Meat Puppet Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 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. There aren't many empty homes at least not in the southeast. The vast majority that show up in the statistics are in probate. Only a handful in each local authority are found to be actually empty (in the enforceable sense) each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) a fair point well made. Any more people like this? Dunno - I was at my mum's last night. Four floors, five large bedrooms, four bathrooms, two sitting rooms, one dining room, one kitchen. She lives on her own and keeps half the house unused to save on heat. Read it and weep. Edit to add - it's not benefits that make this viable for her Edited October 21, 2010 by tomandlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 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? Yes, but money won't stop dementia, strokes, cancers and heart attacks (actually it does delay all of them). These people in large houses will need care, and that care will need to be provided by young people who need houses. A deal will be done. Gradually as the population ages care will become more expensive relative to housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 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. the thing is - most older people do not have a mortgage so do not get SMI - I think the figure is about 150,000 receive it - out of how many old people - 10 million? the only ones who receive council tax benefit - are those with less than about 20K in savings I cannot beleive that the older people living in big houses are staying there because they receive 'benefits'. Most stay there for sentimental reasons, it is close to family, friends etc. There will come a time when they will downsize or sell the house to pay for care as most of that generation have a common sense attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 (...) 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. (...) 1) Services are not used by houses, but by people, and its cost is proportional to the number of people in a area. Council tax ignores the number of people in a house, and it is therefore illogical as a tax to provide for services. 2) Many (most?) old people (those with less than about 20K in savings) receive Council Tax Benefit. Hence, those properties don't even pay this regressive and distorted alternative to a property tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 There aren't many empty homes at least not in the southeast. The vast majority that show up in the statistics are in probate. Only a handful in each local authority are found to be actually empty (in the enforceable sense) each year. "In the enforceable sense"? That would seem to exclude the more usual sense of "I inherited this house" or "I moved house", and ... wait for the market to recover ... or just spend years tinkering with it as a hobby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 1) Services are not used by houses, but by people, and its cost is proportional to the number of people in a area. Council tax ignores the number of people in a house, and it is therefore illogical as a tax to provide for services. Quite right! Bring back the poll tax! In fact, maybe it would be better if the council tax was based upon the number of people in a house (not just the number of adults)! It'd give all those hard-working families something to spend their child benefit on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I cannot beleive that the older people living in big houses are staying there because they receive 'benefits'. Me neither. In any case, many would far rather 'cut down' if necessary than move. Also, if someone's getting forgetful/starting to go a wee bit doolally, a move is very often the last thing they need. In familiar surroundings they can often cope reasonably well. In a new place, with so many different things (even stuff like the controls on an unfamiliar cooker, different door locks etc.) they can go downhill very fast - I've seen it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Quite right! Bring back the poll tax! In fact, maybe it would be better if the council tax was based upon the number of people in a house (not just the number of adults)! It'd give all those hard-working families something to spend their child benefit on! I am not against basic social services and a reasonable welfare system funded by a progressive tax system. BTW, income tax is an essential part of it. But to have on properties a regressive tax scale, with decreasing rates for better properties, and with a ceiling, and with full exemption for millions of properties, and full exemption for land - that is absurd, illogical, unfair, and completely indefensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I am not against basic social services and a reasonable welfare system funded by a progressive tax system. BTW, income tax is an essential part of it. But to have on properties a regressive tax scale, with decreasing rates for better properties, and with a ceiling, and with full exemption for millions of properties, and full exemption for land - that is absurd, illogical, unfair, and completely indefensible. How does progressive, meaning 'favouring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform' come to mean higher taxes in leftspeak? Always puzzled me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 How does progressive, meaning 'favouring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform' come to mean higher taxes in leftspeak? Always puzzled me. I agree, I don't like this terminology much either. But that is not the real issue here now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ologhai Jones Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 How does progressive, meaning 'favouring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform' come to mean higher taxes in leftspeak? Always puzzled me. The only argument I've come across for taking more tax (not just in cash terms, but as a proportion of income) from 'rich' people is to do with the utility of money. In other words, £100 taken from a 'rich' person and given to a 'poor' person will have more utility, i.e. the poor person will (arguably) make better use of it and/or it will have more significance to them. It has to with diminishing returns, and is similar to the idea of richer countries giving fertiliser to poor countries because the umpteenth dose of fertiliser on a European farmer's field will raise crop yield by, say, 1%, whereas that same fertiliser on an African farmer's land will double the yield -- given that it'll be the first (and only) dose of fertiliser used on that African land. Does that make 'progressive' taxation sound a little like progress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 40: My Home is my pension 50: My Home is my pension 60: My Home is my pension 64: My Home is my pension 65: I want to keep my home, pay me a pension. And money to heat my home. And free council Tax. And Free Bus Services. And free medical care, dentistry, glasses. Money towards the mortgage I used to buy my car, conservatory and holidays would be nice too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 40: My Home is my pension 50: My Home is my pension 60: My Home is my pension 64: My Home is my pension 65: I want to keep my home, pay me a pension. And money to heat my home. And free council Tax. And Free Bus Services. And free medical care, dentistry, glasses. Money towards the mortgage I used to buy my car, conservatory and holidays would be nice too. I never have understood the 'My Home is my pension' rant. Unless you do own a place that is big enough for you to downsize and realise a pretty large, by most standards, chunk of money your home cannot be your pension. In the same manner, why do people fell rich because the headline price of their house goes up. You still need somewhere to live and if you borrow against it, MEW, you have to repay it plus interest