Older people to be offered incentives to downsize homes

Uriel.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

surely thats the idea though, you need an incentive to get elderly people out of larger houses into small 1 beds, this incentivises the hell out of it from all sides.

I somehow doubt the idea of any scheme would be to put immense pressure on older people to move. I can't imagine the government purposely creating a ripe environment for elder abuse.

Uriel.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Fair enough, but private property owners can decide for themselves. That will never change really, and I doubt many will move outside their own community.

I personally will be taken out of my house in a box, such is my contentment with it. But I suppose if I become ill someone else will make the decisions for me (my enduring power of attorneys). I won't care then will I?

The incentives would have to be great for the compos mentis downsizer. Forget about the family for the moment.

Or just have disincentives. Such as increasing the fair deal contribution related to your property. There's been talk for sometime about a new scheme for home care. Home care is currently provided free if you can get access to it. Means testing including taking into account the value of your property etc would make people think a bit more.

The reality is that the state needs to provide alternative good quality accommodation in existing communities with access to support (home care) when needed. Home to nursing home is just far too much of jump. There needs to be something on between and there's lots of example in Ireland already. They need to drop the language around retirement villages though. I can't imagine too many people want to be rounded up and put in a gated retirement complex. The answer is to have purpose built housing alternatives within your existing community that caters for a range of needs and is completely plugged into the community.

FishOnABike

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But I reckon the annual maintenance fee would be HUGE. Maybe if that was paid by Gov, well there's one incentive right there.

The problem with an undertaking like that is that it would only be good to the next budget.

People have traditionally relied on having reduced outgoings in their retirement through having paid off their mortgage in full to be able to manage on their retirement income.

There is far too much history of governments reducing or removing taxes only to replace them with another e.g. rates with vat + income tax, local property tax and offloading services to the private sector e.g. refuse collection, estate maintenance etc.

People would be reluctant to give up the certainty of something they own outright with costs in their control for somewhere with annual management fees in the thousands and subject to increases at multiple times the rate of inflation.

1874

Uriel. wrote: »

I somehow doubt the idea of any scheme would be to put immense pressure on older people to move. I can't imagine the government purposely creating a ripe environment for elder abuse.

Hang on, you say this,

Uriel. wrote: »

Or just have disincentives. Such as increasing the fair deal contribution related to your property.There's been talk for sometime about a new scheme for home care. Home care is currently provided free if you can get access to it. Means testing including taking into account the value of your property etc would make people think a bit more.

The reality is that the state needs to provide alternative good quality accommodation in existing communities with access to support (home care) when needed. Home to nursing home is just far too much of jump. There needs to be something on between and there's lots of example in Ireland already. They need to drop the language around retirement villages though. I can't imagine too many people want to be rounded up and put in a gated retirement complex. The answer is to have purpose built housing alternatives within your existing community that caters for a range of needs and is completely plugged into the community.

Then you say that??


I say, sort the social housing aspects first, if someone is in social housing where they have extra rooms that are surplus to their own needs or unused, either charge them accordingly to the means of the people living there (either children who cant afford to move or are saving to move, or who ever is staying there) and if no one and additional spaces unused, find suitable alternative accomodation of equal or better standard/facilities for someone who lives just with a partner or on theri own, with parking, a smalll garden and some private storage space too, thats secure and is near bus links/shops/community, find it or build it, dont lump elderly people all in together, but dont mix them in with a load of significantly younger people where there is the likelyhood of a clash of needs and circumstances, that frees up soical housing for those in need with familys, and I mean those making an effort, either with low paying jobs in essential services or those trying, not anti social scum. The problem is, many people dont say who they are living with and the system has them discouraged from revealing this, so people find ways around not reporting it, instead of disincentives there should be incentives for doing the right thing.
Then start working on an equivalent system to encourage people out of private accomodation.
I would not want to live beside a mother or mother in law, so if tenant laws werent so expansive and lobsided, I think they should encourage people with grants to invest in granny flats for themselves in suitable accomodation where they could live beside their existing property and rent it, with some modifications to ensure any anti social behaviour is monitored and dealt with promptly, including refusal to pay or gaming the system, which Id consider elder abuse.
If the home isnt suitbale for renovation/adapting regarding space or existing layout/plan/size, then someone is not going to move until suitable equivalent alternative is available, so probably on prime land, near (within walking distance) of shops, possibly churches and not out in the middle of nowhere.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I hope that, in the case of privately owned houses, that if the carrot doesn't work a stick won't be used.

I'm very much of the opinion that politicians in this country, both government and opposition, are too heavy in their interference in citizen's private affairs. If a person wants to live alone in a 10 bed mansion they should be able to do so, once it is their privately owned or privately rented house. Different situation entirely if the house is owned or the rent is paid for, in whole or in part, by the State.

1874

Westley Alive Barbershop wrote: »

I hope that, in the case of privately owned houses, that if the carrot doesn't work a stick won't be used.

