Ministers: elderly should downsize and save for care

Simon Ward
by Lovemoney Staff Simon Ward on 18 January 2012  |  Comments 44 comments

Government proposes scheme to help elderly people to downsize from larger homes and suggests we should be planning to pay for any care we receive in later life.

Ministers: elderly should downsize and save for care

The Government has proposed that elderly people in larger homes should be helped to downsize into smaller, rented properties to ease Britain’s housing crisis. It’s also suggested that care provision should be saved for in advance to avoid the prospect of people having to sell their homes to pay for the cost.

The rental scheme will allow people to rent their homes to local authorities, who in turn rent them out to young families.

The authorities would maintain the property and pass the income back to the homeowners or their estate.

Research says that 25 million bedrooms are empty in family homes in England. Housing Minister Grant Shapps says the scheme would help young families struggling to find a suitable home.

Saga called the idea “outrageous social engineering”.

Paying for the cost of care

The proposals came on the same day that another Government minister called for older people to either release equity from their homes or divert savings to a separate annuity or other product to pay for care.

Liberal Democrat Paul Burstow told the Health Committee that people currently see care as “a distress purchase”. He said that the Government wanted people “to futureproof” their potential care costs.

At the moment, anyone in England with assets worth more than £23,500 has to pay their own care costs in full. As a result, it’s estimated that 20,000 people each year have to sell their homes to raise the money.

The Dilnot commission, which was set up to examine the future of social care, recommended a cap of £35,000 on the cost of care, with the Government paying any excess. But it’s estimated that could cost the Government between £1.7 and £2 billion a year and it is reported to favour a cap of £60,000.

Cross-party talks on the issue are continuing this week and a White Paper on the future of social care is due to be published in April.

More: Eight ways to pay for social care | Why downsizing your home is a stupid thing to do

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (44)

  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    I intend to 'future proof' my care in old age by spending (or giving away legally) everything I own and then sitting back and joining all those people who pee'd away their earnings over the years and let the Gov't pay for all my social needs.

    Why should people who have striven to succeed, saved and scrimped and bought assets (eg House) in a way to better themselves than be penalised for doing so when they need extra help and support and care in later life. You may as well pee it all away, live life to excess and the Gov't will pay it all for you.

    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.....

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • egizzy
    Love rating 2
    egizzy said

    Ditto the previous comment, seems the more you try to save or try to scrimp and future proof, the worse off you will be.

    Also how do you down size when you already live in a 1 bed property and still cannot afford it?

    By the time you pay council tax heating and general maintenance and upkeep of a home even a one bedded home. Let alone transport costs to go anywhere! Food comes very low on priority. Heaven knows if an emergency crops up, broken boiler or repair etc.

    Even though I am fortunate to still be working after redundancy threats last year and another impending threat looming in the next two months. I still shop in charity shops and food come very low on my priorities.

    I for one dread the day !!! but will probably join the rest of goverment supported persons, and it will not be through choice! Because my children will be paying for it for the rest of their lives

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • onepete
    Love rating 4
    onepete said

    Ditto Iamcoldsteve

    If you make provision for your old age the government will penalise you.

    Spend your money, dont bother saving for a pension and the government will pay for you

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Talent
    Love rating 77
    Talent said

    I'm beginning to think that the joke about shooting four politicians (not necessarily dead) then spending the rest of your life in prison luxury with full healthcare and no taxes is beginning to make sense. The only problem is obtaining a weapon.... ;-))

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • silkycat
    Love rating 37
    silkycat said

    Can only agree with the previous comments. This is yet another Tory ruse to part you from your hard earned cash by making you feel guilty about hanging on to the property you've worked hard all your life to buy.

    Yes there is a housing problem, but govt. needs to find ways of compelling house builders to release the land they already own and have planning permission on and start building. There should also be incentives for building on brownfield sites. Developers always prefer a greenfield site as the associated costs are lower.

    Government have already helped themselves to a share of your pension pot so do your best to keep their greedy hands away from your equity to pay for your care home fees. It's worth investigating setting up a Trust to deal with your affairs, but it is important to get good legal/financial advice. Perhaps Lovemoney could do a helpful spot on this?

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • deRANGEdROVER
    Love rating 12
    deRANGEdROVER said

    The previous contributors have already expressed my feelings, just one little addenda, and this advice only applies to people who own a property with someone else or, although they are in a relationship, own their property "solely".......A properly prepared Will, which includes a "Property Trust" should put a stop to selling one's home to pay for Care Fees.

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • environmentaljan
    Love rating 8
    environmentaljan said

    Don't all shout at once but i have some sympathy about down sizing. It used to happen in council accommodation.My grandmother was persuaded in 1970 to move from her large three bed family flat to a small unit round the corner and was pleased to do so. Part of the difficulty is being able to rehouse someone close to where they live.

