Demographic timebomb and housing

[Salisburyspire]

When do we think babyboomers will begin to sell? This is not a generational bashing thread by the way, am asking from a strategic point of view.

Any economists or demographers out there? I have only seen one UK article on this and it predicted they wouldn’t sell until 2034 onwards. Surely that’s too late? Is there a particular five year period during which we expect there to be a huge downsizing?

When they do sell up, will it leave a glut of large homes on the market? I’m Gen X but very much want to trade up (one last large house). We own our house outright but the next step up in the area near DC schools has exponentially shot up over the last three years. (Leafy London but not too far out). One issue is a massive shortage of decent housing stock in that area. Our plan was always to move there, see the DC through school and then downsize as there doesn’t seem any point to living in a big house without the kids there when we could by then be enjoying a more comfortable retirement and liberating some property cash while not worrying as much about inheritance tax or costs of maintaining a large house and garden.

It seems though that the generation before is not budging. There are widowed people living in enormous five bedrooms homes with huge gardens. They don’t all look to be super wealthy judging by some of the slightly overgrown gardens etc. Yes it’s a wealthy area and yes it’s their right to live wherever they want. However unless all these homes are in a family trust or already signed over, the inheritance tax bill will be enormous.
These are homes in the £2million plus bracket.

If we are lucky enough to buy one of these homes (and stretch ourselves massively) do the demographics work against us if we have to sell in 10-15 years? Won’t that coincide with a glut of large houses so we will have bought at the top of the market and possibly be selling in a downturn?

Will Generation X actually be the riskiest generation to lend to as they don’t have enough working years ahead of them to properly pay down massive mortgages whilst some (not all!!) millennials will inherit property wealth from babyboomer parents?

Should the government reform stamp duty to provide an incentive to downsize? (Yes I know there are not enough quality smaller homes for people used to huge ones in nice areas). Will there ever be a great downsizing shift or is our country not built for it?

Why do you think people born after the war vote as a group? Obvious they don’t. They don’t all vote Conservative either. It might be that the people coming up behind, millions of whom will be home owners by then, will vote for the stays quo. Mainly because it would be a communist state that takes land and homes away from people and distributes it to others. I would be utterly surprised if anyone thought this was a good idea in the uk. Ever. Hopefully we will continue to accept that some people have more than others.

The big issue to be resolved will be how to build more homes. It’s interesting that no party has suggested forcing older people out of their homes. That’s not about votes from them, it’s about not having a nasty totalitarian party who would put forward such a plan. I don’t think any party would suggest granny is forced out of her house. Where would you start? The Royal Family? A few Dukes? Maybe aging farmers? Non starter even in 25 years time.

I expect XingMing meant that boomers (I'm at the tail end of that group) mostly grew up with adults who'd lived through the war and may have absorbed some life lessons about how to make money and other resources stretch a long way.

Not all, obviously. Some people reacted to wartime rationing and economy by becoming very extravagant and self-indulgent when it was possible again. However, others, like my parents, carried on being thrifty in many ways, making do and mending.

@TizerorFizz - if it wax made financially attractive for you to downsize would you consider it then ? No stamp duty or a Subcity and something towards the removal costs I can’t honestly believe that anybody would consider housing their furniture to be more important than housing future generations.

@CertainUncertain - i am not sure the alternative system is communism! I dont know how old you are but there was a time when local authorities built council housing with secure tenancies, affordable rents and good building standards for working people.
We now have a mismatch of social housing which is a different concept really, 'affordable' housing, tax payers paying private rent, so individual landlords get wealthy and costs keep rising and housing associations with less secure tenancies.
We also seem to build the wrong houses in the wrong places.
Im sure we could plan things a bit better without communism.

Yip I would be raising additional taxes from inheritance tax on house sales to fund new council homes

@Nothappyatwork
I might but I’ve a very expensive house. Housing the rich will be what will happen when we sell. Or a lottery winner. It’s just not that simple regarding getting folk with bigger houses to move. I don’t intend to stay here forever but I resent being told I’m unreasonable to stay when it’s my home and organised the way I like it. We have high standard insulation, air source heat pumps and high end fittings. I would have to start again somewhere else. That isn’t to say I wouldn’t.

Out of interest, I have 14 acres of land. It’s green belt and AONB. No building allowed. I might move if I would build on my own land! But we come back to the point that down sizing isn’t easy and yes, I do like my furniture and belongings. I like my bookcases, artwork and sofas. My kitchen is lovely. So is my garden and my swimming pool. So call me selfish but I’ve invested a lot in this property. I will stay and eventually someone who can afford if will get it. But it won’t be the people wanting a bigger house who I’ve in a 3 bed semi in the nearest town. As I said earlier, the only people buying here are from London. No one else has the £ millions needed.