I'm very much of the opinion that politicians in this country, both government and opposition, are too heavy in their interference in citizen's private affairs. If a person wants to live alone in a 10 bed mansion they should be able to do so, once it is their privately owned or privately rented house. Different situation entirely if the house is owned or the rent is paid for, in whole or in part, by the State.

Sounds like anything direct would be unconstitutional,
they'll likely create disincentives and fix none of the shortcomings that actual limit availability of property in areas they are needed.
Whats for sure is, its going to be necessary to build a large number of housing of different types, not just one size that doesnt fit anyone shoeboxes with no services and management costs for limited input/services.

The Student

Ush1 wrote: »

Would you want your mother in law living in your back garden?:pac:

Would not mind her in the back garden, not sure about the living bit!

Claw Hammer

In the good old days when there were high rates on houses, and no widows pension, widows either got in lodgers or sold up. Simple really.

1874

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In the good old days when there were high rates on houses, and no widows pension, widows either got in lodgers or sold up. Simple really.

Down to the workhouse for them I say, that'll free up a few houses

iamwhoiam

Claw Hammer wrote: »

In the good old days when there were high rates on houses, and no widows pension, widows either got in lodgers or sold up. Simple really.

The " not " so good old days

GreeBo

Before even thinking about carrots or sticks for private houses you absolutely have to sort out social housing occupancy levels.

antiskeptic

I view a lot of houses in the course of my business. What never ceases to amaze me is the appalling conditions in which many older folk spend their final years.

On the outside the houses can look reasonably okay, if in need of some maintenance. On the inside though, good God. You can see that the person has been reduced to living in the corner of a room huddled around the single heat source: bar fire, gas heater, coal fire. The wash facilties are crumbling, no showers, sometimes only a gas water heater, maybe a handhold screwed up here and there to help the person get around.

And not a screed of insulation in the place.

Little short of hovels.

-

Not everyone has kids to inherit. And very few people end up in homes (something like 5% iirc). It seems to me that the problem is

a) wanting to stay in the locality

b) not having the wherewithal to navigate what could only turn out to be a complicated process.

Uriel.

1874 wrote: »

Hang on, you say this,






Then you say that??


.

Yeah, because they are not comparable. One is setting up a situation where family members can gain by putting pressure on older parents etc. Hidde away without any processes or laws.

The second issue is access to schemes and financial supports. Fully out in the open and people can decide and more importantly plan for how they want their care designed, delivered and paid for later on in life.

antiskeptic

Uriel. wrote: »

The reality is that the state needs to provide alternative good quality accommodation in existing communities with access to support (home care) when needed. Home to nursing home is just far too much of jump. There needs to be something on between and there's lots of example in Ireland already. They need to drop the language around retirement villages though. I can't imagine too many people want to be rounded up and put in a gated retirement complex. The answer is to have purpose built housing alternatives within your existing community that caters for a range of needs and is completely plugged into the community.

This.

My dad attended a pre-retirement seminar where the guy delivering it said that around 5% of people end up in an old folks home, another 15% or so stay at home but need intense levels of care through homecare or family. The rest more or less shuffle along with varying bits and pieces falling off until the shuffle off for good.

If that's the case and given folk will resist moving out of their communities, it seems a mix of sizes in developments is the way to go. 2, 3 and 4 beds - the 2 beds suiting starters and downsizers.

Pussyhands

This scheme is never going to work. People don't want to downsize. They want to stay in their home and stay near their neighbours.

Electric Sheep

Pussyhands wrote: »

This scheme is never going to work. People don't want to downsize. They want to stay in their home and stay near their neighbours.

I disagree. I believe a lot of seniors would love to downsize if there was suitable accommodation in their community. However, downsizing is only part of the equation for seniors - they also need to find accommodation that will take into account their changing physical needs. No stairs, appropriate bathroom facilities, possible future need for a wheelchair, etc. A walk up one bedroom matchbox without room to maneuver a wheelchair really doesn't cut it.

It's not about providing their adult children with a free house, it's about providing the right kind of house or apartment for an older person. Right now, Ireland is doing a piss poor job of that. My mother was selling a large house, money was not the issue. Suitable available housing was the issue.

Graham

Electric Sheep wrote: »

it's about providing the right kind of house or apartment for an older person.

Absolutely spot on, the right properties within their existing communities.

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely spot on, the right properties within their existing communities.

If they want it though. Many don't and carry on.

For instance my neighbours over the road. Two of them 85 and 83. He is ok, cuts the grass and so on and still drives his car, the lady is not mobile. They got ramps installed and handrails, and a chair lift to upstairs. They do fine.

All paid for by themselves mind.

Seems to me that if you are a social tenant you will be housed in a senior complex eventually even in Dublin. But that option is just so expensive for those who do not qualify for that. So many stay and do their best.

Big disparity there straight off.

So incentives would need to bring parity or as near as possible, between social tenants and private owners regarding these retirement properties. Maybe that is the plan, I dunno.

Trampas

ednwireland wrote: »

you'll find most houses people live in don't meet the standards required for renting. it could cost a lot of money to get them to that standard.