    In my road there are 20 houses occupied by older people and all have two bedrooms or more not used. My own parents only use the downstairs of their house. Fuel costs and council tax are therefore higher than needs be but they will not move.

    What is needed is action to get empty homes back in use. I took part in a "major national survey" last year and was truly amazed by how many houses were empty. Many were just rotting away. The owner was in a home and the council was taking a charge against the property. Several people told me, we can't sell the house because the council won't take her/him on as the home she/he is in is not in this area.

    I was also told of at least two people who had offered to have the house rented out by the council in an exchange instead of a charge. The houses needed rewiring and a few jobs to basically modernize them but there was stalemate as the owner did not have the cash to do the work and the council would not so the property remained empty.

    Nobody should be forced to move but i feel some of this will be solved due to the housing crisis. I can see my husband and i moving out to give our house to our son whilst we buy something smaller and he pays us mortgage on that.

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Poorpensioner
    Love rating 36
    Poorpensioner said

    I must be missing the point here.

    We two retired poor pensioners live in a sizeable four bedroomed house.

    Downsizing us would have two effects:

    1) It would release a house that was too big for a young family.

    2) It would remove from the market (rented or bought) a property suitable for a young family.

    I worked on the Census for a few weeks last year - it was staggering how many empty houses there were. Not just the ones that were known to be empty, but all the ones that had a nominal tenant, but who lived elsewhere, so that each partner could claim benefit independent of the other.

    A proper audit of who actually lived where would free up enough properties to house everybody.

    -and I have probably broken the law by saying so !

    Report on 18 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Snootycat
    Love rating 3
    Snootycat said

    I can't believe that the Govt have the bloody cheek to say this. We work all our lives to buy somewhere nice to live out our final years and they have the bloody nerve to say old people should move into rented accomadation so young people can move in. Its blatant, rampant ageism, treating the old as second class citizens who should budge out of the way, what next, hurry up and die?

    I dont know what we pay our taxes for, its outrageous. Read the link on why its stupid to downsize on this page.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    As a young, productive worker with valuable skills I find this really quite terrible.

    For starters I'm not disagreeing that older people should move out of family properties that are now too big for them as that's just common sense. What really annoys me is that I should be forced to pay rent for the privilege of bringing up a family, whereas the older couple who previously lived there did not.

    And to add to the matter it seems the older generation wants me to pay for their care in retirement as well. I mean they've enjoyed what many economists are now saying was the "golden era" of the 80's-00's and, having frittered away the money from this now want my generation to maintain their lifestyle well into retirement.

    It's no wonder so many commentators call them the selfish generation.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Snootycat said ,

    "We work all our lives to buy somewhere nice to live out our final years and they have the bloody nerve to say old people should move into rented accomadation so young people can move in."

    - We pay your pension as you didn't save for it.

    - We pay your care costs as you didn't save for it.

    - Unlike you we need to be highly qualified.

    - Unlike you we pay for part of our education.

    - Unlike you we have to compete with an older generation of Buy-To-Let'ers, who deny us access to the housing market so that they can maintain their otherwise unfunded lifestyles.

    - And like you we want to raise families.

    - And like you we don't what to do that in a shoe box.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • lordswood
    Love rating 1
    lordswood said

    LandOfConfusion are you for real?

    Of course the elderly couple didn't pay rent for their family home - they bought it, probably for far more than you will ever pay in rent.

    The elderly couple would have been paying taxes and national insurance for maybe 50 years helping to keep previous generations cared for. It's a "rolling" system. You'd better hope your children don't feel the same as you.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    lordswood,

    Yes I'm for real and are you serious?

    My parents brought their house sometime after 1980. Their mortgage peaked in 1991 when they added to it. Now using an RPI inflation calculator and assuming that they brought the house in 1980 and that their mortgage peaked in that same year by the same amount as it did in 1991 then the house would now be worth around £100k.

    It was valued at £220k in 2007.

    Rents are usually calculated as a percentage of asset (house) price (aka yield) and I've seen percentage yields on homes brought around the year 2000 in the high teens. No mortgage matches that.

    "The elderly couple would have been paying taxes and national insurance for maybe 50 years helping to keep previous generations cared for."

    I've debated this with many, many people and I've heard it all before. You pay the older generation for what they've given you and although the economy has seen it's ups and downs over the decades the period between the late 1950's and early 2000's have been a time of unrivalled economic growth and prosperity. And that's mostly because of the sacrifices of those that lived and worked during those times.

    That generation retired and where they're still alive mostly lives well because of what they did. On the other hand the generation that preceded me hasn't done the same, which is why we've seen massive state debts, a massive state deficit, youth unemployment, problems with rising care costs, the introduction and rise of tuition fees and the dawn of 19th century-style letting schemes (short hold tenancies, buy to let etc.).