@TizerorFizz we are all aware by now that you have a very expensive house. But my point was you said you wouldn’t leave it because of all the associated costs so if you got to keep your very large amount of money and then you didn’t have to pay the associated moving costs, would you then move because the problem we have is we can make more money, building more houses is proving a little bit more difficult.

[quote TizerorFizz]@Nothappyatwork
I might but I’ve a very expensive house. Housing the rich will be what will happen when we sell. Or a lottery winner. It’s just not that simple regarding getting folk with bigger houses to move. I don’t intend to stay here forever but I resent being told I’m unreasonable to stay when it’s my home and organised the way I like it. We have high standard insulation, air source heat pumps and high end fittings. I would have to start again somewhere else. That isn’t to say I wouldn’t.

Out of interest, I have 14 acres of land. It’s green belt and AONB. No building allowed. I might move if I would build on my own land! But we come back to the point that down sizing isn’t easy and yes, I do like my furniture and belongings. I like my bookcases, artwork and sofas. My kitchen is lovely. So is my garden and my swimming pool. So call me selfish but I’ve invested a lot in this property. I will stay and eventually someone who can afford if will get it. But it won’t be the people wanting a bigger house who I’ve in a 3 bed semi in the nearest town. As I said earlier, the only people buying here are from London. No one else has the £ millions needed.[/quote]
How is any of this relevant for this thread? 🙄

There's a huge amount that could be done without forcing older people to leave their family homes where they're happy and established.

I would say cracking down on second homes and BTL is a much higher priority.

We're boomers (younger, born 60s) and have moved from our 3 bed family home of 30 years in Wales to now looking for a 4 bed in East Cheshire.
I loved our house but DD is grown up and left home now, husband retired and we wanted to move to a more central location to be nearer DD and Family.
We're in a position to upgrade a bit, and we're going for it!!
The thought of downsizing depresses the life out of me, maybe in 20 years I'll feel different..

@Stevie77
Yes mumsnet the fantasy land

@Nothappyatwork '...I can't honestly believe that people would consider housing their furniture more important than housing future generations'. Why can't you believe that? Do you think that, having worked my entire adult life (I don't have children) I would then say to myself, 'oh, I know, I'll sell my house cheaply on the open market, so someone I don't know, more worthy than me because they have pumped out loads of kids, can move in. I'll take all my posessions, collected over a lifetime, and try and squeeze them into a poky little house or flat somewhere (disposing of half of them) so that I can take care of future generations housing needs? If you think that, you are living in cloud cuckoo land. What responsibility do I have to future generations I haven't been part of producing? When I/we die, younger members of my extended family will benefit from a share in the estate, and the money may or may not help them with housing. That is the extent of my altruism.

[quote Nothappyatwork]@TizerorFizz - if it wax made financially attractive for you to downsize would you consider it then ? No stamp duty or a Subcity and something towards the removal costs I can’t honestly believe that anybody would consider housing their furniture to be more important than housing future generations.[/quote]
Such a scheme would probably tempt some people who might be in two minds as to whether to downsize; I'd have taken advantage of such a schme when we moved. However it still doesn't address the main issue; there needs to be suitable properties for people to move into. The modern policy of building shoe boxes and calling them houses is never going to appeal to people who grew up with more spacious properties with gardens.

If developers started building properties that people want and that includes off street parking/garage, to a good standard (sadly a brief search on YouTube shows this frequently isn't the case) and that are energy efficient, then I'm sure there would be plenty of takers.

The other issue that hasn't been addressed is location; as one gets older, then good local services become more important.

Blame the local planners and politicians, not the home owners.

@Brownlongearedbat
To be honest by the time I’ve worked all my adult life the last thing I want to have my money tied up any mess bricks and Mortis I actually plan to rent for the last 10 years of my life if the house swap option isn’t viable purely because kids got all the life insurance money in the pension money the bloody house money is going on a cruise not on one of the future generations wiping my arse for me and spoon feeding me mush.
If you are hoping to get your arse wiped you’d better hope that there’s a 25-year-old somewhere who is looking on Rightmove and thinking that she can afford a house and can afford a baby for it to be born to wipe your arse.

We live in a 3 bed semi detached. 75m2 (not including attic -which can't be extended into as not enough height up there)

DH and I are in our 40s. Our next door neighbours (we love them) are in their 70s.

The house is a bit small for our family right now (2 x DCs) but we're managing. It'll be perfect for us in our 70s and 80s. Hopefully we'll have been able to add a downstairs loo by the time we're in our 70s.