at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I never have understood the 'My Home is my pension' rant. Unless you do own a place that is big enough for you to downsize and realise a pretty large, by most standards, chunk of money your home cannot be your pension. In the same manner, why do people fell rich because the headline price of their house goes up. You still need somewhere to live and if you borrow against it, MEW, you have to repay it plus interest at some point. Oh, but it is! People of pensionable age have a "minimum income guarantee", which is ample for leading a decent life if you're not paying rent/mortgage. It's means-tested, which is why a small pension is no benefit. If you don't have a home, that means-testing affects your housing benefit too. So even an above-average pension is worth nothing until it gets quite a way above average. As in, minimum income + full rental value of house + difference between minimum income and basic state pension. Owning the house you're living in is worth its rental value (plus multiplier for tax) and often more. BTW, the fact that means-tested minimum income exceeds state pension is a good reason to raise the latter, as they are doing. It's reducing a perverse incentive, and it's a lot cheaper than it looks 'cos only those not on means-tested benefits actually gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I never have understood the 'My Home is my pension' rant. Unless you do own a place that is big enough for you to downsize and realise a pretty large, by most standards, chunk of money your home cannot be your pension. In the same manner, why do people fell rich because the headline price of their house goes up. You still need somewhere to live and if you borrow against it, MEW, you have to repay it plus interest at some point. I agree....old people like to stay in the family home mainly for emotional or sentimental reasons not for monetary reasons, old people on the whole do not like change. Downsizing would be the best option for most, and could give them a few pounds in their pockets to help keep them living in comfort....more often than not many might find themselves having to sell up to pay their long term care bills, so the elderly living in large homes is more of a disadvantage to them than an advantage, their home, let them decide while they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 (...) 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). (...) The political force behind council's planning policies are the NIMBYs. See them in that photo below, in one of my previous posts. 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... (...) Fine. Just don't kick the ladder behind you. See below. My main bone with the boomers is their NIMBYism. We live less than 20 miles from Ford, with its abandoned World War II airfield, and proposed site of an Eco Town. Look ate the photo below. It says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I agree....old people like to stay in the family home mainly for emotional or sentimental reasons not for monetary reasons, old people on the whole do not like change. Downsizing would be the best option for most, and could give them a few pounds in their pockets to help keep them living in comfort....more often than not many might find themselves having to sell up to pay their long term care bills, so the elderly living in large homes is more of a disadvantage to them than an advantage, their home, let them decide while they can. The time to downsize is when you're still fit, mobile and completely with it - maybe early-mid 60s. But how many people want to move to a much smaller place then? They like where they are, they don't want to have to get rid of a load of stuff - and perhaps most of all they still want room for friends/kids/relatives to stay.* So they put it off, and put it off, and the older and less fit they get, the less they feel like all the upheaval. After my father died when she was 70 (and looking more like 60) my mother was constantly saying she'd like to move to a little flat. But that was only in theory. Every time we took her to look at one, there was something wrong with it. Truth is, she didn't really want to move at all. She only finally moved out at 89 - into a care home. *Though I have known someone who downsized to a 1 bed largely because it was a great excuse not to have anyone to stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Fine. Just don't kick the ladder behind you. See below above. ...I am used to living with people around me, not a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 ...I am used to living with people around me, not a problem. I'm glad to hear that. We agree then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRboomer07 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 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? I can't be bothered to read 4 pages, but your assumption is so predictable, and incorrect. I'm no home owner (was once) and my twin brother (in our 60's) has never owned a house. Your assumptions are always the same, than boomers are 'loaded', how I wish it was true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeplyblue Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 40: My Home is my pension 50: My Home is my pension 60: My Home is my pension 64: My Home is my pension 65: I want to keep my home, pay me a pension. And money to heat my home. And free council Tax. And Free Bus Services. And free medical care, dentistry, glasses. Money towards the mortgage I used to buy my car, conservatory and holidays would be nice too. 60 My home is my top up pension 65 I find I'm not ready to get rid of my home and half my possessions just yet. Just pay me the state pension I contracted for. And the heating supplement which would be exactly the same if I lived in a one-bedroomed flat. I'd like free council tax, but I have £20K in savings, so I won't get it. The other benefits I will get regardless of what size of home I live in. I need a new car because the only place I can get my prescriptions filled are in the centre of town, and there are no buses from here to there, and my old car probably won't pass its MOT without expensive repairs. That will have to come out of the £20K savings, as will the cost of taxing and insuring it. 68: I can no longer afford to run a car. I am going to sell my home and move into a small flat. The estate agent says that the house can only be sold for a low price, but he knows a developer who will turn it into an HMO for half a dozen students now that they don't need planning permission. My son says he will invest the profits for me, so that I will have an extra income, but that will just about pay for the service charge on the flat. He says that I should "keep the capital intact." He does not say what it is needed for. I am going to have to sell or give away most of my furniture, and the collection of water colours which have delighted me for the last 40 years. I can't have a bath any more, since the flat only has room for a shower, and a long soak in a hot tub has been my way of relaxing for years. Without the car I won't be able to go and see my grandchildren any more, and the family are too busy to come and see me. The local hospital says that hip replacements waiting lists are three years now, and I'm not in enough pain yet to qualify for "queue jumping". And now there's a young man on the telly saying that rich idle old scroungers like me should be made to suffer because he can't get a 95% mortgage. db Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 I can't be bothered to read 4 pages, but your assumption is so predictable, and incorrect. I'm no home owner (was once) and my twin brother (in our 60's) has never owned a house. Your assumptions are always the same, than boomers are 'loaded', how I wish it was true. Hi, this point was made earlier and is certainly worth considering, not sure the stats back it up tho - the occupancy ration is a matter of statistiucal fact and is very skewed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.