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • jegwe
    Love rating 20
    jegwe said

    Silkycat this is a Lib Dem scheme, not a Tory scheme

    I am still working, but retirement is not too many years away. I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a house that is a bit bigger than average, although not enormous. I have had many bouts of unemployment, several of which resulted in me losing employer contributions to my pension, whilst bringing up to two children as a single parent. and have unexpectedly had to fund them through higher education since the Government introduced student loans to ensure that they start their lives with large debts.

    My house has been shabby for many years. I have finally managed to get it decorated as I want it and I would like the pleasure of living in it for a few years. My best way of saving for care is to stay in my home whilst I am able to and then to sell it at the market price, not to rent it out now at a low rent to enable the Government to re-house somebody who cannot afford it and then take on additional rent myself in the private sector.

    However, having people living in poverty and dependent on Government handouts makes the population easy to control by people who so not believe in creating wealth or in personal freedom. An accurate description of Lib Dem policies, along with twenty mile speed limits and high fares to restrict people’s freedom to travel and commitment to taxes to prevent anybody from inheriting enough to become free of the state or to clip the wings of anyone who manages to achieve any level of personal wealth.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • joffa
    Love rating 9
    joffa said

    While I am payin NI I get health care, how about I carry on paying NI when I retire, can I not carry on getting healthcare. Why should I have to sell my house to get healthcare when I am older, when someone who has always rented not have to pay?

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    LandOfConfusion,

    So you actually condone people being forcibly evicted from their home (that they own), so someone else can move in?

    And yes, you should be "forced to pay rent" - just like everyone else did before you, unless they bought their home.

    You certainly do live in a "land of confusion", or is it "land of delusion".

    By the way it is "BOUGHT" a house, not "BROUGHT" - unless they are very strong and can carry from the shop.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Iamcoldsteve

    "So you actually condone people being forcibly evicted from their home (that they own), so someone else can move in?"

    Please quote (from my text above) where I say words to that effect.

    "You certainly do live in a "land of confusion", or is it "land of delusion".

    OK, you've attacked my typo, made a big deal out of it, apparently failed to understand what was written and all the while carefully avoided all my points. Given all that is it really worth me discussing anything with you? Tell you what I'll give you one more chance.

    "And yes, you should be "forced to pay rent" - just like everyone else did before you, unless they bought their home."

    The previous generation (to me) did not live in a situation where those who worked hard and did economically valuable & productive jobs were forced to pay other far less productive (and in some cases economically idle) people for the privilege of living in a home. In fact the average age of that rare and endangered species the First Time Buyer is now 38 and rising. Yet if I compare that to my parents generation I see that it wasn't unusual to buy your first home in your 20's - that's over a decade of difference.

    What's more the rent that my generation pays largely goes to supporting people in their late 40's and older who failed to save for the future and now find themselves facing a stark retirement and drop in living standards. Are you telling me that this is either acceptable or right?

    Also, with regards to your “forcibly evicted from their home ” argument I think you miss the point.

    I see older, mostly retired people living in homes which are far too big for them while young families who cannot get a family home are forced to live in 1-bed flats and bedsits. Now I'm not saying that people should be forced out of their homes like some common AST tenant but incentives should be given to encourage people to free up housing stock which is too big for them.

    In my opinion the best way to achieve that would be the introduction of a Land Value Tax(*) coupled with a corresponding reduction of VAT and removal of all tax on heating fuels. This would boost the economy while at the same time also be incredibly fair, which unfortunately means that the Tories almost certainly won't support it.

    * Land Value Tax on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Value_Tax

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    IF the older people are in social housing, then yes I completely agree with you that it is not right that they continue living in a house that is far too big for their needs. Eg got a 3 bed council house when they had children living at home. These children then have grown up and left and now there is a couple who are getting older still living in this same house that is far more suitable for a family to occupy.

    IF they have bought this house, then it is their property and they can and should be able to do what they like with it, eg rent it, live in it or give it to their children. Society has no right in demanding that they downsize to free up this house for other people - nomatter how disproportionate the house is for their needs.

    We already have a sort of 'land value tax' in the form of 'house value tax' - ie council tax banding. The house value is affected not just by the house, but the size of land it sits in too.

    Renting - who owns the house? Either buy to let (who have taken a financial gamble on mortgaging and being able to rent it effectively) or they own the house outright - see comments above. Or social housing - eg Council, housing association etc - again owned by a 'company' and rented out at (usually) much less than private rented accomodation.

    I am in my late 30's, and have a mortgage. This is not my first house, in fact it's the 3rd that I have 'owned'.

