Over 60s Should Be Encouraged To Downsize

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It's still half the rate it is elsewhere, clearly there's something stopping them, the tax system is at least part of it.

Low house prices perchance ? .Regardless of any tax incentives people selling up to downsize will want max return for a ,usually ,25yr+ investment .If they can manage financially they will wait untill the prices go up again

[Traduk]

With down sizing to release capital for say the purchase of possibly an additional pension annuity therein lies another undesirable consequence of Q.E.

With Q.E buying government debts (gilts), the interest ratio has been depressed and annuities dived in yield or become far more expensive for the same yield.

I think that a much overlooked factor in these arguments is that when a home has been the "nest" which in my case is 30 years, there are costs involved in establishing a new home and moving out of the old that dwarf the proposed tax element into insignificance.

I think that a view that a home is simply viewed from the aspect of sleeping accommodation potentially somewhat misses the point of what I view a home as and may suit a semi nomadic lifestyle but certainly doesn't suit my view where putting down roots is all important.

The argument on heating costs for unused bedrooms is a little naive. Thermostats and closed doors are a rather cheap and simple option for managing the amount of heating applicable to the areas in use or not in use at any given time. Simple solutions rather spoil the thrust of an argument though

[Taf]

From the Fail:

Last week Angus Hanton and his Labour-backed think-tank launched a report saying that ‘empty nesters’ should be ‘encouraged’ through a new land tax to downsize.

But then about his parents:

Alastair and Margaret Hanton live alone in a £1.5 million five-bedroom home in one of London’s most desirable suburbs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1bbXgboAD

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

Low house prices perchance ? .Regardless of any tax incentives people selling up to downsize will want max return for a ,usually ,25yr+ investment .If they can manage financially they will wait untill the prices go up again

Are you saying house prices are low relative to how they were 25 years ago?

This is a long term trend, and house prices aren't 'low' they are ridiculously high by any sensible measure.

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

I think that a much overlooked factor in these arguments is that when a home has been the "nest" which in my case is 30 years, there are costs involved in establishing a new home and moving out of the old that dwarf the proposed tax element into insignificance.

I think that a view that a home is simply viewed from the aspect of sleeping accommodation potentially somewhat misses the point of what I view a home as and may suit a semi nomadic lifestyle but certainly doesn't suit my view where putting down roots is all important.

Oh to be able to do such wonderful things rather than being obliged to a semi-nomadic lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Traduk

The argument on heating costs for unused bedrooms is a little naive. Thermostats and closed doors are a rather cheap and simple option for managing the amount of heating applicable to the areas in use or not in use at any given time. Simple solutions rather spoil the thrust of an argument though

A tad naive thinking you can mitigate the extra cost through thermostats and closing doors too.

Sorry and all that but this post smacks of 'I'm alright, Jack.' Nothing personal.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Are you saying house prices are low relative to how they were 25 years ago?

This is a long term trend, and house prices aren't 'low' they are ridiculously high by any sensible measure.

Yes and even down here in Plymouth a house bought 15 years ago for £39.000 is now worth £200.000 so house prices apart from a blip here and there are still relentlessly rising.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Are you saying house prices are low relative to how they were 25 years ago?

This is a long term trend, and house prices aren't 'low' they are ridiculously high by any sensible measure.

That may be the case in London but elsewhere they are starting to fall

But headline statistics do not tell the full story, the Land Registry's latest figures paint a stark picture of a nation divided. London house prices are nudging their pre-financial crisis peak levels, and the capital is the only region to see property up over a 12-month period, with a 2.1 per cent rise. Across England and Wales as a whole prices are down 2.6 per cent - 12 per cent off the January 2008 peak.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...#ixzz1bbiBw2nC

Also you have to remember that any profits from the sale of a house due to downsizing are worth much less than they where 20 yrs ago ,this chap has a interesting take on the problem ,he argues that because of the devaluation of sterling house prices have actually fallen 70%.I'm not saying he's right or wrong in his assessment i'll leave that up to the experts but it is a different way of looking at it

[Chrysalis]

martyh starting to fall does not = low tho.

on historical trends the prices are way too high.

[colin25]

We are forgetting one thing.

A guy can have kids again no matter the age.

So he might dump the wife, trade in for younger model, and need the rooms

Of course, older ex-wife sues husband, younger new wife has lesbian relationship with older wife

and he then lives in one bedroom flat (alone)

But house is still being used

simples

[Dai]

you know some strange people...

Originally Posted by colin25

We are forgetting one thing.

A guy can have kids again no matter the age.

So he might dump the wife, trade in for younger model, and need the rooms

Of course, older ex-wife sues husband, younger new wife has lesbian relationship with older wife

and he then lives in one bedroom flat (alone)

But house is still being used

simples

Rules should not be based on exceptions.....

[Traduk]

[

QUOTE=Ignitionnet;35320088]


Oh to be able to do such wonderful things rather than being obliged to a semi-nomadic lifestyle.

I have sympathy with the need to follow the money but it is the modern way and fortunately although my horizons had to become extended they did not require physical relocation. I still work, of sorts and would rather not go into to detail, but thanks to the internet my activities are in the USA courtesy of electron flow. IMO the key to get money to flow to an individual wherever they are, is electronic.

Not intended to be a low blow but on second reading could have been seen as such. Sorry about that. I do sympathise with your position as you are where I have been so often and that is between a rock and hard place. You obviously earn good money but to be physically where your talents can be maximised, it costs good money to live. A very unpleasant catch 22.

A tad naive thinking you can mitigate the extra cost through thermostats and closing doors too.

Sorry and all that but this post smacks of 'I'm alright, Jack.' Nothing personal.

