How to feel unwanted - age discrimination?

jennifernil

I think this is very true........

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I know how you feel but I don't think its anything to worry about to be honest.
Push comes to shove they would'nt dare risk the "grey vote".
Its all a load of hot air..

So we will not be worrying.

John_Pierpoint

Were people saying that in Moscow in 1917 ?:D

seven-day-weekend

Well..... we WERE actually going to downsize to a flat whilst our son and girlfriend had the family home.

Then....my husband was thinking, 'where am I going to keep my motorbike, my kayak, all my artist and photgraphy stuff in a flat?'. I was thinking 'My office will have to double up as the second bedroom and I will have to find somewhere to put all my books and DVDs'. Meanwhile our son was thinking 'I don't want the responsibility of the garden or the repairs and maintenance'.

So he and his girlfriend are having the (two-bedroomed) flat, we are keeping our (3-bed terrace) family home and using the 'spare' bedrooms for an office and cinema room, and the cellar as a soundproofed music room for my husband and his friend to practise in .

As for the proposal, why should people who have paid for something our of their own money be taxed into giving it up?

I can see that maybe those in Social Housing are in a different position as it is for more vulnerable groups, but then there is no social housing being built, so in this case I can see a need for people only to have the house size that they need.

But your own bought and paid for property, No way!

Errata

I can see that maybe those in Social Housing are in a different position as it is for more vulnerable groups, but then there is no social housing being built, so in this case I can see a need for people only to have the house size that they need.

IMO that smacks of kicking a man when he's down - for 'vulnerable' read weak, unable to stick up for themselves and treated as second class citizens.
That said, there may be a case for social housing contracts to be time limited and reviewed at the end of each contract period - say ten years to ensure that people are housed appropriately. That would apply to new tenancies, not those that have existed for many decades.

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

IMO that smacks of kicking a man when he's down - for 'vulnerable' read weak, unable to stick up for themselves and treated as second class citizens.
That said, there may be a case for social housing contracts to be time limited and reviewed at the end of each contract period - say ten years to ensure that people are housed appropriately. That would apply to new tenancies, not those that have existed for many decades.

I didn't mean it like that, just that social housing is such a scarce resource that theer may be a family in greater need of a three-bedroomed house than someone who has brought their family up in it and now lives in it alone.

I agree with the contracts being time limited - maybe checked every five years or so to see if the accommodation is still appropriate -, and I'm not saying the people who are moved should not have social housing - if they still qualiy for it then move them into a smaller place.

Of course all this depends upon there being enoughh suitable housing.

Errata

If and only if a five or ten year contract forms part of the original contract then people can choose whether to accept social housing or not and they should not be forced to be moved to an area or community they have no links with or don't want to move to. Any other process is just another variety of ethnic cleansing.

zygurat789

It’s the same the whole world over. If you can afford to pay the expenses (including any tax) then no one can persuade you to leave. However, there are many old folk who have upsized during their lives because they needed to who now find themselves in a house larger than they would buy if they were in the market for the first time now. We can produce allsorts of justifications, children moving back home, grandchildren stopping over or hobby rooms, but the fact is activities expand to occupy the room available. It is a fact that there are elderly people living alone in large houses and struggling to make ends meet (and with power prices going up!!)
The problem is could they organise or cope with a move that should have been made earlier?
So the elderly hang onto their houses, reducing the supply thus increasing prices and giving their spare cash to their children so that they can afford a house thus creating more demand and pushing up prices further.
If we were persuaded to leave our large family houses then others, already homeowners could upsize, through necessity, and ultimately starter homes would become more available.

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

If and only if a five or ten year contract forms part of the original contract then people can choose whether to accept social housing or not and they should not be forced to be moved to an area or community they have no links with or don't want to move to. Any other process is just another variety of ethnic cleansing.

Yes, I agree with it forming part of the contract (so therefore only for new tenants), and ideally the new accomodation should be in an area the person wants to live in (except there are some that no-one wants to live in , don't know what happens there).

ceridwen

zygurat789 wrote: »

It’s the same the whole world over. If you can afford to pay the expenses (including any tax) then no one can persuade you to leave. However, there are many old folk who have upsized during their lives because they needed to who now find themselves in a house larger than they would buy if they were in the market for the first time now. We can produce allsorts of justifications, children moving back home, grandchildren stopping over or hobby rooms, but the fact is activities expand to occupy the room available. It is a fact that there are elderly people living alone in large houses and struggling to make ends meet (and with power prices going up!!)
The problem is could they organise or cope with a move that should have been made earlier?
So the elderly hang onto their houses, reducing the supply thus increasing prices and giving their spare cash to their children so that they can afford a house thus creating more demand and pushing up prices further.
If we were persuaded to leave our large family houses then others, already homeowners could upsize, through necessity, and ultimately starter homes would become more available.

Hmm...actually this all depends to some extent on housing prices in the area concerned. In my own area - one cant buy anything...but ANYTHING under £100,000. We are starting to talk about having a realistic chance of getting a one bedroom flat at about £120k and, as for even the smallest/most basic of houses - then theres very little likelihood of getting any choice AT ALL under £150k. In my immediate area, for instance, any house under £150k means "unmortgageable AND in a dump estate". "Normal homes" cost about £250k-£300k and "luxurious" doesnt start until about £500k. We have quite a high amount of housing available in the £1 million or more mark - yes really:eek:.

So - in my own area, for instance - one could be in £300,000 house and it would still be an "ordinary/no luxury to it/standard size/just a very standard type house". In all honesty - in many areas (ie the large number with similar price levels to my own) - then couples will struggle like mad to even buy a flat - never mind a starter house. I would think that even many couples simply couldnt manage to even buy a one bedroom flat - so how on earth would they ever manage to find £250k-£300k to buy our "standard/ordinary level/ordinary size houses" (I'm baby boomer generation and pretty darn good with money - and I am still struggling to try and get to that level yet at my age)??

That is - its a totally pointless exercise to try and force older people out of "standard/ordinary level houses" because younger couples are VERY VERY unlikely indeed to be able to afford them anyway.

In my own area, for instance, "luxury/maybe too big" means £400,000 upwards at a minimum...

jennifernil

It is similar here (suburb of Glasgow) but on a lower scale.

We moved here in 1987, we bought the land and had the house built. we did a LOT of the work ourselves.

We stopped counting in 1990, when we had spent around £160k......PLUS all the work we did ourselves.

OH installed all the telephone wires, and the TV aerial wires, he fitted 2 kitchens + utility room (we have a granny flat), made units for 4 bathrooms and fitted them, tiled 2 kitchens, utility, 4 bathrooms, did all the decorating, laid the 8m x 10m block paved drive, all the slabs around the house, terraced the garden, built retaining walls using 20000 bricks, laid more paving, planted the garden.......all with our help of course.

So, in 1990/92 we had finished everything and the house was now valued at £250k

Fast forward to today......about 20 years on.........no huge increases up here......the house is possibly worth £500k. House next to us is for sale, about 2/3 size of ours, and they cannot get £375k.

We considered moving to a bungalow, a 3 bed one would be £300k +.

Add in costs and stamp duty, and there is little point in us moving from our uniquely personally designed house, where we know every detail of the construction, to a house designed by someone else, that we know nothing about.

So, we are not "hanging on", we actually enjoy living here, enjoy our space, can look after it, and will improve it as needed.

We have our daughter not too far away, in her own flat, but not (IMHO) entirely settled. She still has her "stuff" here, even our son has not taken his train set away!

So, we are happy here, don't want to move, why should we be taxed out of our home just because some weird "think tank" thinks we should only have 1 bedroom?

Total madness!!