I often wonder if we might need to return to a multi generation home? These older people living in bigger houses could share the space with their family. Lots of benefits (I'm aware lots of downsides too).

It wouldn't work for everyone but it would be one potential solution to housing/elder care/child care/budgeting/cost of living increases etc etc etc.

@Plantstrees

I am a baby boomer but wont be downsizing. The cost of property is so high my adult DC can't afford to buy so we have extended and the big family house with converted outbuildings on a sizeable plot has been divided between us.

Multi-generational living is the way forward.

Yes! I made the same comment before I got to yours.

When and where multi generational living works; families should go for it.

@RomeoOscarXrayIndigoEcho - We’re going to actually convert our loft to have an ensuite and there’s room for a little microwave up there. I can’t see my son being in any hurry to move out once that’s done.

I think by the time I am 80 as a single woman i will be in a similar situation to my ex mother-in-law whereby I will be in supported accommodation of some description where my neighbour will be paying absolutely nothing in rent and I’ll be paying two grand a week. But that will still be preferable to what happened with my mother-in-law where she bought an apartment in a similar property and had to pay five grand a year in service charge and then we paid about 25 grand when she died to sell the place and that was an addition to constant maintenance just as one example being 20,000 to paint a hallway. Basically just dwindled all of her savings away but she quite simply couldn’t manage in a house on her own despite being reasonably fit.

[quote Brownlongearedbat]@rainingsnoring I said it to the op and I'll say it to you, what has it got to do with you that some houses aren't maintained to a standard you deem acceptable? In fact, how many houses are there like that anyway? I live rurally and, apart from some long derelict cottages, all the big houses look fine - it is often smaller properties owned by people with little spare income that can look a bit ropey tbh. Of all the things in this world to say 'isn't it a shame' about, the state (or not) of privately owned housing stock is one thing that would not be the first, or even fiftieth, to come to my mind.[/quote]
I didn't say it was anything to do with me personally. Not looking after and maintaining a house is neglectful apart from the fact that it is sad that a previously well loved house is falling apart. The appearance and run down look does have an effect on others in the area. You might have a different opinion but that is mine and that of some others.
This thread is specifically about housing, not about other things although I have already touched on some of the greater societal implications in my other post.

@AmberLynn1536

Unfortunately, we then have the response from @TizerorFizz who seems to not understand the points being made and makes a Kirstie Allsopp like suggestion that families should squeeze in or move to cheaper areas (which obviously they are being forced to do already). Do you need see the social consequences at all? Surely it's not hard to understand the resentment and discontentment from younger generations when their hard work doesn't result in a secure salary, home, pension, etc like it did for their parents. In terms of the wider society it isn't sensible to have a single person or couple in a large house with multiple bedrooms because they like it (a wish) when the family with several children can only afford a 2 bedroom (but may need 3 or 4 to accommodate their family). Work simply doesn't pay anymore and, sadly, as a country, we have become much more selfish. I find that sad.

It was your choice, your “wish” to have children and you chose that whilst not being able to house them adequately, that is a problem of your own making, don’t expect others to fund your lifestyle choices. Honestly the entitlement on this thread is unbelievable, would you like my car as well? It has seats in the back which I clearly don’t need, better hand over the keys to someone far more deserving.

@AmberLynn1536- where have I said this is about me? You are trying to make this all about you and assuming that I am doing the same. The entitlement works both ways but some seem blind to that. I am sorry if you can't see the implications of everyone deciding not to make 'the lifestyle choice' to have children for the rest of society and most particularly for those that are retired or nearing retirement.

@TizerorFizz- where have I or anyone else said that you are sad?
I said that your comments are like Kirstie Allsopp's ones that have been roundly criticised. You sound just as entitled as the younger people you are accusing of being entitled. I've posted the relevant of my comment again for you.

'Unfortunately, we then have the response from @TizerorFizz who seems to not understand the points being made and makes a Kirstie Allsopp like suggestion that families should squeeze in or move to cheaper areas (which obviously they are being forced to do already). Do you need see the social consequences at all? Surely it's not hard to understand the resentment and discontentment from younger generations when their hard work doesn't result in a secure salary, home, pension, etc like it did for their parents. In terms of the wider society it isn't sensible to have a single person or couple in a large house with multiple bedrooms because they like it (a wish) when the family with several children can only afford a 2 bedroom (but may need 3 or 4 to accommodate their family). Work simply doesn't pay anymore and, sadly, as a country, we have become much more selfish. I find that sad.'

My DC are not resentful. Parents can pass money down.

I find it really odd that posters cannot accept not everyone want to trade down or move. I don’t live in MN fantasy land. I do think people on here are not taking account of the fact some people don’t have all their money in houses and are quite happy to improve and maintain what they want.

@rainingsnoring
You really are rather boring repeating your silly comments. No person in a 2 bed terrace could afford my house. It’s that simple. Lots of problems build up where people have no social housing or where price differentials are too big. As here. What I do makes no difference to that. More social housing would.

@TizerorFizz- again it's all about you, your 3 million pound house, your multiple acres, how lovely your kitchen is, how you don't want to downsize because your furniture won't fit and now your DC too.
You are repeatedly misinterpreting comments and coming to ridiculous, dramatic conclusions eg comments on communism, etc.
There isn't much point in trying to discuss complicated issues affecting society in general with someone so unable to see outside their bubble or think critically.
I comment that Polly Toynbee article to you again. She's in her 70s so a 'boomer' (dislike the term).

I do agree with you on one point, the need for more social housing. Thatcher and all successive governments have repeatedly failed to address this huge issue.

@rainingsnoring really, nothing changes. When I was buying my first property in the early 80s I would have loved to buy something bigger than a one bed flat, but I couldn't afford it. The difference was, I didn't feel I was entitled to have something bigger, which is how I perceive some of the comments on here. You say it 'isn't sensible' for, say, a couple, to live in a house with multiple bedrooms when a family with several children can only afford two bedrooms. So what do you want to happen? Do you want the state to intervene, for example, and force people to move out? Perhaps a bedroom tax for private housing stock?
I would have thought in an ideal world there should be much more social housing, to replace that which was lost through right to buy. The government is keen to squander money on any number of other things - just think how many houses that waste of money that was 'test and trace' would have built. Telling older people that they have no right to live in larger homes doesn't solve the problem, especially as they haven't caused it. Your resentment is aimed in the wrong direction.
If you had lived somewhere for 20 years, loved it, extended it to meet your needs (so spent quite a bit of money on it) and felt very happy there, why on earth would you want to move, other than for a very pressing reason?

[quote Brownlongearedbat]@rainingsnoring really, nothing changes. When I was buying my first property in the early 80s I would have loved to buy something bigger than a one bed flat, but I couldn't afford it. The difference was, I didn't feel I was entitled to have something bigger, which is how I perceive some of the comments on here. You say it 'isn't sensible' for, say, a couple, to live in a house with multiple bedrooms when a family with several children can only afford two bedrooms. So what do you want to happen? Do you want the state to intervene, for example, and force people to move out? Perhaps a bedroom tax for private housing stock?
I would have thought in an ideal world there should be much more social housing, to replace that which was lost through right to buy. The government is keen to squander money on any number of other things - just think how many houses that waste of money that was 'test and trace' would have built. Telling older people that they have no right to live in larger homes doesn't solve the problem, especially as they haven't caused it. Your resentment is aimed in the wrong direction.
If you had lived somewhere for 20 years, loved it, extended it to meet your needs (so spent quite a bit of money on it) and felt very happy there, why on earth would you want to move, other than for a very pressing reason?[/quote]
I don't think many young people feel entitled to buy a huge house as their very first home. The fact is though that things have changed significantly over recent decades and that people are now buying, on average, in their mid 30s because they need to save up for many years. By this point many clearly have a child or two to house also and therefore would struggle in the one bedroom flat. House prices have far, far outstretched gains in incomes as we all know making it much harder, even impossible, for younger people without wealthy parents.

Instead of entitlement, I see frustration from younger people that they are forced to rent at high cost as they see house prices get further and further out of their reach. They feel understandably upset that they are the first generation to experience a worse quality of life than their parents. Despite hard work (mostly two incomes needed as opposed to one which was often the case for their parents), they are unable to meet their family's needs. This is one reason for the declining fertility rates. There are also other consequences and will be more. They feel thoroughly let down by politicians who are usually very wealthy and do not proritise their needs. Indeed, the opposite is true with the already wealthy having been prioritised, especially since the GFC.
Not one person has suggested casting older people out of their homes. It's not difficult to understand people's attachment to their homes and older people often don't deal as well with change so will tend to find even the thought of moving very difficult.
However, policies could have been introduced to discourage continued huge hikes in house prices enabling younger people to afford housing. There was clearly only political will for the opposite. Laws can be introduced to give renters more rights eg long term, secure housing like on the continent. Second and subsequent properties could be much more heavily taxed to discourage speculation when others have no home. As regards fluidity specifically, a reduction in stamp duty or a change to an annual property tax instead of stamp duty and council tax could encourage this. More social and affordable (actually affordable) housing is needed and rules should be in place for the latter that it be purchased solely by those with one property who will reside in it full time. I'm sure others can think of other and better ideas.