Will Benefits For The Elderly Limit Falls In House Prices?

[Si1]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accomodation.

Now they commonly live in massive houses, and get sundry standard benefits allowing them to continue to do so.

This trend (the benefits) seems set to continue. So the release of these massive houses onto the market will be a slow and gradual one over the next decades, and house prices will shift lower somewhat slowly as the occupancy ratio gradually shifts. Agree?

[headrow]

My parents still live in the house i was born in. They paid £1200 for it in 1967 and nethouseprices has a similar home , with smaller garage and garden selling for 282k last december.

They will never downsize and financially will never have too.

[Fromage Frais]

Since the population is ageing why would a politician go against the votes?

[Tired of Waiting]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accomodation.

Now they commonly live in massive houses, and get sundry standard benefits allowing them to continue to do so.

This trend (the benefits) seems set to continue. So the release of these massive houses onto the market will be a slow and gradual one over the next decades, and house prices will shift lower somewhat slowly as the occupancy ratio gradually shifts. Agree?

Agree.

The only solution is property tax.

And I don't think it would have to be high. In this rented 1.5 bedroom flat (the 2nd is actually a box room) we pay around 1% of its value per year as Council Tax. OK, not too bad. I just cannot see any reason why more expensive properties pay a FECKING LOWER RATE. :angry:

Edit: BTW, I would suggest 1% for all properties in Britain, not only residential. ALL properties. Including land.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[headrow]

Agree.

The only solution is property tax.

And I don't think it would have to be high. In this rented 1.5 bedroom flat (the 2nd is actually a box room) we pay around 1% of its value per year as Council Tax. OK, not too bad. I just cannot see any reason why more expensive properties pay a FECKING LOWER RATE. :angry:

If they taxed the property they'd get rid of the car. They still wouldn't move.

[DungBeetle]

Agree.

The only solution is property tax.

And I don't think it would have to be high. In this rented 1.5 bedroom flat (the 2nd is actually a box room) we pay around 1% of its value per year as Council Tax. OK, not too bad. I just cannot see any reason why more expensive properties pay a FECKING LOWER RATE. :angry:

Edit: BTW, I would suggest 1% for all properties in Britain, not only residential. ALL properties. Including land.

Agreed, we need a better form of taxation for property. Indeed we already have a "Land Tax", called Stamp Duty... Just needs to be set at 5%

[Tired of Waiting]

If they taxed the property they'd get rid of the car. They still wouldn't move.

Some wouldn't, some would.

Taxes, when well planned and implemented, can help rationalise a market.

[Tired of Waiting]

Agreed, we need a better form of taxation for property. Indeed we already have a "Land Tax", called Stamp Duty... Just needs to be set at 5%

Stamp duty is paid only when the property is sold. There are some very old families in Britain that have been holding onto the same fecking land for 800 fecking years! Tax free!!!

:angry:

[deeplyblue]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accommodation.

Now they commonly live in massive houses, and get sundry standard benefits allowing them to continue to do so.

This trend (the benefits) seems set to continue. So the release of these massive houses onto the market will be a slow and gradual one over the next decades, and house prices will shift lower somewhat slowly as the occupancy ratio gradually shifts. Agree?

Of course, it all depends a bit on what you call "elderly". Let's suppose you mean people in the sixties and above.

You many be looking at people who had kids in their late 20s or their 30s. These "kids" are now in their late 20s and early 30s, but finding leaving home more difficult. So a prudent parent keeps enough space either for "boomerang" kids or, at the least, for housing (say) son and wife/girlfriend for 3-6 months whilst they find a new house, or daughter + 2 kids when they lose their housing benefit.

If you have a disabled child, then you may want a house big enough for them to live there for as long as you can continue to look after them. I have friends who have a disabled daughter who could not live on her own. They moved into a slightly bigger house in their late 50s (when they no longer needed to be near schools!) to accommodate the heirloom furniture they'd just inherited. Now, rather later, they would like to move again, but their daughter throws a fit if another move is suggested and they feel that they can't change her pattern of life until they have absolutely no option.