Then it can’t be rented out. If it can then it’s an option

beauf

Trampas wrote: »

Then it can’t be rented out. If it can then it’s an option

Even if the house was ready for renting. It's very risky financially and legally complex and expensive. No one in their right mind would touch it with a barge pole.

mariaalice

Start with small tweaks to the present system, for example, anyone over 60 living in a home of less than 700ft would be exempt from property tax, and see if it has any effect.

It's going to be a difficult sell culturally, older people like living in the same neighborhood, they want to be near the golf club or bridge club or sailing club or pigeon club or be active in the resident association go for pints in the same pub they always did live the same life they always had. Culture is very wedded to place in Irish society.

antiskeptic

"I can't spend another winter in that place". The bottom line for an elderly but sprightly lady considering swapping her big cold period home for our smaller, totally refurbished period home near-enough-by. The fact that she'd get a €30k cash top up only sweetened things.

It won't suit everyone but there certainly is demand. Not least because of the equity release.

(Our swap didn't go through in the end, we staked out the location and figured we couldn't hack the late night after-pub disorder. She ended up selling at at a price which eliminated that €30k top up. Thats how motivated she was)

beauf

Did that conference have any figures on how many downsize?

antiskeptic

beauf wrote: »

Did that conference have any figures on how many downsize?

The one my dad went to? No. It was more about the need to plan for active retirement (don't suppose your going to be immobile in an old folks home).

I'd guess few do downsize;

- lack of suitable houses

- its a monumental leap for many

- many don't live in big enough homes to benefit significantly (allied to lack of super-suitable housed)

- the current crop of bedroom-blockers (kidding!) will have a decent proportion of 66% of last earned salary pensions. And have no financial need to downsize. Consider, the folk with larger 4 bed homes are more likely to have private pensions. And 3 beds are hardly downsizeable from.

The next, pensionless generation will be more motivated

antiskeptic

Downsizing is probably something that needs to be encouraged once the nest is empty. The people are young enough to take on the daunting task.

And you need a stock of 1000 sq ft 2 beds - big enough to accomodate family visiting

A 500-600 sq ft house/apartment is too poky at that stage of life. And by the time the poky house suits, the folk are too old to surmount the obstacles.

Emme

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I hope this doesn't sound offensive or anything, but I agree with the concept of those renting from the council whose house etc. is to large for their needs to be the first to be incentivised.

I know of a woman in that position who let the two spare rooms in her house out on AirBnB and did very well out of it. She was able to afford to go to Spain on holidays four times in one year. A working couple who scrimped and saved to buy a house in the same area were furious - they went without a lot for years including holidays so they could buy a house.

antiskeptic

Emme wrote: »

I know of a woman in that position who let the two spare rooms in her house out on AirBnB and did very well out of it. She was able to afford to go to Spain on holidays four times in one year. A working couple who scrimped and saved to buy a house in the same area were furious - they went without a lot for years including holidays so they could buy a house.

Assuming your comparing apple with apples, the furious couple could also let out rooms and go to spain 4 times a year.

And bequeath a sizeable chunk of unearned capital gain to their kids. I mean, they didn't exactly obtain all that capital appreciation by sweat of own brow.

Given the circumstances of significant house price inflation from the time they got/serviced a mortgage, you could say they've done better 'on the back of others' than the council tenant

beauf

If you are going to plan to down size. Is there any point up-sizing (if you can) when you have growing family.

The costs to change up and down are considerable. I know a good few how have decided to extend rather than move to a bigger house. For a better work/life/debt balance.

Uriel.

Policy statement has been published and is available here
https://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/housing-options-for-our-ageing-population-policy-statement/

antiskeptic

beauf wrote: »

If you are going to plan to down size. Is there any point up-sizing (if you can) when you have growing family.

The costs to change up and down are considerable. I know a good few how have decided to extend rather than move to a bigger house. For a better work/life/debt balance.

It depends on what you think/believe house price inflation will do. If healthy increase then the capital gain will far exceed the cost of moving / servicing the mortgage.

Personally , I was looking at a considerable upsize back in 2013. I figured (correctly as it happened) that prices were on the floor and that this was the time to do it. Unfortunately (for the upsize philosophy) the banks simply weren't lending the €50k I needed so nothing happened. I went instead for a deal which saw me stay same size but clear a €100k mortgage.

I'm thankful now. Its lovely to be mortgage free (a bit like the feeling of owning as opposed to renting), the house is fine once we declutter 2x a year, the energy bills/tax/insurance are low.

Long before climate/ecological/resource issues came to the current fore, I became convinced that our current capitalist/consumerist model was doomed - not so much in the future sense but as in already off the side of a cliff. Although I might be wrong about that, I convinced enough to be very thankful for not being saddled with a ton of debt and reliant on an job > income which depends on the capitalist/consumerist model's continuning unimpeded.

And thankful for the fact I live well above sea level.

I'm sure plenty of folk were supposing business as usual (whatever about storm clouds in the papers) in 1933. Same now, I'm supposing.

So for anyone considering Sandymount. Its not a mount in fact, more a hollow ☺