Should older people give up their family homes?
Discussion
How old are you?
What do you earn?
Where do you live?
On the face of it, you work on the roads, my gut would be that you are earning probably an average national salary, living in a fairly pricey part of the SE (though in Kent you can live in very cheap places too of course) and the reality is such that you need to earn more, or move.
What do you earn?
Where do you live?
On the face of it, you work on the roads, my gut would be that you are earning probably an average national salary, living in a fairly pricey part of the SE (though in Kent you can live in very cheap places too of course) and the reality is such that you need to earn more, or move.
As always there is two compelling arguments.
Why should young families have to live in cramped accommodation often paying much more rent than they would on a Mortage when there is little old Mr/Ms OAP living in a 5 bed detached only using one room that they bought for pennies way back when.
On the other hand -
Why should Mr/Mrs OAP be forced out of their forever home that they have worked their whole life for so entitled youngsters can have a piece of green.
The system is broken and I wish someone would come along and fix it but current state of the market is a mess.
Why should young families have to live in cramped accommodation often paying much more rent than they would on a Mortage when there is little old Mr/Ms OAP living in a 5 bed detached only using one room that they bought for pennies way back when.
On the other hand -
Why should Mr/Mrs OAP be forced out of their forever home that they have worked their whole life for so entitled youngsters can have a piece of green.
The system is broken and I wish someone would come along and fix it but current state of the market is a mess.
Type R Tom said:
phazed said:
Just reduce the population and the problem is solved. I don’t know why anyone hasn’t thought of this before 
Ironically, for is this is the case, can't have a bigger family as don't have the space 
What exactly do you want to happen?
Housebuilders build the houses for which there is the most demand. It simple, they want to be able to sell them.
Most of the volume housebuilders focus on the lower to mid range of the market because thats where the bulk of the demand sits. If the demand is high, then that means that people are affording them, they are moving up the rungs of the ladder. The majority of buyers of the mid range houses are those with young families.
The steps up the ladder have always been big. When I moved from a "starter home" to a 3 bed house, i had to pay 40% more. Then to go to a 4 bed house it was 40% again.
If your income doesnt increase, then the only way to get a larger house is to move to a cheaper area.
Government intervention in the housing market has never panned out very well, I wouldn't advocate it as a solution.
The solution is to fix housing supply issues, which means building more, but that is unplatable for many. Even as a developer, I recognise that any green field I have built houses on doesn't look as good afterwards as it did before.
And before people shout about "brownfield" - that has been the policy for years as a focus and we have built fewer houses during that time, because its slow, difficult, expensive and in locations where people dont want to live. The only way to make many BF sites work is to go for density, ie apartments, and these are not the family homes that people want.
Its all an emotive subject, but wont get fixed whilst people are being emotional about it
Most of the volume housebuilders focus on the lower to mid range of the market because thats where the bulk of the demand sits. If the demand is high, then that means that people are affording them, they are moving up the rungs of the ladder. The majority of buyers of the mid range houses are those with young families.
The steps up the ladder have always been big. When I moved from a "starter home" to a 3 bed house, i had to pay 40% more. Then to go to a 4 bed house it was 40% again.
If your income doesnt increase, then the only way to get a larger house is to move to a cheaper area.
Government intervention in the housing market has never panned out very well, I wouldn't advocate it as a solution.
The solution is to fix housing supply issues, which means building more, but that is unplatable for many. Even as a developer, I recognise that any green field I have built houses on doesn't look as good afterwards as it did before.
And before people shout about "brownfield" - that has been the policy for years as a focus and we have built fewer houses during that time, because its slow, difficult, expensive and in locations where people dont want to live. The only way to make many BF sites work is to go for density, ie apartments, and these are not the family homes that people want.
Its all an emotive subject, but wont get fixed whilst people are being emotional about it
It’s certainly unfortunate that the need for/benefit from a larger property tends to be when resources are most constrained (I.e. earlier in career, young/growing family etc) but that’s sadly a reality of life and career earnings.
But look at it from the other perspective. If you have been able to get get yourself into a nice family house you’ll have paid a handsome amount of SDLT for the privilege. That’s a sunk cost that, that you probably wouldn’t be able to easily justify if your plan was to only live there whilst the children were actually at home… especially given that trading down to a smaller property means you get hit with SDLT again.
Personally I think that SDLT needs some considerable reform to increase housing mobility, ideally something along the lines of being payable only on the increase between your sale price of current property and purchase price of next property.
If you can encourage people to take smaller steps upward, freeing first time buyer property earlier, whilst allowing those who have bought large family homes to move laterally into smaller properties at/below the value of their previous home without getting hit twice, then you’re more likely to see the sort of mobility you’re after.
But look at it from the other perspective. If you have been able to get get yourself into a nice family house you’ll have paid a handsome amount of SDLT for the privilege. That’s a sunk cost that, that you probably wouldn’t be able to easily justify if your plan was to only live there whilst the children were actually at home… especially given that trading down to a smaller property means you get hit with SDLT again.