Perhaps those in their 60s may need a large room with en-suite for elderly parent (in their 80s or 90s) for whom there is no room in a care home, and no care staff to help them in their own home. Those who are in their 80s or 90s may refuse to leave their homes, promising a daughter and her family that if they will come and live there, and look after their aged parents, then said daughter will be left the home in the parents' will - providing the parents are satisfied with the standard of care they receive.

I looked around a house which had been adapted for a severely disabled person. He needed space for a through the floor lift. His bedroom had to be large enough to fit a hoist to get him in and out of bed. His bathroom had to be large enough to get him on and off a hoist so that he could use a toilet or a shower. Then there was room for a physiotherapist's couch for his twice-daily physio session - which needed not only the couch, but space for the other equipment needed, for the physio to work and for a hoist to get him on and off the couch. Then there were two rooms for the 24-hour carers which he needed. All of this was paid for by the compensation fund after the accident which crippled him, not the public purse, but it did mean that a "family" house was taken up by him and his (non-family) carers.

Care homes will have to close because of cuts in council budgets, and people who can afford it will have to install equipment in their own homes and manage - and that takes space.

Decades ago, the elderly died sooner, and the conditions in which the disabled lived were frequently horrible - institutional, dangerous, insanitary and even abusive. Not all changes to the housing market are the "fault" of a benefit system which allows older people to live in houses which they should be forced out of.

db

[winkie]

Some wouldn't, some would.

Taxes, when well planned and implemented, can help rationalise a market.

ToW I agree with much of what you say but I would say it is better not to look at what others have got, but to what you aspire to have...the old will die and release their assets over time, all of us only have a finite time on this planet, better to work for your goal as soon as you can, and when you have enough to satisfy your needs it will be time hopefully to sit back and enjoy after a hard life of working........nobody gets anything for nothing and if they do they will not appreciate what they have and the chances are will lose it as fast as they got it.

Edited October 20, 2010 by winkie

[ken_ichikawa]

Deflation will bring prices down,

No such thing, the government have a printing press and they aren't afraid to use it... We'll have quintillions of ££s before they will even let deflation occur.

[campervanman]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accomodation.

Now they commonly live in massive houses, and get sundry staare not.ndard benefits allowing them to continue to do so.

This trend (the benefits) seems set to continue. So the release of these massive houses onto the market will be a slow and gradual one over the next decades, and house prices will shift lower somewhat slowly as the occupancy ratio gradually shifts. Agree?

No. I sold a 4 bed when I was 53 and my kids had both left home. I know of many who have done the sdame. Why would anyone want money tied up in bricks and mortar when thery can downsize and use the money released for something more enjoyable? This stuff about old people all living in massive houses is a myth. A minority might be stupoid enough to want to stay in a house too big and too expensive for their needs but the majority are not.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

the old will die and release their assets over time, all of us only have a finite time on this planet

This is correct, however the boomers are now largely expected to outlive their children due to having benefited from the NHS and generous pensions, as their children will live more tiring and stressful lives and will almost certainly never get to retire. Ever.

nobody gets anything for nothing and if they do they will not appreciate what they have and the chances are will lose it as fast as they got it.

The boomers did. Your statement is nearly correct... no-one gets anything for nothing unless someone else if forced to suffer to supply it. Through HPI the older generations have received MASSIVE unearned wealth.

Welcome to intergeneration wealth transfer and the enslavement of a generation.

[awaytogo]

No such thing, the government have a printing press and they aren't afraid to use it... We'll have quintillions of ££s before they will even let deflation occur.

Deflation in property prices are a reality as millions have their incomes reduced ,frozen, House prices rise because incomes increase in the long term.

Edited October 20, 2010 by awaytogo

[Mrs Bear]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accomodation.

Now they commonly live in massive houses, and get sundry standard benefits allowing them to continue to do so.

This trend (the benefits) seems set to continue. So the release of these massive houses onto the market will be a slow and gradual one over the next decades, and house prices will shift lower somewhat slowly as the occupancy ratio gradually shifts. Agree?

