Over 60s Should Be Encouraged To Downsize

[Ignitionnet]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ied-homes.html

Over-60s should be exempt from paying stamp duty to free up under-occupied family homes, a study has suggested.

Half of all properties owned by single pensioners have three spare bedrooms or more, the report found, at a time when young families are struggling to find affordable housing.

The Intergenerational Foundation, which carried out the study, said that offering tax incentives could encourage older people to downsize, freeing up space for bigger households.

Please do feel free to actually read the story without commenting, in a complete contrast to many of those who commented. The comments on the Fail you'd think they were on about frog marching people at gun point from their homes.

My thoughts - good idea, some will want to downsize and would rather save utility payments, etc, but the tax system prevents it. The supply will ease pressure at the higher end of the owner-occupier market thus easing it further down the chain.

Seems a good idea to me.

btw, loved the photo*




*posed by models.....

[Ignitionnet]

Looks like a Saga advert.

[Pierre]

Pie in the sky bovine excrement.

Half of all properties owned by single pensioners have three spare bedrooms or more, the report found, at a time when young families are struggling to find affordable housing.

Please do tell where all these affordable 4+ bedroom houses beiong hogged by pensioners are?

If they did down size, I doubt whether these properties would be "affordable" in the modern sense of the word.

There needs to be a rethink on how we approach property in this country. I am far from well-educated on the matter but it seems to much emphasis is placed on it being an investment and there are too many people seeking to profit from it.

I would want to own a home because then a major expense of living is removed. When I want to move I can sell up and have a significant stake in the new house. When I retire I'll have some place to live without worrying about rent.

Peoples need for homes is greater than the need for buy-to-let landlords to make a profit or people to collect homes as an 'investment'. There should be a limit to the amount of properties you can purchase for your own use, and tighter regulations on landlords who would be exempt the limit as a result but must meet certain standards including the adoption of European style rent controls.

While we're at it, what's with the middle-classes obsession with national house prices? People expecting their house to go up in price as if this makes them richer. Surely, unless there is something unique to your area, these tend to trend the same across the country. If you sold your house your possible alternative homes will also have gone up, leaving you no better off. The only difference is if you lived in the south-east and moved north.

Should only worry about ending up in negative equity.

[Ignitionnet]

Not at all, these vacated would lead to those lower in the ladder moving up the chain, in turn leading to those below them moving up. One major thing keeping these larger properties unaffordable is their scarcity, this would improve their supply and reduce prices.

It improves supply and lowers prices throughout the chain by reducing the amount of property wasted thus reducing demand on stock - 3,000 people can go into 1,000 fully occupied 3-bed homes fine, with 2 unoccupied bedrooms in each home you now require 3,000 of them. Simple.

[Taf]

The way house prices are these days, we'll all end up with 3 or more generations stuck in one home unable to afford to move. So the rooms will be needed!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Taf

The way house prices are these days, we'll all end up with 3 or more generations stuck in one home unable to afford to move. So the rooms will be needed!

You, sir, win this thread.

[danielf]

I don't see how it will lower prices. What it will do is reduce the number of people living in cramped conditions. Which can only be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Taf

The way house prices are these days, we'll all end up with 3 or more generations stuck in one home unable to afford to move. So the rooms will be needed!

Which is the way it was when I was born in the 50's (mind you, that was working-class Glasgow).

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Peoples need for homes is greater than the need for buy-to-let landlords to make a profit or people to collect homes as an 'investment'. There should be a limit to the amount of properties you can purchase for your own use, and tighter regulations on landlords who would be exempt the limit as a result but must meet certain standards including the adoption of European style rent controls.

We could also do with more rights for tenants. Last time I rented, the landlord would only sign 6 months leases, so you always had the risk of being booted out at a few months notice. Which we were (while in the process of buying something actually). Tense times they were.

Oh, and not being able to do any decorating sucks big time as well.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Not at all, these vacated would lead to those lower in the ladder moving up the chain, in turn leading to those below them moving up. One major thing keeping these larger properties unaffordable is their scarcity, this would improve their supply and reduce prices.

It improves supply and lowers prices throughout the chain by reducing the amount of property wasted thus reducing demand on stock - 3,000 people can go into 1,000 fully occupied 3-bed homes fine, with 2 unoccupied bedrooms in each home you now require 3,000 of them. Simple.

I'm not sure the abolition of stamp duty for over 60's will be enough ,for example if a pensioner wishes to downsize and sell their £250,000 house they would normally pay about £7,500 stamp duty but the value of the house they are selling may be £10,000 or more less because of the influx of properties onto the market ,most people tend not to sell when prices go down

Originally Posted by danielf

We could also do with more rights for tenants. Last time I rented, the landlord would only sign 6 months leases, so you always had the risk of being booted out at a few months notice. Which we were (while in the process of buying something actually). Tense times they were.

Oh, and not being able to do any decorating sucks big time as well.

6 month lease refers to the warning they have to give you right? So the minimum amount of warning they have to provide is 6 months?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

6 month lease refers to the warning they have to give you right? So the minimum amount of warning they have to provide is 6 months?

No, the lease was for 6 months, so you are guaranteed the property for 6 months. I think they gave us two months notice in that we got a letter we couldn't renew two months before the lease was up.

[techguyone]

Doesn't mean a thing with the cascade down effect, because at the bottom, you have got all the buy to let people buying all the starter homes. Until that little problem is resolved I'd hazard its a bigger problem than old people living in a house that's too big for them.