Plans to free up 25 million unused bedrooms

heathcote123

shortchanged wrote: »

But this is part of the problem in that when you bought your house I'm sure you didn't really look at it as an investment.

My parents have done the same and retired into quite a large family home. The difference is when they bought, if I was on the relative wage I am now back when they bought, I could have bought the house they are in at the time.

Could I afford to buy their house now? Not a chance.

Yes, we know that, but so what?

Things change. Go back a few more generations, and you could have found a cave for free and called it your own, as long as you fended off the roaming dinosaurs.

So what have we established? that things have changed?

Your parents probably couldn't afford to make a lengthy long distance phone call to Australia, or fly to New York for a weekends shopping on a whim. Your parents probably weren't competing much with a global workforce, or watching blu ray films on a 60" hd plasma.

Not that this in any way nullifies that its a bit of a !!!!!! not being able to buy a nice big house, just that it was a completely different world back then, and just because a previous generation could afford something, it doesn't make it a god given right for the next one.

Maybe you'll get that nice family home one day, and I'm sure you won't be in a hurry to redistribute it.

Davesnave

heathcote123 wrote: »

Things change. Go back a few more generations, and you could have found a cave for free and called it your own, as long as you fended off the roaming dinosaurs.

I've heard of smart folks spotting a trend and getting in on the action at ground floor level, but pre-dating human history is taking the idea to a whole new level.

bluecelticgirl

nearlyrich wrote: »

I have no plans to move I love my house it's a great location, I can walk to a couple of nice pubs and I have lovely views from every window why should I give it up and move back to a small house ? Yes it's increased in value but when we first bought it we made sacrifices to afford it. I think if some of the people who moan they can't afford a house did the things that young people did 30 years ago (stayed in every night, no frivolous spending, no meals out, nights at the pub, no holidays, old banger cars etc etc) they might be better off than they think. Most people I know who moan about the cost of houses are spending £50 a month on Sky and £40 plus each on mobile phones you can't have everything unless you have unlimited income.

This is the most sensible thing I have read in ages. Do you all really think it was that easy for everyone to buy a house a generation or two ago?? Sure for some it would have been but for others it would have been a huge struggle. Same rules apply now as they did then if you want something you have to work and save for it not just expect it to be a God given right and come easy.

lessonlearned

nearlyrich wrote: »

I have no plans to move I love my house it's a great location, I can walk to a couple of nice pubs and I have lovely views from every window why should I give it up and move back to a small house ? Yes it's increased in value but when we first bought it we made sacrifices to afford it. I think if some of the people who moan they can't afford a house did the things that young people did 30 years ago (stayed in every night, no frivolous spending, no meals out, nights at the pub, no holidays, old banger cars etc etc) they might be better off than they think. Most people I know who moan about the cost of houses are spending £50 a month on Sky and £40 plus each on mobile phones you can't have everything unless you have unlimited income.

You are so right here.

When we bought my first house in 1970, my then fianc! and I saved hard for 18 months for the deposit. We stayed in every night, not even a trip to the cinema, we bought no clothes, records etc and drove to and from work in an old banger. We scrimped and saved every penny.

When we moved in we had a new bed, and a new cooker that's it, no carpets - bare chipboard floors, single glazing, no central heating. All other furniture was family cast offs. We were thrilled with our first home and over time we furnished it bit by bit with love and care.

Up until recently I worked as a sales negotiator selling new build houses. First time buyers would swan in expecting to have houses decorated and furnished to show room standards. They would be appalled at the thought of living without "essentials" such as brand new flash furniture, plasma TVs, gadgets and gizmos.

Go figure the difference in attitudes and expectations between us "selfish, greedy baby boomers" and those poor hard done by first time buyers.:rotfl:

Yes - like many baby boomers, I now live in a comfortable detached four bedroomed home in leafy suburbia and why not - we've worked hard all our lives. Any "spare" bedrooms are my business - not some interfering "Big Brother" government. I shall stay here so my family can come back and stay whenever they want/need. One adult son has already moved back for financial reasons. One day I may have the pleasure of having grand children to stay and visit - sleeping in those very same spare bedrooms.

I agree with the other posters - it's not more bedrooms we need but more houses. We are a small overpopulated country subject to increasing demand for housing. It's simply a question of demand and supply.