Most elderly people never did live in 'massive' houses. Most have always lived in pretty modest houses. Some like to downsize, some don't, same as before. And it's not always down to money or lack of - very often it's things like stairs or being closer to family/shops/doctors.

[200p]

double post

Edited October 20, 2010 by Money Spinner

[200p]

Even the small 2 bed bungalows £250-300K! It's not easy to downsize for some.

[Tired of Waiting]

ToW I agree with much of what you say but I would say it is better not to look at what others have got, but to what you aspire to have...the old will die and release their assets over time, all of us only have a finite time on this planet, better to work for your goal as soon as you can, and when you have enough to satisfy your needs it will be time hopefully to sit back and enjoy after a hard life of working........nobody gets anything for nothing and if they do they will not appreciate what they have and the chances are will lose it as fast as they got it.

Same rate for all. That was all I said.

It is obviously and absurdly unfair that the closest thing we have to a property tax - Council Tax - has a decreasing rate as you go up the "proper ladder". If flat tenants have to pay 1%/year, why not everybody else as well?

And even worse for land - no property tax at all.

Indefensible. Unjustifiable.

[rantnrave]

In the near to medium future, wont falling house prices encourage boomers who were thinking of downsizing to do it sooner rather than later? Downsizers definitely lose out during a HPC and there might be a stampede of them soon!

[Si1]

No. I sold a 4 bed when I was 53 and my kids had both left home. I know of many who have done the sdame. Why would anyone want money tied up in bricks and mortar when thery can downsize and use the money released for something more enjoyable? This stuff about old people all living in massive houses is a myth. A minority might be stupoid enough to want to stay in a house too big and too expensive for their needs but the majority are not.

a fair point well made. Any more people like this?

[mightytharg]

Same rate for all. That was all I said.

It is obviously and absurdly unfair that the closest thing we have to a property tax - Council Tax - has a decreasing rate as you go up the "proper ladder". If flat tenants have to pay 1%/year, why not everybody else as well?

And even worse for land - no property tax at all.

Indefensible. Unjustifiable.

Disgusting that you want old people taxed.

What's really stupid is that you want this extra tax to go to the council - the very people who stop you building a house and cause most of your problems (the rest are caused by your whinging victim attitude).

In answer to your question, the reason that people in nicer houses pay only a little more council tax than you is because they use broadly the same services. This makes it a much fairer tax than, say, income tax, where hard-working Southerners are ripped off by their lazier Northern cousins.

[porca misèria]

Decades ago, the elderly would downshift as they retired, into smaller accomodation.

And still do. My parents, for example. Others in their generation have done likewise, or in one case stayed in the family house but turned the upper floor into a separate flat, thus downsizing in situ.

In a free society, there will always be a choice. I agree absolutely we shouldn't be subsidising pensioners to stay in bigger houses from our taxes, but I don't think the numbers are high. Certainly not compared to the number of empty homes.

[Flopsy]

DB,

What is this compensation fund that you refer to here?

<start>

All of this was paid for by the compensation fund after the accident which crippled him, not the public purse, but it did mean that a "family" house was taken up by him and his (non-family) carers.

<end>

[deeplyblue]

DB,

What is this compensation fund that you refer to here?

<start>

All of this was paid for by the compensation fund after the accident which crippled him, not the public purse, but it did mean that a "family" house was taken up by him and his (non-family) carers.

<end>

He was injured in a RTA - I believe (and I'm going only on what I remember of what I was told when a relative showed me round) that he was knocked off his bike by a motorist running directly into him off a side road. It was eventually established that the other party was entirely at fault, and their insurance company provided money that was supposed to keep this person (now paralysed from the neck down) in tolerable comfort for the rest of his life. That, it turned out, was not very long as he developed other problems over the years (I think epilepsy might have been mentioned) and he died very much sooner than had been anticipated.

The family (brother and sisters???) were rather bitter, since they thought that he might have had a longer and happier life if it had not taken something like seven years of court cases to get him out of a care home where his needs were not being properly met.

db

[deeplyblue]

This makes it a much fairer tax than, say, income tax, where hard-working Southerners are ripped off by their lazier Northern cousins.

Troll alert!

db