Media Article: Cash sweeteners to get elderly couples to sell family homes

Living Off The Splash

The_Conductor wrote: »

they'd have a disproportionately higher number of occupants- than would family homes in Dublin.........

One way or the other- I don't see the proposal working- because the mentality of people is too entrenched- they do not want to move under any circumstance.

Why would people who live down the country have a higher number of occupants than those living in Dublin? I wouldn't say that's true.

Some of your other statements in your various posts are very one sided and made to support your viewpoint.

Downsizing can effect many different people in many different ways. People do and don't downsize for lots of reasons.

I live in an area where many people downsize. I have had 3 moves in my life to date. All upwards. I might easily move for a fourth time. I reckon that a person could downsize in stages rather than one dramatic move.

I might also stay in my home and investigate the possibility of having a full or part time home help in my home. I reckon that I might be able to afford it without having to sell my home. Moving to a nursing home would be the very last thing that I would do. My father lived in one for two years. He thought that it was going to be great. It wasn't.

Personally I think that there are too many people out there telling others what they should and shouldn't be doing.

Parky2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's about freeing up the stock of empty nest housing for those who can "pay their way".

Empty nest housing? I buy house not a nest. If I have a big car should I sell t to buy a small car? I buy what I can afford for whatever reasons I may have. My money, my choice.

The_Conductor

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

Why would people who live down the country have a higher number of occupants than those living in Dublin? I wouldn't say that's true.

The Spatial Analysis unit of NUI Maynooth have very good mapping showing all manner of population demographics- which they compile from census data- this implies larger average house sizes- and larger numbers of inhabitants per dwelling- outside of our major urban conurbations. Its a little out of date- however, it is a very interesting read. They'll have updates after this year's census. The current breakdowns are in every county library.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

Some of your other statements in your various posts are very one sided and made to support your viewpoint.

I try to substantiate my posts with facts insofar as is possible. I don't like to personalise my posts- as they become less objective.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

Downsizing can effect many different people in many different ways. People do and don't downsize for lots of reasons.

Most certainly it can and does affect different people in different ways- and of course people have different motivating factors.

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

I live in an area where many people downsize. I have had 3 moves in my life to date. All upwards. I might easily move for a fourth time. I reckon that a person could downsize in stages rather than one dramatic move.

The problem with a multi-stage downsizing- is you'll have to fulfill all the Revenue criteria for the property you're selling to be deemed your PPR- if you deviate- you end up with a nasty CGT bill (as I discovered the hard way).

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

I might also stay in my home and investigate the possibility of having a full or part time home help in my home. I reckon that I might be able to afford it without having to sell my home. Moving to a nursing home would be the very last thing that I would do. My father lived in one for two years. He thought that it was going to be great. It wasn't.

It may work for you- it might not work for someone else. You just need to know all the facts- and be happy that you are making your choices for the right reasons (that is the reasons which you deem most important to you).

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

Personally I think that there are too many people out there telling others what they should and shouldn't be doing.

People have opinions- and there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed- its good that we have opposing viewpoints- as it means we have an opportunity to learn from one another. You may post ideas or suggestions that I may not have considered- and I may have some information- or a viewpoint that I can explain- which may help you understand why I have a point of view that I have. We don't have to agree with one another- and indeed- once we are civil towards one another- even if we vehemently oppose the viewpoint of the other person- we are both wiser for having had dialogue with one another.

kazamo

Living Off The Splash wrote: »

I wonder what would happen to all the large houses around the country that have been built over the past 30 years when the owners become empty nesters or are told that the number of bedrooms must reflect the number of occupants or you will be taxed accordingly?

It's never going to happen.

We did have a variation of these penalties during our last housing boom.
Single people buying their own homes got penalised for buying on their own.

For example, I bought a second hand house and paid stamp duty.
However the maximum amount of mortgage interest relief was dependant on the number of people signing up for the mortgage.