Personally I think that SDLT needs some considerable reform to increase housing mobility, ideally something along the lines of being payable only on the increase between your sale price of current property and purchase price of next property.
If you can encourage people to take smaller steps upward, freeing first time buyer property earlier, whilst allowing those who have bought large family homes to move laterally into smaller properties at/below the value of their previous home without getting hit twice, then you’re more likely to see the sort of mobility you’re after.
Type R Tom said:
Who said anything about give? My point is there needs to be a way to make the next run of the ladder more affordable, so we built lots more bigger houses and free up existing starter homes.
Care to define "starter home"? If you're suggesting that once people's children have left home people should "downsize" then there is an argument as to why bother moving at all.
I would actually argue we need to build more affordable first-time housing.
Type R Tom said:
Again, who said anything about give? If we can't build new larger family homes (blocking applications) then we don't free up starter homes for kids
To be fair, you didnt, it was implied though and several posters read that implication.As I said, the majority of new homes are family home size as that's where the demand sits. The pricing model is quite simple. Its supply and demand with a bit of regulation thrown in. The demand is for family houses, and outside city centres that's what most new builds are
I think the OP is entirely reasonable not least because vast tracts of countryside will be built on when our housing stock is shamefully underoccupied. They're also burning more fuel than they need.
My situation is that my kids have left home in the last couple of years I have at least 50% of the equity in my house is unearned. We're are rattling around ina big old place.
No plans to move in the next few years as suspect at least one of the kids will boomerang possibly bringing a BF/GF. It is forseeable that an elderly parent may want to move in
What it would take to get me out? Change in family circumstances/responsibilities and somewhere exciting to move to. There are no leadership/policy carrots/sticks to influence my decision.
What is not reasonable is my pension (earned) has been raided on the way in via AA charge; raided via LTA and taxed on the way out but my unearned income has been entirely untouched.
A reasonable levy eg. 1% on property value (perhaps with only top 50% of homes ina na area being taxed) would focus the minds of people squatting in their own homes.
OP needs to hope that energy cost increases drive us squatters out or a few of us succumb to hypothermia.
My situation is that my kids have left home in the last couple of years I have at least 50% of the equity in my house is unearned. We're are rattling around ina big old place.
No plans to move in the next few years as suspect at least one of the kids will boomerang possibly bringing a BF/GF. It is forseeable that an elderly parent may want to move in
What it would take to get me out? Change in family circumstances/responsibilities and somewhere exciting to move to. There are no leadership/policy carrots/sticks to influence my decision.
What is not reasonable is my pension (earned) has been raided on the way in via AA charge; raided via LTA and taxed on the way out but my unearned income has been entirely untouched.
A reasonable levy eg. 1% on property value (perhaps with only top 50% of homes ina na area being taxed) would focus the minds of people squatting in their own homes.
OP needs to hope that energy cost increases drive us squatters out or a few of us succumb to hypothermia.
Type R Tom said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Type R Tom said:
So what happens to first time buyers? f
k em? My point is I'm sitting on a starter home when by now I should have moved on. How do you solve without moving 100s of miles away which isn't really viable with work.
You sound a bit entitled TBH. k em? My point is I'm sitting on a starter home when by now I should have moved on. How do you solve without moving 100s of miles away which isn't really viable with work. You need to marshal your thinking. You’re taking up the cause of first time buyers here, but you’re not a first time buyer. You’re looking to be a second time buyer and your complaint is that the steps on the ladder are too far apart.
So park the first time buyer point. Also park the older generation empty nesters point, because those sort of houses are rarely second time buyer houses - they are further up the ladder.
Your simple point is this:
Property where I live is too expensive for me.
Well, welcome to the south of England. It’s been like that for decades. If not longer. There are only two solutions to this - outside Govt nationalisation of part or all of the housing market, which will not end well - earn more or move to another area. Very few jobs are locked to a specific geographical area.
Ps: in other responses you say “who said anything about give?”. You did. In the thread title.
blueg33 said:
To be fair, you didnt, it was implied though and several posters read that implication.
As I said, the majority of new homes are family home size as that's where the demand sits. The pricing model is quite simple. Its supply and demand with a bit of regulation thrown in. The demand is for family houses, and outside city centres that's what most new builds are
It should be supply and demand. The planning system ensures supply is artificially constrained and governments aren't too keen to fix that as they fear the NIMBY and falling property prices.As I said, the majority of new homes are family home size as that's where the demand sits. The pricing model is quite simple. Its supply and demand with a bit of regulation thrown in. The demand is for family houses, and outside city centres that's what most new builds are
Type R Tom said:
... is it right that older couples live in big 4 bed places alone, sometimes neglecting them for years when they could downgrade....
It has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". It's personal choice and those choices will be based on all sorts of factors, some obviously logical, some less so.It's a very slippery slope to start looking at what others have and trying to "fix it".