    I get the distinct impression that you are somehow angry because you can't afford to buy a house and are blaming it on anything that you see has been a barrier to you buying one. Yes houses have increased in 'value' completely disproportionately to other investments. BUT that is just the way it is. Who has caused this? Over zealous FTB, lack of sufficient house building, estate agents, dishonest buyers.......

    You mention rent payers supporting people who didn't provide retirement provision, I don't think you are right on that. MOST people who are private landlords haven't retired and renting houses IS their current job / source of income / retirement vehicle. Renting is not some new evil. It was far more common is days gone by (say up to the 80's) than it is today.

    Ultimately, if peeing your money up the wall means that future taxpayers pay for social care in later life, and being careful with money, investing, saving means that this is then stripped from you to pay for the same care, then why bother? Why not just spend it all living to excess and let the future tax payer pick up the tab?

    I am not saying it is right, in fact it is wrong. BUT if we want to live in a civilised society we cannot just neglect our older generation who have paid into the system for years when they require care facilities.

    As the older generation gets bigger, the bill gets higher. We can't just abandon them, and call ourselves moral and just.

    I don't know how old you are, so don't know who the 'generation before you' is.

    Report on 19 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Iamcoldsteve,

    I've read down to your bit where you compare land Value Tax with Council Tax and, frankly I'm going to cut this a bit shorter that I was going to mainly because if you followed my link and understood what LVT was you'd understand why that's such a ridiculous comparison.

    “IF the older people are in social housing, then yes I completely agree with you that it is not right that they continue living in a house that is far too big for their needs.”

    I agree but neither the Tories or Labour are going to let that happen.

    ”IF they have bought this house, then it is their property and they can and should be able to do what they like with it [...] Society has no right in demanding that they downsize to free up this house for other people - nomatter how disproportionate the house is for their needs.”

    I agree but...

    ”We already have a sort of 'land value tax' in the form of 'house value tax' - ie council tax banding. The house value is affected not just by the house, but the size of land it sits in too.”

    Assuming you're not being funny with me, it is not possible to write that as a serious statement and understand what LVT is. I think the link I provided explains it pretty well but if you aren't able to fully grasp that concept then I'm afraid whatever I say next on the matter is irrelevant.

    ”I get the distinct impression that you are somehow angry because you can't afford to buy a house and are blaming it on anything that you see has been a barrier to you buying one.”

    I'll keep this brief.

    Back in 2007 I started looking to buy a house. I looked at prices, the local market, price drivers, things that happened in previous decades and a few other things. From that it soon occurred to me that the single biggest driver of high prices was BTL activity. Nothing else came close and so I looked into the subject in detail.

    To cut a long story short I found it to be a parasitical system which favours those who either have lots of money and/or those who were able to buy (and did) before it's effective introduction (1998). It strongly favours those from the older generation and does so at the great expense of the younger. If left to continue it will in my opinion lead to the rise of the “propertied” and “idle rich”. In fact this would seem to be already happening:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_Wilson

    “Renting is not some new evil. It was far more common is days gone by (say up to the 80's) than it is today.

    Until the introduction of AST's the ratio of home-owers:renters was steadily climbing in favour of the home owner. Now it's quickly falling.

    Additionally renting used to be what most of the working and middle classes did up until approx. the early to mid-20th century when social equality laws started to appear.

    "I am not saying it is right, in fact it is wrong. BUT if we want to live in a civilised society we cannot just neglect our older generation who have paid into the system for years when they require care facilities.”

    But we can neglect the younger generation who pays for it? The older generation has taken so much and continues to do so. If they are poor in retirement then that's their problem not mine. Now I'm not saying that they should starve or die from exposure to cold but what I am saying is that I shouldn't be forced to maintain their high standard of living, at the expense of my own, when they didn't even bother to provision for it themselves.

    ”I don't know how old you are, so don't know who the 'generation before you' is.”

    It's funny. In all the years and all the debates I've had you're the first to pose that question. Well “for the avoidance of doubt” I define the 'older generation' as:

    “Anyone born between 1946 and 1966”.

    Report on 20 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    @LandOfConfusion

    " I'll keep this brief "

    Whilst agreeing with some ( not all ) of the points you raise, I feel that you just won " Ironic comment of the week "

    You suggest in one of your postings, scrapping tax on heating fuels, which, whilst a good idea, would, I suggest be a disincentive in persuading older people to downsize.

    Report on 20 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    hopefultom,

    "You suggest in one of your postings, scrapping tax on heating fuels, which, whilst a good idea, would, I suggest be a disincentive in persuading older people to downsize."

    Only if taken in isolation. The increase in tax for a large house would more than exceed the cost of keeping the few rooms, which were used warm.

    Additionally, the reduced cost of heating + changed cost of ownership (LVT) would make owning a smaller house a lot cheaper. Much like downsizing the family car in fact.

    Report on 21 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    So basically taxing people out of their homes.

    From your description of the older generation, I conclude that you are not a wholly dissimilar age to me.

    You appear to blame multiple things on why you can't afford to buy a house. It's unfair this, BTL are parasites etc etc etc.

    Maybe looking at yourself and expending energy on getting a better paid job might be the best course of action instead of blaming everything and everyone else for your inability to buy a house.

    I do understand that LVT is not Council tax, and I understand the principles of it. I was merely making a statement that bigger homes already are taxed higher. I was not saying the 2 things are the same.

    Maybe people do not want to move into smaller accomodation - even if it is cheaper, more efficient and more practical, and if they own the house I don't think it is right to cajole them into moving against their effective will.

    Furthermore, we are already paying huge tax bills and taxing us anymore will only lead to more disatisfaction and dissentment.

    The younger generation has always paid for the older generation to live in retirement, and those who have gone before us paid for the previous generation. You berate people for not providing for their retirement, but say nothing about your inability to provide for your house buying wants.

    You speak much rhetoric, and go to great lengths to blame others and the system and how unfair house prices are. That's the reality of it. You can either moan about it or do something about your personal circumstances.

    There was a guy on Radio 4 the other morning that has been unsuccessfully looking for work for 3 years, and how he finds it difficult to get out of bed. The clincher came towards the end when he was asked what qualifications he had - he had a NVQ in gardening. So instead of improving his chances of finding work through education, training etc he decided that he would simply moan and bleat on how demoralising it was. How many other people have found work in the last 3 years? How many immigrants have found work in the last 3 years? He can't, but others can. Maybe the problem lies with him, and not the 'system'.

    I see the resemblance here. Stop bleating and get doing.

    Report on 21 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    ”You appear to blame multiple things on why you can't afford to buy a house. It's unfair this, BTL are parasites etc etc etc.”

    No, just the choices and actions of the older generation.

    ”Maybe looking at yourself and expending energy on getting a better paid job might be the best course of action instead of blaming everything and everyone else for your inability to buy a house.”

    I was once involved in a discussion about BTL where a member of the aforementioned older generation was talking about his portfolio and how he didn't have to work. When a few First Time Buyer's entered the conversation and started to pick apart how he'd got to his current position he defended himself by saying much the same as you.

    But then I guess there still has to be somebody actually creating wealth. After all, we can't all sit back and rent out houses to someone who actually has a job.

    ”I do understand that LVT is not Council tax, and I understand the principles of it. I was merely making a statement that bigger homes already are taxed higher. I was not saying the 2 things are the same.”

    From my reading your post I can see that you don't really understand LVT at all. Oh well, at least I tried.

    ”Maybe people do not want to move into smaller accomodation - even if it is cheaper, more efficient and more practical, and if they own the house I don't think it is right to cajole them into moving against their effective will.

    I'm not saying I would arbitrarily force them to move out but I would still introduce LVT.

    LVT encourages people to make the best use of that most precious and limited national resource – land. By introducing it we remove what is effectively a state subsidy and in doing so encourage it's better utilisation (as it now costs you to “own” based on it's intrinsic site value). If after it's introduction they can no longer afford to live where they are then they move out and someone better financed moves in.

    ”Furthermore, we are already paying huge tax bills and taxing us anymore will only lead to more disatisfaction and dissentment.”

    I've already said that I would reduce VAT and eliminate all tax on heating. LVT would only change the target of what is taxed, not the amount paid.

    ”The younger generation has always paid for the older generation to live in retirement, and those who have gone before us paid for the previous generation.”

    The original idea was that the older generation would get a dividend from the younger in return for the economic and political landscape that they left behind. Our older generation has left us in dire straits but still wants the lifestyle that they have come accustomed to. So how are they going to pay for it? They need an income in retirement but don't have a pension and don't want to work. How to get an income in these circumstances?

    “Your pension is your children's penury"*

    ”There was a guy on Radio 4 the other morning that has been unsuccessfully looking for work for 3 years, and how he finds it difficult to get out of bed.”

    And now for something completely irrelevant?

    There was a guy who had no proper qualifications, who couldn't even get out of bed and who likes to moan? And? You're not trying to suggest that everything is fine and anyone who moans is a layabout are you?

    ...

    Look, I have tried to point out where there are some really quite serious problems, namely that we have an unfunded older generation who have left us with a broken economy and massive state debts. A generation who occupy housing which they don't need during a time of housing crisis (and who are effectively subsidised by the state for doing so). A generation who, having failed to make provisions for their own retirement (unlike those that followed them) now expect the younger to not only support them (which admittedly is their duty) but also to support them at a level which the younger may never be able to reach themselves (which is thanks in no small part to the actions of the older generation).

    To suggest that it's the fault of the younger, and in particular the well-trained, high skilled younger generation like me is an incredulous assertion at best.

    * http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/newsblog/2011/04/blog-great-first-you-amass-the-housing-now-you-want-me-to-pay-for-your-dotage-33249.php

    Report on 21 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    So, you can't afford to buy but some people can.

    I can afford to buy - so why can't you?

    I am now thoroughly bored by you continually blaming everyone and everything for your inability to buy a house. I also work, and own 2 houses. Yes, 2 houses. I can only live in one of them at a time. My God, I should be ashamed of myself......

    So introduce LVT, but reduce other forms of tax to re-balance. mmmmn. Sounds like more bureaucracy to me, and employment for even more public sector workers to manage it.... and would be fairly pointless in achieving the dubious claims you have.

    I also pay into a private and personal pension scheme, so does my employer and I get tax relief at the higher rate as well. When will this gravy train of excess living end?

    Or is that because I got off my arse and made it happen.....?

    As the dragon's say-

    I'm Out !

    Report on 21 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • LandOfConfusion
    Love rating 64
    LandOfConfusion said

    Dear oh dear.

    I've tried to debate some serious points with you but you keep coming back to the old ad homeniem argument. I spent 5 years in higher education, got a good job near where I live here in the South East and actually do economically productive work. I'm not now about to live in a hovel.

    As for house prices, around here a 1-bed flat goes for about the same as for a 3-bed detached house up north and the national average wage (£25k) to house price ratio is something like 9:1.

    Oh, and we have lots of BTL activity, mostly retired City of London gamblers.

    I mean traders.

    "So introduce LVT, but reduce other forms of tax to re-balance. mmmmn. Sounds like more bureaucracy to me, and employment for even more public sector workers to manage it.... and would be fairly pointless in achieving the dubious claims you have."

    Since you haven't even bothered (or just aren't able, as I suspect from your comments) to understand LVT I'm not even going to try to explain why you are so unbelievably wrong on this point.

    Bye.

    Report on 22 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • wolfboy
    Love rating 1
    wolfboy said

    Iamcoldsteve, how about this? You talk about the need to look after the elderly as something a right and proper society would do, and I don't disagree with you. You also say that retired people have a right to live in as large a house as they want, which they do, but why is that not seen as against the same principles you argue for in the first place? I can understand wanting an extra room, but there really is no need for 2 or more extra rooms that aren't even used; in a right and proper society these people would see that and move into smaller houses or bedsits without anybody needing to force them to. Refusing to do does seem very selfish.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • mrrsa01
    Love rating 1
    mrrsa01 said

    I own my 5 bedroomed semi outright,if I have to downsize are the goverment going to pay my rent? I struggled for many years and then helped my children through university.My wife and I now have spare rooms for family to stay when they visit.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Sooty's Mum
    Love rating 19
    Sooty's Mum said

    I left home and moved in with my boyfriend, now husband. We struggled for years to buy our own place. We pay the mortgage and maintenance with taxed income, save it and pay tax on it and look forward to an insufficient pension that we may have to pay tax on if we have savings. Nobody gave us anything to buy or maintain our house, especially the government.

    Then there are those who live on benefits all of their working life, live in rented accommodation paid for by the council and then get a pension and care paid for by our taxes. While no-one ever said life is fair then it should be more equitable. Unfortunately, we had to pay for Brown's incompetence while Blair payed G-d and now we have to continue to!

    What I would like to see are the empty houses, where they have been empty for say 5 years and may be empty for longer, then they could be used as a rental property until the owner is able to reclaim it. I do not think that people should be forced out of their privately owned HOMES because someone wants it. Unfair it may be to the young people, and life isn't fair, but hubby & I didn't get any help and had to wait for a family. If they don't want to wait then they need to accept the consequences, that's called being grown up or life.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Sooty's Mum
    Love rating 19
    Sooty's Mum said

    Oh yes, if we had had a decent immigration policy we would not have such a large number of elderly unprovided for people.

    There are also several flaws in the scheme not answered in the article, how do you get the large property back once the local authority has their mitts on it? Also, if the elderly people move into a smaller property, where will the young couple live, in this dirty great property that the elderly were forced out of? And what about their belongings?

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Ben Hall
    Love rating 51
    Ben Hall said

    Well, my wife and I have retired although we still have to generate an income to survive. We've got through four recessions, reared and educated more than four children, seen our pension scheme die, and our insurance endowments go belly-up. Through constant retraining and self re-invention, I've managed to keep in work for over fifty years. I can remember a time when I held down a full-time job, and ran three part-time jobs.....if you don't work, your kids don't eat.

    We have a very pleasant four bedroomed home. It wasn't in good shape when we bought it. We've spent a lot of time and effort turning it into a place of which we can be proud. Most of our children work overseas where they can secure good salaries, Most of them have their own houses in UK, which they let out while they're away. They'll come back to England, one day, perhaps, although we encourage them to make their lives in Canada, Australia, and the USA.

    When they come back to England for leaves, with their families they stay with us. We're glad to be able to help them out. So, we're very happy to stay in our home and be able to offer a haven to our children and grandchildren as they go about their business. A retirement flat with one bedroom is not an attractive prospect. We like our home, it's useful to our family, and I don't see why we should give it up. We've worked damned hard for it, and we are now really enjoying it in our twilight years.......

    Life has taught me one thing. You're entitled to absolutely nothing. If you want something then get off your backside, work hard, and don't waste time feeling sorry for yourself. My kids have taken on that message, and they're OK. I guess their kids will be OK, too.

    .

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • taurus11
    Love rating 4
    taurus11 said

    How many billions sent abroad each year to help others who's goverments then put most of it in their own back pockets. Its time this country found its back bone and looked after its own people first. If they removed all the illegals from this country there would be enough houses and jobs for everyone. These career politicians have no idea how hard the people of this country work. No one would be allowed to stand for any political office till they had proved them self in the real world if I had my way. They would start on the shop floor and work thier way up in the world and show they had life experence. (25 years minimum) Some of us old folk have not had the chance to save as we have been looking after relatives for years saving the goverment a fortune. My husband died 20 years ago never having had a penny off the state all his working life (died at 51).

    It would be a good idea to get the home first and have the children when you can afford it. Everyone going on about pensions, what about all the hand outs for them that have children then expect the rest of us to subsidise them. Like a few on here I have worked and looked after others all my life. I hope to leave my home in a wooden box. Not to be forced out of my home that we have scrimped and worked hard for.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • bengilda
    Love rating 77
    bengilda said

    None of the governmental spouting attac the problem - who pays for those that have made no provision? Who pays for those that have made provision but out last it? The only solution is a mandatory savings (remember the war bonds?) from all earnings AND social welfare benefits until reaching state retirement age to be held RINGFENCED within the Treasury coffers. To this must be regulation of care services with a set cost, thus the very small and inefficient homes will close and larger, more financially efficient homes will be encouraged to develop.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Alicia
    Love rating 1
    Alicia said

    I suppose in theory this could be a good idea, but why should people feel pressurised into giving up the homes they have worked hard to get.

    Maybe to start off with empty offices and shops could be converted to dwellings...and then how many dwellings could be housed in the houses of parliament...and maybe the Prime minister etc could work from offices like everyone else and that would free up Downing street for a family or two...and what about Chequers?......could that be available for someone to live in rather than just take a break in........ and where does it end...maybe Buckingham Palace could be divided up into apartments....I wonder what the person who came up with this idea lives in...probably a place that is much larger than they actually need. I am single and live alone and apparantly I should have a 1 bedroomed flat, which would mean me moving from the area I have lived in all my life, and also not having a garden which I love, I think not..I like having room for my children and grandchildren to stay when they want to come and visit.

    This country is quickly going downhill to accomodate all the people coming to live here from other countries...we are no longer a 'free' country to be proud of.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Iamcoldsteve
    Love rating 311
    Iamcoldsteve said

    @ Wolfboy.

    I made the distinction between people who owned their house and those who are in inappropriate social housing, due to their circumstances changing.

    It is absolutely NOT right to forcibly evict people from the house that they own, even it is too big for their needs, to enable some other people to live there. However, wrt social housing, it IS acceptable for them to move to a more suitable house for their needs and the large house be used for a family etc.

    The difference is WHO owns the house.

    Report on 27 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • lumpycamel
    Love rating 2
    lumpycamel said

    Throwing in my tuppence, I blame previous governments not controlling house prices in this country. I think the prices asked for houses including how much mine is worth is absolutely ridiculous. Banks were more than happy to lend stupid amounts and people were happy to take what they can instead of what they can afford. Coupled with the governments short term attitude of making people think they've made a fortune from their house. All you BTL haters, ask yourselves this question. Why is there so much BTL? After all its not the only form of investment. Its because, for the last few years its the only form of investment that's attractive enough. Savings account are a joke and don't cover (real) inflation, ISAs are restrictive and barely attractive and shares prices are all over the place. Last year, my neighbours FA told him to invest his savings in solar panels on his house as it was the best investment he could find. Solar panels? What on earth is going on? Even that's been clamped down now.