So the taxes were based on the value of the house but the reliefs were based on the number of people in the house.
A couple got twice the interest relief for the same mortgage value.

It seems as if government policies have frowned upon under utilisation of housing stock for a while now.

4ensic15

newacc2015 wrote: »

A PPR is CGT free. That is obviously a massive sweetener. There is very few assets you can sell that you pay zero tax on

I cant understand why so many OAPs still live in their homes. They are often large and inefficient. They would have a higher quality of life in a smaller house or apartment with decent insulation. I know so many OAPs in massive houses that they cant afford to heat or just cant heat as the house has no insulation.

There is obviously the mental health benefits. So many OAPs are isolated living in big houses in the suburbs of our cities. They rarely have social interaction. If they were living in purpose built OAP housing with events and places like gyms/community halls. They wouldnt be as isolated.

What good is a massive house you cant heat and living isolated suffering from preventive mental health issues?

There are a few reasons.
If they have lived in the same area for many years they know their neighbours and are part of the community. They are naturally reluctant to give that up.
Selling up and moving is stressful. It is ranked next to bereavement and divorce as one of the most stressful life experiences. It is hard enough for young fit people to deal with auctioneers, surveyors and solicitors. As well as that, they may not be in contact with other people doing the same thing. It is easier to stay as they are.
Often old people don't have the ready cash for deposits and surveys before they sell. They may not like the idea of selling without a definite plan as to where they will re-locate and how the transition is to be managed and funded.
The fact that there is already a cash sweetener available which is not being availed of is revealing.
In order to cause a movement of people from larger to smaller houses actual assistance is needed. For example, could a local authority by a house in an area, split it into two units and sell each unit to a downsizer in the same area. The council then manage the new house in the same way as they manage other social housing.
That would leave people in their own area, with cash and security and free up a house for a family.

quietsailor

The_Conductor wrote: »

Vis-a-vis the 3k tax-free limit per annum- this is to strangers- and is wholly independent of the inheritance rights of children (aka the children could inherit up to 280k each- and an additional 3k per annum thereafter- without generating any tax demand). Also- I'm not aware that it says anywhere that the 'inheritance' has to be on the death of an individual- its phrased such that its a lifetime limit on a 'gift' from a parent to a child (or other individual- or indeed a 'gift' to anyone from any other person- with limits depending on the relationship of the persons to one another).

Regarding the 3K mentioned above - it can be given to anyone, even non-relations per year. So your parent can give you and your fiancee (for example) 3K EACH per year.

Graces7

Reading the thread as a whole. strong divide and many generalisations. And much individuality. I am heading for 80 at a great rate. In chosen rural isolation. Rented privately. I in fact sold my small house in a similar setting just before the crash. It was small and old and needing repairs I could not afford even if i could find willing workmen. On a UK pension costs are a great consideration. There is not way I would want to live in a town or in an " elderly" complex. We are all individuals and to say that all old folk living in remote rural houses are prone to mental health problems is a non starter. My neighbour, over 1.4 mile away, has a large sign on his gate NO ENTRY and I have a STRICTLY PRIVATE on mine. Our choice. As it is for older folk in big houses. Just because YOU could not live as we do? Being in disability decades makes me skilled at coping. just heat the rooms you live in. I know old folk here who do that as I do. I made the right choice for me; I had no attachment to the cottage I sold. Any more than I do to the rentals I have lived in. Talking of shoehorning old folk out if their homes smacks of something I would rather not think of. I did the right thing FOR ME selling up. As I am doing staying off council housing lists. More to life than a centrally heated shoebox surrounded by other old wans. By all means offer incentives but no pressure please.

The J Stands for Jay

hytrogen wrote: »

The taxes we pay now are meant to pay towards services we'll use when we get older for free. Unfortuanely the last shower in power drank that at the dail bar but we won't go there either..

You may have been out the day Enda used the National Pension Reserve Fund to pay for a reduction in VAT for restaurants. Current taxation pays for current expenditure.

quietsailor

quietsailor wrote: »

Regarding the 3K mentioned above - it can be given to anyone, even non-relations per year. So your parent can give you and your fiancee (for example) 3K EACH per year.

And just to add that's 3k each per parent so your parents can gift you and your wife/husband/partner 12k per year tax free without touching the thresholds. Very important to know these things from a tax planning point of view particularly with the tax free limits being low and the rate of tax being high.

loyatemu

The inheritance tax threshold was raised in the last budget and FG (who are almost certain to lead the next government) have said they will keep raising it.

there are 25 or so 4-bed houses on my street, and I'd say fewer than 5 of them have families with school-age kids living in them; most of the rest are occupied by retirees. Whilst many of those would have grandchildren visiting them on a regular basis and the houses aren't huge or unmanageable, I'm sure that some of residents would consider downsizing given a suitable incentive.

The problem is there isn't really anywhere suitable for them to go, apartments aren't built with older people in mind, and sheltered housing is in very short supply. 2 things the government could do to free up stock for families is encourage the building of student residences (to free up houses and apartments that are currently shared) and sheltered housing for the elderly (preferable to nursing homes which people are understandably reluctant to move into).

RainyDay

the_syco wrote: »

There is apartments nearby me that are nice and warm. However, the paths to it are all slanted, and thus most elderly would be imprisoned to their houses during the winter.

This is a significant issue. Part M building regs apply to the 'approach to buildings' but there are no regulations around paths within estates and developments. Planning permissions tend to ignore access issues completely. Definitely a regulatory gap.

hytrogen wrote: »

Loads the Tesco value bullets..
She had the pendulum and eircom didn't react appropriately but that's for another thread..
That gentleman probably should have invested in his home while the HRI grants were available last year.
And yes there is an easier balance, don't have kids you can't afford.. honestly though I do agree that there has to be a finer balance found with the current dilemmas we're facing.
I'm not condoning the property tax scheme, especially when it first came out, I nearly sold my home that day when seeing the bill I faced, but equally an empty room tax is as good as a congestion charge; coffer filler! The taxes we pay now are meant to pay towards services we'll use when we get older for free. Unfortuanely the last shower in power drank that at the dail bar but we won't go there either..

There are options beyond the pendulum monitors if required. There are movement monitors that can work out if a person has fallen at an unusual time or location.

And as for the 'don't have kids', that's a fairly pissant response to someone who happened buy a fairly ordinary apartment at the peak of the boom, and has just barely managed to keep their heads above water since.

witchgirl26

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its not specifically targetting the elderly- its more a singleton- or a couple- living in a 'family home' with multiple bedrooms. It is not an 'age' thing- its the fact that you have underutilisation of the resource.

I have a problem with the above. While I get the sentiment I think it's a bit unfair. Myself & my partner own a house that's 3 bed. We don't have kids but thought we'd be smart & instead of going through hassle in the next few years of moving again, we'd future proof. We also have parents that might need to stay with us for a little bit of time. So we'd be taxed for trying to be smart? And what happens if we couldn't have kids?

My aunt & uncle bought a family home to start a family. They did it up from bare bones only to discover after putting time & money into it that they couldn't have children. Should they get a kick in the teeth of an extra tax because of "under-utilisation" of an asset which they have paid for?

I think if someone wants to downsize in their later years, then there should be some level of assistance out there in terms of guidance as to what to look for etc for them. But if they want to stay in the house that they worked hard for all their life & paid for, then let them. Maybe it just skips a generation. I know a couple who bought a grandfather's house after he died. Why not look at it in that long term rather than the shorter term.

keane2097

Parky2 wrote: »

Empty nest housing? I buy house not a nest. If I have a big car should I sell t to buy a small car? I buy what I can afford for whatever reasons I may have. My money, my choice.

Sounds like you're alright Jack.

Some of the attitudes on display remind me of an amusing Tweet I saw a while back:

https://twitter.com/jamiesont/status/655745876338548736

Millennials are so spoilt with their smartphones & tablets. All we had at their age was the ability to buy property in Central London.

Parky2

keane2097 wrote: »

Sounds like you're alright Jack.

Some of the attitudes on display remind me of an amusing Tweet I saw a while back:



I am alright! do you know why? Because I worked long and hard to buy that house.

And you, have you downsized to allow youngsters have a home?

keane2097

Parky2 wrote: »

I am alright! do you know why? Because I worked long and hard to buy that house.

And you, have you downsized to allow youngsters have a home?

I'm one of those who came along after the ladder had been pulled up unfortunately. At least I get to subsidise people who did the pulling I suppose.

Parky2

keane2097 wrote: »

I'm one of those who came along after the ladder had been pulled up unfortunately. At least I get to subsidise people who did the pulling I suppose.

Not me, you don't. I never in my life got a hand out. That ladder was well in use when I bought my place. Have you ever worked 14 hours a day?

RainyDay

Parky2 wrote: »

Not me, you don't. I never in my life got a hand out.

So you didn't get any mortgage interest relief on your property then?

seamus

The Student wrote: »

Knowing and feeling safe in your surroundings is very important to the older generation. Alot of the older generation dont like or cant handle change.

Feeling safe and being safe are two very different things.
The house I'm living in now we bought from a woman in her sixties. She no doubt felt perfectly safe (it's a very safe area) until her old wooden front door was kicked in.

She didn't even have the money to replace the damaged door, just got it patched up and no doubt spent the next few months (until we bought it) living in terror that someone else would come through it.

Along with the theme of this thread, an older person living in the house they know doesn't necessarily mean that is the best place for them. They're coming from an emotive point of view, but the smart thing for anyone to do is to either ensure you will have the funds available to you to maintain the property you're living in, or to make plans to go elsewhere while you're still physically and financially mobile enough to do it.

I feel there's nothing quite as a sad as seeing an elderly person living in what was clearly once a beautiful and modern family home, but is now dilapidated and needing renovation because they simply don't have the means.

You have the pension pot and a trickle income to maintain your D4, 5-bed house? Great! No doubt the property gets well used and well loved by family and friends.
But many, many people don't have that luxury. And there's a deadlock here where the local economy badly needs underutilised properties to be freed up and adequately utilised, but there are people living in those properties who are not capable of moving.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the concept of retirement villages needs to be seriously explored in this country. This is not a kind of shoddy Mosney-like camp you shove all the old people into, but modern serviced developments of a few hundred units with facilities catering for older people. Make it easy and attractive for older people to free up large properties, and they will.

keane2097

Parky2 wrote: »

Not me, you don't. I never in my life got a hand out. That ladder was well in use when I bought my place. Have you ever worked 14 hours a day?

Well this is the point the tweet I posted was making.

Many people in your situation think that since they were able to get themselves sorted with the house they wanted when they were in their 20s, people in their 20s now must be bone lazy since they can't do it as well.

The fact is, for many extremely hard working people starting off today the same conditions simply don't exist.

The smug, knowing attitude from people with houses bought 20 years ago who think nobody else knows what hard work is would get a fierce shock if they ever had to play the game under current conditions.

It's pretty aggravating to listen to people with this attitude smugly ask young people if I've ever worked 14 hours a day - the nerve of them is breathtaking.

You can't take it too much to heart though because you know the reality is these people just don't realise how easy they had it and their good situation now has nothing to do with luck of the draw as to what decade you were born in - it's all down to how great they are compared to the lazy ****ers born ten or twenty years later.

Parky2

RainyDay wrote: »

So you didn't get any mortgage interest relief on your property then?

No, why do you ask?

Parky2

keane2097 wrote: »

Well this is the point the tweet I posted was making.