BTW - when I was born my parents and I lived in one rented room, shared bathroom/shared kitchen. It took them 4 years to get somewhere decent to live. There weren't enough houses then and there aren't enough houses now.

ukcarper

We were lucky compared to you 4 of us in a 2 bed no hot water outside toilet this was in the early 60s. I’m not sure if some of the younger people realise what living conditions were like for a lot of people in 50s and 60s.

John_Pierpoint

Let us start analysing this situation from its historical and human basics.

First we dismiss second home owners; those properties should be taxed on the basis that their wealth could have been invested in productive industry (say 2.5% - 5% of their capital value value per year - council tax goes some of the way to this objective)

150 years ago my ancestors lived in a poverty "open" village. The majority of the population were "industrial" workers, scraping a living as home workers because they had out-bred the carrying capacity of the local agricultural ecology - I am talking about a part of this land, not a million miles from the village of Tolpuddle of "martyr" fame, not the villages of Essex where they were rehabilitated by philanthropy.

As documented in census returns, these people lived three families to some damp thatched property with mud walls (now worth a fortune BUT they still tend to the damp, you can tell by the toilet paper.)
An open village is one where the local squire does not own and choose those that inhabit his property.

If you need another example, just check out "the squatters" home at the Iron Bridge world heritage site for third world living conditions.

When, in the late 1960's, I did a history of economics course, overcrowding was defined as more than 1.5 persons per habitable room (ie nobody needed to sleep in the galley kitchen or the bath.), this was the era of "hot bedding" in the immigrant communities and "hot" shoes [The brands called Tuf & Glove tried to guaranteed their shoes would not need repairs in the first 12 months, even when that was reduced to 6 months, they still got claims. These shoes had soles made of the new miracle plastic called PVC].

So stop winging about overcrowding.

Then there is the car - unlike the amazingly expensive horse and the train, which was just an extension of the footpaths that took workers from their three generation family their place of employment.
The car enabled the families to fragment.
This trend was further encouraged by the "welfare state" and compounded by the advances in free medical care. Not a lot of people want to care for their incontinent geriatric mother in law.

Then we have the legal equality of married women. It does not matter if it is birds or species of fish. The male presents the female with suitable nest sites and if his luck is in, he gets chosen by the female. Now old retired blokes are often happy to potter in a shed, he is defined by what he does but to the female the condition of the nest defines what she is. There is intense competition between females based on what is acquired not what what is created.
"Do you know who I am?"

In olden times everything but the pin money belonged to the pater familias. This did not automatically mean that the widow faced a "sati" or a banishment future (India and N.America) - there are many examples of "merry" widows going on to run the family business more successfully than their husbands, but they probably only had "an interest in possession" of the family wealth.

So now we have the situation where the elderly widow "controls" a large percentage of the national wealth, especially that locked away unproductively in bricks and mortar, bolstering her status and waiting to be taxed at 40% to IHT.

In years gone by, the grandmother often found herself retired into "The dower house", when one of the sons, usually the eldest, took over from the father.

In modern terms, a lot should depend on the help that the older "baby boomer" generation are prepared to do, to help the over stressed parents of their grandchildren, and how much any help is appreciated. Remember they get to choose the care home:eek:

Then we have the planning system. Try applying to add a new front door or a habitable garden chalet to a family home and see how much encouragement you will get for saving care home costs, while preserving the "dignity" of the elderly relative.

We also have the population growth problem coupled with the increase in disparity between those who can make a living in a globalised world and those who cannot.

4,000,000 - 1600
5,000,000 - 1700
10,000,000 - 1800
40,000,000 - 1900
60,000,000 - 2000
70,000,000 - ?????

These figures are approximate & should exclude Ireland. They are subject to large flows of both immigration and emigration.
Apologists talk about rates of increase but, with a limited housing stock that is expected to last at least 100 years per building, it is the annual increase number that counts.

I am prepared to assist my children, my wider family, and neighbours, in that order, but I cannot do much for the 8 children of a third world peasant (to take a concrete example) who are living in the equivalent of the Iron Bridge squatters cottage and dreamijng of making a new life by jumping the borders of Europe.

So far the UK has avoided the shanty towns that have engulfed third world cities - but the current ghetto of immigration at Dale Farm is a notorious example of such a pressure point, one of several in the South of the county.

Realmoney wrote: »

Absolutely, falls are inevitable, why not stop propping them up and let the big falls happen sooner rather than later.