That's the way we did it when I was a child and the laws of physics haven't changed. Each radiator has a thermostat flow control which irrespective of the boiler calls governed by the central thermostat can moderate the overall flow in the heating circuit and concentrate the heat in the area which will minimise the calls on the boiler by triggering the thermostat off. Closing doors stops the interchange between hot and colder areas to a degree.

I'm alright Jack is a phrase I am familiar with from the past and to me it represents an arrogant disregard for other's welfare providing one's own is OK. I abhorred that attitude in others and hope it is not present in me. I can sometimes can be a little provoking in debate but always with the hope of adding two positives to a negative.

Lets have a real debate. Should I re-read the Fourth Turning to find out who wins the intergenerational battle. The younger cohort have the reigns of power from the greys now but the poor little lost souls haven't a clue what to do with them. Greys still hold the money so the new boys on the block operate by proxy. It's only a game of strategy like chess and your lot are certain winners when all our pieces fall over In the long game you cannot lose and we cannot win.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Lets have a real debate. Should I re-read the Fourth Turning to find out who wins the intergenerational battle. The younger cohort have the reigns of power from the greys now but the poor little lost souls haven't a clue what to do with them. Greys still hold the money so the new boys on the block operate by proxy. It's only a game of strategy like chess and your lot are certain winners when all our pieces fall over In the long game you cannot lose and we cannot win.

We don't have the reigns yet, not until more of your lot shuffle off the mortal coil (I'm not wishing you an early death by the way!), and sadly due to a huge amount of immigration to balance out the generations the political landscape in my cohort is a mess, with large swathes wanting to dip their hands into my wallet.

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

[I have sympathy with the need to follow the money but it is the modern way and fortunately although my horizons had to become extended they did not require physical relocation. I still work, of sorts and would rather not go into to detail, but thanks to the internet my activities are in the USA courtesy of electron flow. IMO the key to get money to flow to an individual wherever they are, is electronic.

Not intended to be a low blow but on second reading could have been seen as such. Sorry about that. I do sympathise with your position as you are where I have been so often and that is between a rock and hard place. You obviously earn good money but to be physically where your talents can be maximised, it costs good money to live. A very unpleasant catch 22.

I have some ideas actually sir, they do require some sacrifice on my part though, going to have to drop my OU course for another year and collect some industry certification to improve my earning power in a slightly different field. Not happy about it but needs must.

---------- Post added at 10:58 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

That may be the case in London but elsewhere they are starting to fall



http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...#ixzz1bbiBw2nC

Also you have to remember that any profits from the sale of a house due to downsizing are worth much less than they where 20 yrs ago ,this chap has a interesting take on the problem ,he argues that because of the devaluation of sterling house prices have actually fallen 70%.I'm not saying he's right or wrong in his assessment i'll leave that up to the experts but it is a different way of looking at it

I dunno, even with the losses dealing in real terms it's not a bad story. We can talk about ounces of gold and their value all you want, that's more about the appreciation in the value of gold than sterling and unless you're planning on selling a house and investing all the profits in gold entirely irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I could buy less nuclear weapons for the prices of an average house than I used to be able to back in the cold war era when there were 25,000 of them knocking around, it's not really relevant.

This however is. Inflation adjusted, and of course it should be remembered that people downsizing, err, kinda need to buy another home whose value will likewise fluctuate.

Crivvens - according to that graph I bought a house in southeast England at just about the perfect time (1999) and sold it to move north at a pretty good time too (2004). We rode a pretty huge upswing in prices and benefited from it in about the only way you can, by moving from a high house price area to a relatively low one.

I nearly used this thread as a sermon illustration last Sunday. There is increasing interest in Christian circles in community living of one sort or another, and the prospect of multi-generational occupation of large homes currently in the possession of newly-retired boomers sort of plays into that idea.

It's encouraging in a way that that notion even came up in this thread. The classic portrait of a baby boomer is one who climbed the income ladder in an age of rampant individualism and then pulled the ladder up behind him leaving the rest of us to pay his pension out of dwindling resources. If the medium-term economic prospects for this country are such that they force a reappraisal of our individualistic, somewhat selfish society (which is by no means the preserve of the boomers I should add), then that in my view is no bad thing.

[Ignitionnet]

The intergenerational difference is rarely put in sharper focus than by comments like this one from a Guardian story:

This debate has been going on for a while now. But while the talking heads say that old people with this or that many bedrooms should clear off to a small flat, what they don't take account of is our GARDENS. We have spent 35 years planting trees and shrubs and flowers and so on, on 1/8 acre of ground in the middle of a small town.

Why should I wish to give up my lovely garden to see it filled with junk, my plants torn up, grass put down, plastic kiddies' toys strewn about?

It's not just about the house, you know. It's about the garden as well.

While I understand the sentiment I don't think I need to give my opinion, nor could I within forum rules.

This, well.

I am 53 and partner 65..If we ever move it will be to a bigger house with more room to breathe! Do I care about the younger generation?? Hell NO!!

Cool, won't mind us not paying for your partner's health care / state pension nor yours once you retire in that case. More sickeningly the directly above comment was quite popular on the story going by the amount of recommendations.

You were saying about the classic portrait of boomers Chris?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Cool, won't mind us not paying for your partner's health care / state pension nor yours once you retire in that case. More sickeningly the directly above comment was quite popular on the story going by the amount of recommendations.

You were saying about the classic portrait of boomers Chris?

If they've worked all their life they've paid for their own pension/ health care already, and probably for those that haven't contributed.

I also echo the sentiment in the quote.


If I can afford it, I'll have it and keep it.