Many people in your situation think that since they were able to get themselves sorted with the house they wanted when they were in their 20s, people in their 20s now must be bone lazy since they can't do it as well.

The fact is, for many extremely hard working people starting off today the same conditions simply don't exist.

The smug, knowing attitude from people with houses bought in the 90s who think nobody else knows what hard work is would get a fierce shock if they ever had to play the game under current conditions.

It's pretty aggravating to listen to people with this attitude smugly ask young people if I've ever worked 14 hours a day - the nerve of them is breathtaking.

You can't take it too much to heart though because you know the reality is these people just don't realise how easy they had it and their good situation now has nothing to do with luck of the draw as to what decade you were born in - it's all down to how great they are compared to the lazy ****ers born ten or twenty years later.

Smug? I worked up to 14 hours per day, 5 days a week; overtime, part time work, full time work and I am far from smug. I won't go into how much tax I paid...

So if they bought the house in the 80s would that change the game under current conditions?

keane2097

Parky2 wrote: »

Smug? I worked up to 14 hours per day, 5 days a week; overtime, part time work, full time work and I am far from smug. I won't go into how much tax I paid...

So if they bought the house in the 80s would that change the game under current conditions?

Of course not. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a moderate work ethic could buy a house in the 80s.

Prices are now double (and were even higher) what they were from '75-'95 when we adjust for inflation.



People buying houses in the '80s have no idea how easy they had it, but love telling people trying to buy today how 'hard' they worked.

Spoiler alert, go to any professional office in Dublin any day of the week and you will find literally hundreds of 20somethings working 60+ hours a week who would have been able to buy a mansion in the 80s if they happened to be doing the same thing in that era.

quadrifoglio verde

Parky2 wrote: »

Smug? I worked up to 14 hours per day, 5 days a week; overtime, part time work, full time work and I am far from smug. I won't go into how much tax I paid...

So if they bought the house in the 80s would that change the game under current conditions?

Don't forget the interest rates of the early 90s!

Parky2

keane2097 wrote: »

Of course not. Every Tom, Dick and Harry with a moderate work ethic could buy a house in the 80s.

Prices are now double (and were even higher) what they were from '75-'95 when we adjust for inflation.



People buying houses in the '80s have no idea how easy they had it, but love telling people trying to buy today how 'hard' they worked.

Spoiler alert, go to any professional office in Dublin any day of the week and you will find literally hundreds of 20somethings working 60+ hours a week who would have been able to buy a mansion in the 80s if they happened to be doing the same thing in that era.

What is that graph about? Is there data attached and how is the data compiled?

endagibson

Parky2 wrote: »

Not me, you don't. I never in my life got a hand out. That ladder was well in use when I bought my place. Have you ever worked 14 hours a day?

Never used a public road or footpath either. Brought a shovel and dug his way everywhere.

Would post a link to the 4 Yorkshiremen, but I can't.

RainyDay

Parky2 wrote: »

No, why do you ask?

So you bought for cash then? No mortgage?

Just checking to see if you (as many do) missed the 'hand out' or large subsidy that the state has given to subsidise private housing over the years.

Parky2

RainyDay wrote: »

So you bought for cash then? No mortgage?

Just checking to see if you (as many do) missed the 'hand out' or large subsidy that the state has given to subsidise private housing over the years.

Over which years precisely?

RainyDay

Parky2 wrote: »

Over which years precisely?

Key dates are here;

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/hundreds-of-thousands-to-lose-mortgage-interest-relief-1.2304706

So did you have a mortgage over the years when mortgage interest relief applied?

Parky2

RainyDay wrote: »

Key dates are here;


So did you have a mortgage over the years when mortgage interest relief applied?

Can you tell me, in your own words, what years precisely? Any years since AD 1 to the present will do!

I'm not interested in the article as it is not clear.

The_Conductor

Quit sniping at one another. If you can't remain civil towards other posters- please don't post.