Those few house price bulls left are going to be let down when at the end of this decade prices will be not much different to now in nominal terms, in real terms they will have crashed.

Given enough quantitative easing it could be the value of the currency that crashes.

vivatifosi wrote: »

Now that could convert to some fantastic pied a terres for when one fancies shopping in Knightsbridge. I wouldn't mind one of those myself. Especially if I could keep one of those posh doormen in red:D.

I doubt you could afford even a one room flat with a mezzanine bed space and spiral stair case, built into an existing room

ukcarper wrote: »

If the people we are talking about are people who are living in larger houses than they need and don’t want to move why would their house be on the market.

Because they are asset rich but cash poor and taxes, inflation and care fees will force them out.
In the mean time they are Skiing.

John_Pierpoint

crazyguy wrote: »

Solution,

I don' think this is suitable for pensioners, the stairs wont take a Stanna stair lift and they would forget the meaning of the low bridge sign.

Mallotum_X

There was an interview on the local radio last night with one of the report authors.

Actually what they claim to be their position makes a lot more sense than where the press have gone with this.

He said that their view was (claimed to be based on contact etc for help) that there are a significant minority of older people in larger homes that they struggle to heat/maintain etc who would if given help, actually prefer to downsize. He said that this angle was where they were coming from that actually by helping those who genuinly want to downsize would help both those older people who felt unable to do so (tax breaks and practical help) to move into more suitable accomodation for their needs, whilst at the same time making better use of some of the housing stock.

Which in itself makes a lot of sense.

Now quite how this would impact on house prices depends on how many such people exist, increased demand for smaller property could as has been highlighted above push up the cost of FTB homes, although if at the same time existing families in these homes were the ones buying the larger ones then the impact would probably be negligible. Overall unlikely in my view to have any real impact on house prices, but may well see some improvement in living accomodation for the older people concerned as well as the families able to take advantage.

The interviewer got a bit irate that when he asked "Why should an old person who likes their house move out", the answer came back "They shouldnt".

Jimmy_31

heathcote123 wrote: »

Yes, we know that, but so what?

Things change. Go back a few more generations, and you could have found a cave for free and called it your own, as long as you fended off the roaming dinosaurs.

So what have we established? that things have changed?

Your parents probably couldn't afford to make a lengthy long distance phone call to Australia, or fly to New York for a weekends shopping on a whim. Your parents probably weren't competing much with a global workforce, or watching blu ray films on a 60" hd plasma.

Not that this in any way nullifies that its a bit of a !!!!!! not being able to buy a nice big house, just that it was a completely different world back then, and just because a previous generation could afford something, it doesn't make it a god given right for the next one.

Maybe you'll get that nice family home one day, and I'm sure you won't be in a hurry to redistribute it.

Yeah i agree things do change.

Thousands of people cannot afford to put a basic roof over their heads, but at least they can give kylie minouge a ring eh.

Every cloud.

Going4TheDream

Mallotum_X wrote: »

There was an interview on the local radio last night with one of the report authors.

Actually what they claim to be their position makes a lot more sense than where the press have gone with this.

He said that their view was (claimed to be based on contact etc for help) that there are a significant minority of older people in larger homes that they struggle to heat/maintain etc who would if given help, actually prefer to downsize. He said that this angle was where they were coming from that actually by helping those who genuinly want to downsize would help both those older people who felt unable to do so (tax breaks and practical help) to move into more suitable accomodation for their needs, whilst at the same time making better use of some of the housing stock.

Which in itself makes a lot of sense.

Now quite how this would impact on house prices depends on how many such people exist, increased demand for smaller property could as has been highlighted above push up the cost of FTB homes, although if at the same time existing families in these homes were the ones buying the larger ones then the impact would probably be negligible. Overall unlikely in my view to have any real impact on house prices, but may well see some improvement in living accomodation for the older people concerned as well as the families able to take advantage.

The interviewer got a bit irate that when he asked "Why should an old person who likes their house move out", the answer came back "They shouldnt".

If this is the case and it is a choice then I fail to see what the problem is - if the house has no mortgage so the funds are available and the person wishes to down size why the need for tax breaks? Help and support I can understand for those without family to assist in the selling and buying process etc.

It leads me to wonder what percentage of social housing is under occupied by older people whose circumstance have long since changed whilst families languish in over crowded accommodation as not everyone can afford to or is in the position to buy?