    If the previous governments stepped in instead of promoting the 'live now, pay later' lifestyle that has seduced so many, then it may not have solved the problem completely as ultimately governments don't control markets, but it sure wouldn't be as bad as this.

    This has all happened before and I'm sure it will happen again because that how the City makes money. It'll just be wrapped in a different box but the end result will be the same.

    And I've got 25 more working years to get through. **deep sigh**

    Report on 28 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Ben Hall
    Love rating 51
    Ben Hall said

    Landofconfusion seems to have an overwhelming sense of entitlement. Does he believe that you get something for nothing? On my planet you get what you work for, if you're lucky.

    Report on 28 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Desperate
    Love rating 1
    Desperate said

    Politicians must be laughing their socks off to see how easily this old versus young argument reignites. Individuals function within the prevailing system. It is governments who create those systems. ''if we squabble amongst ourselves, they reason that we won't notice how badly they do the job.

    We won't ask why company pensions were wiped out for a quick win when longer term thinkers who have realised the extra burens this would place on the state and on employment as people have to work longer..

    We won't ask why, with the eighties housing bubble fresh in their minds, they applied no controls to the reckless bank landing.

    We won't ask why they allowed hundreds to pour into the country on the pretext that we have o

    Report on 28 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Desperate
    Love rating 1
    Desperate said

    Sorry, previous part of the comment was posted before it was complete (or checked!)

    We won't ask why they allowed hundreds to pour into the country on the pretext that we have no skills. Nor will we ask why they channelled thousands into university when no more skilled jobs were being created and those jobs we have were being outsourced.

    We won't ask why we still pay people to have loads of children. Nor will we ask what these new baby boomers will do for work in twenty years time when their taxes will be needed to fund all kinds of social welfare.

    etc etc etc

    Report on 28 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Kaz64
    Love rating 22
    Kaz64 said

    LandofConfusion, you wrote the following....

    "But we can neglect the younger generation who pays for it? The older generation has taken so much and continues to do so. If they are poor in retirement then that's their problem not mine. Now I'm not saying that they should starve or die from exposure to cold but what I am saying is that I shouldn't be forced to maintain their high standard of living, at the expense of my own, when they didn't even bother to provision for it themselves."

    And make further similar remarks in following posts. I am a little confused myself....

    How have the older generation not made provision for themselves? We all get taxed, and pay NI when we have a job, and some of that goes towards a state pension. If we can afford to, we take out private pensions to top that up. On top of that, we try to buy a home, which is "providing" for oneself, and trying to do the right thing by paying for and eventually owning it. Life is a long hard slog, and towards the end of it, we are lucky enough to pay that last mortgage payment, so can relax and enjoy retirement, knowing that we have paid our dues. The actual time we spend in that house may not be long. We know that, and have in fact come to realise that our hard work will actually be passed down to the next generation, when we die, to help our children pay off their mortgages a little quicker.

    I call that a darn good piece of planning for the future generation.

    Report on 29 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Megatyte
    Love rating 21
    Megatyte said

    @LandOfConfusion

    When the "older generation" paid their taxes and NI contributions they were under the impression that this would pay for their retirement years. This was implicitly stated by the powers that be. Misappropriation by successive Governments is to blame for the state of the pension pot. The goal posts are mobile. The Governments reneged on the deal.

    You can't blame the elderly house owners for your own circumstances, or expect them to forfeit what they have worked for. They have not done anything wrong.

    Also, the housing crisis is a fallacy. I could take you for a drive within a 15 mile radius of where I live and find 500+ unoccupied homes, mostly new build but some social housing that have been boarded up for months.

    A H

    Report on 29 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Yorkstyke
    Love rating 89
    Yorkstyke said

    And younger people should do without I pads and all the "must have" electronic gadgets that are the "necessities of modern life" and then they will be able to buy the things they whinge about not being able to afford.

    Report on 29 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • Escapeman
    Love rating 13
    Escapeman said

    This makes me hopping mad.

    You take care of yourselves and save and save then the Powers that Be want to nick it off you.

    If you fritter it away during your lifetime then the State comes and helps you out.

    My grandfather got it right over 50 years ago: Those that cannot work, should be helped. Those that will not work, shouldn't.

    As I said in an earlier post, I'm off to the gambling hall as it does not pay to be frugal!

    Report on 31 January 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • worlduser
    Love rating 4
    worlduser said

    Escapeman, I couldn't agree with you more.

    I would usually have a lot to say on this topic, but I will digress and probably blow off huge amounts of steam. But here is a taster - Politicians and their expenses; second homes with duck houses! etc. etc. etc..... you get the gist!

    Report on 06 May 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rufus141
    Love rating 2
    rufus141 said

    We are living hand to mouth anyway. Don't they get it? Some people can't afford to live let alone save............

    Report on 12 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2