Are house prices daft in this country? Maybe. But they are also primarily only really daft in pockets around the country, mostly in London and parts of the South East.
To degrees people can "fix" these things themselves by moving and accepting the inherent compromises that are likely with moves. Or they can moan about how unfair life is and try and "fix" the assets other people own and trying to tell them what they should do with them...only to then moan when they get their wish and someone comes after their assets later in the cycle
Maybe a reduction in things like SDLT would make the cost of moving more paletable?
My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
eldar said:
blueg33 said:
To be fair, you didnt, it was implied though and several posters read that implication.
As I said, the majority of new homes are family home size as that's where the demand sits. The pricing model is quite simple. Its supply and demand with a bit of regulation thrown in. The demand is for family houses, and outside city centres that's what most new builds are
It should be supply and demand. The planning system ensures supply is artificially constrained and governments aren't too keen to fix that as they fear the NIMBY and falling property prices.As I said, the majority of new homes are family home size as that's where the demand sits. The pricing model is quite simple. Its supply and demand with a bit of regulation thrown in. The demand is for family houses, and outside city centres that's what most new builds are
Another argument is that supply s constrained by suitable places to build the houses everyone "wants"/"needs".
Different scenario , some councils were paying lump sums to pensioners in large council houses to downsize into smaller pensioner style home’s/bungalow’s , assisted living etc.
So maybe something similar would work ? Nice single bedded retirement flats , all the selling and moving done for you and a nice cheque to bank.
So maybe something similar would work ? Nice single bedded retirement flats , all the selling and moving done for you and a nice cheque to bank.
Type R Tom said:
My issue is that if we can’t build more houses to decrease demand for larger family home, thereby freeing up starter homes, is it right that older couples live in big 4 bed places alone, sometimes neglecting them for years when they could downgrade.
How does encouraging older people to downsize free up starter homes? It would be the 'starter homes' they'd be downsizing into?blueg33 said:
Maybe a reduction in things like SDLT would make the cost of moving more paletable?
My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
In places where houses are expensive it would be a huge help. Would I have gone from a 1 bed flat to a 5 bed house if I could have got one in the middle first without the thought of paying 6 figures of stamp duty by moving twice, thus having lower outgoings and being able to save more and then make a move upwards and leaving that middle house behind me for someone else? Doesn't sound silly to me.My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
As it is in London because people do not want to be moving more than they have to, the starter home of old now has a huge wrap-around extension, the loft done, and its been taken from a 600-800k 3 bed into a 7 figure 5 bed. Your only option now is what I did above, and I'm lucky in that I could afford to do it.
blueg33 said:
Maybe a reduction in things like SDLT would make the cost of moving more paletable?
My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
Move somewhere a bit nicer; plus other moving costs then getting a place how you like it. We'd probably end up paying £150k to downsize.My kids are hopefully moving out. We wont need all the bedrooms but we will still need a home office, a workshop/craft room, garage and nice garden. That means paying the same or more as our current value. The hit on SDLT alone to move would be £45k. Thats tax I don't feel like paying, as i have no need to move
Type R Tom said:
My issue is that if we can’t build more houses to decrease demand for larger family home, thereby freeing up starter homes, is it right that older couples live in big 4 bed places alone, sometimes neglecting them for years when they could downgrade.
If I wanted I could be mortgage free before 50 staying here and enjoying lots of holidays and meals out. As a “professional” I kind of always imagined the typical PH house but as the months go by it gets less and less likely and the potential for a bigger family. I also imagined moving out to another couple starting their life together moving in.
It’s probably an over simplistic view and not fair on people who have worked hard for their home but also many have made money from nothing other than time and luck. I’ve got no idea how to solve it.
It is a rather simplistic view I'm afraid. The problem is that all property prices have rocketed, and homes more suitable for older people, particularly bungalows, are also really expensive. I live in an estate mostly built in the late 1950s which is a mix of detached, semi-detached, and bungalows. The most old-people friendly homes are obviously the bungalows, but they are much more expensive per square foot than the others. Since the homes are roughly the same price it's not really valid to say that they have 'made money from nothing' - they haven't really made any money at all, since the money from selling the old family home is entirely consumed by buying a pleasant but smaller place to live out your remaining years. If anyone makes money, it's those who may inherit eventually - if the care home vultures haven't taken it all.If I wanted I could be mortgage free before 50 staying here and enjoying lots of holidays and meals out. As a “professional” I kind of always imagined the typical PH house but as the months go by it gets less and less likely and the potential for a bigger family. I also imagined moving out to another couple starting their life together moving in.
It’s probably an over simplistic view and not fair on people who have worked hard for their home but also many have made money from nothing other than time and luck. I’ve got no idea how to solve it.
There is only one solution, building more houses, and perhaps making the mortgages available to purchase them more expensive, thereby putting a ceiling on prices by reducing the amount people are willing and able to pay. Neither of those are particularly easy to achieve in the short term.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff