older people (who includes me) must pay for what they are taking from society - and no they have no already paid.

Large houses may need to split into flats - it's been done before - I lived in a studio flat in a converted Victorian terrace when young.

You could also split houses into 2. Bit trickier to do, but possible.

We need to be creative in solutions.

Property prices in parts of London have dropped 30% from their peak. The major reason for the fall and the lack of rental properties are the recently introduced additional costs and regulations placed on landlords. Consequently, masses of very good landlords have and are leaving the market. The scum ones (including some housing association) are operating under cover of the shadows of "supported living accomodation" making billions from tax payers. The entire market is broken.

But why is this fine for one age group but not the next.

Age limited flats are slightly less likely to have noisy neighbours - but not entirely.

On free social care, I can't understand why people think this will benefit older generations and not younger ones.
The person needing social care will get it whatever - either by using savings, selling their home or if they have no assets, the Govt will pick up the tab under the current rules.
Under the proposed changes, everyone will get free social care, meaning the older person's assets will stay infact, so they will cascade down to their relatives.
So it is their children and ultimately their children's children who will benefit the most from the changes, not the person needing care now.

But there are larger families that still need those large houses.

It's not just their children that will be paying for social care - it is the children of the people who don't get any inheritance - who are actually poorer than your children already.

So your children get your assets and continue to have wealth, they don't have to care for you either - that's someone poorer's job. That poorer person also has to pay tax to pay for your social care - and they get no inheritance at all.

It's simply not fair.

My kids are millennials. They had to move away to get better jobs. They are both paying very high rents. There's no inheritance here as both dh and my parents had council houses.

Its a real worry.

There are far far more larger houses than there are larger families.

These housed average sized families and there were lots of them.

And where are the people who want to go on holiday supposed to stay?

Remigration is the way to solve it quickly. Influx the housing market with empty properties. With that, jobs will suddenly appear, then get people working again and eventually lower taxes.

We won't have to build all over our countryside, and our water and power systems will be more manageable.

Sure, it'll be extremely painful at times, but it's nothing new.

In a hotel.

Where people are actually employed and who pay towards the economy.

Not just another asset stream for someone with too many assets already.

Just from being around people, in work or family situation, where there have been discussions on house hunting. I don’t want to harp back to ‘in my day’ rhetoric, but I bought my first house which was a one up one down one bedroom house with a small yard for a garden. 6 years later we were contemplating starting a family so moved to a two bedroom home with a small back garden. And then moved again a few years later. But now I hear people starting out on house ownership who don’t want the one up one down house, who want the big house, and are moaning because they can’t afford the deposit/mortgage payment. Thats always been the case with house buying, starting at the bottom, and nothing to do with the current cost of living.

If shared housing is OK for 20 year olds, it's OK for 30, 40, 50, 60+ year olds too. It was good enough for The Golden Girls...

Whilst I can see a 20 year old sharing with a 70 year old could be a problem due to mismatched lifestyles, why on earth shouldn't a bunch of older people live together in a shared house, just like we expect younger people to if that's all they can afford?

So its ok for 70+ to live in HMOs They are healthy enough for that. Not healthy enough to drive though according to a lot on this site
Schrodingers pensioner

Definitely. Added bonus that the other countries will get their "doctors and engineers" back.

There are plenty of hotels up and down the country that they can go and stay in. Or campsites that provide camping, caravans, lodges and chalets.

Exactly. And being a Labour government, you’d think they’d be doing something about it. But they aren’t. It’s so disheartening.

Of course its fine for 70 yo to live in shared housing if they are in average health. Once they have care needs, then a care home may be more appropriate. Live in a student house with a bunch of 20 year olds, no. But a bunch of 60/70 year olds together in a house share? Why on earth not?

If it's not reasonable to expect older people to live in shared houses, then it's not reasonable to expect younger people to. Under 30s aren't some kind of underclass that should accept conditions that older people wouldn't.

I actually think shared houses specifically for over 60s would be a fabulous idea for cost sharing and keeping people socially active, especially those who find themselves alone in later life. It very easy to become socially isolated in older age once you stop work.

Do you think the same about the NHS? It's the same model.

The previous Labour government didn't do anything about it either. In fact, the previous Labour government saw house price rises as a good thing - it was lauded as "growth" and the sign of a healthy economy.

But there aren’t. You can’t seriously suggest that in places like the Lake District or Cornwall that there are adequate hotels to house all tourists. We’re encouraged constantly to have staycations to help the economy and reduce the carbon footprint, yet are then being told that we should reduce holiday lets. There are more than adequate homes for sale. Look on Right move. Hundreds and hundreds of homes for sale, even in tourist areas. Young people in tourist areas need to start on the bottom rung and work their way up.