Older people to be offered incentives to downsize homes

Graham

From an article in the Irish Times this weekend:

Financial incentives will be offered to encourage older people to downsize from larger family houses to retirement home-type communities, under new Government plans, to be published in a report on Wednesday.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/older-people-to-be-offered-incentives-to-downsize-homes-1.3803765

I expect there will be quite some pushback from the proposals, maybe it will help that this appears to be a carrot rather than a stick.

TheBlock

Link Gone???

Graham

Also mentioned in the independent:

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/property-revolution-government-to-begin-paying-older-people-to-downsize-37847132.html

Some other interesting snippets:

50pc of all new apartments and 30pc of houses should be suitable for older people and those with mobility issues.

property tax is "very low" in Ireland when compared to other countries.

He says there should be a debate about the rights of people who are "lucky enough" to own houses in good areas which have seen their value rise due to government investment and those struggling to find accommodation or paying sky-rocketing rents.

1hnr79jr65

Also mentioned is a proposed change to CPO access to force these changes. I am not in favor of such proposals as it could push folks out of their communities. There are other options just government not willing to explore better options hoping a quick fix will solve a majority of its problems.

And are they going to force someone living in a house valued at 500k plus to sell up, how do they expect folks to be able to purchase this also as it would be out of most peoples range to be able to afford.

Graham

There's mention of CPO changes but not in the context of incentivising downsizing.

Mr Moran wants to examine the country's Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers as it is currently "too easy for people to drag out a process".

There's also no mention of forcing anything, 'incentivising' is the headline.

is_that_so

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Also mentioned is a proposed change to CPO access to force these changes. I am not in favor of such proposals as it could push folks out of their communities. There are other options just government not willing to explore better options hoping a quick fix will solve a majority of its problems.

And are they going to force someone living in a house valued at 500k plus to sell up, how do they expect folks to be able to purchase this also as it would be out of most peoples range to be able to afford.

With anything like this it very much depends how it's done. The basic concept is not terrible but in actual planning and implementation is where stuff goes pear-shaped.

AlanG

Unless they change the rules on the Fair Deal Scheme any incentive is destined to fail. Currently if an older person wants to protect their kids inheritance (which most do) then the best thing they can do is buy a bigger house for their primary residence. If you downsize all your nest egg can be taken under Fair Deal. Money (70%) wrapped up in your primary residence is protected.

Graham

Another interesting tidbit.

The report comes as the recently appointed chair of the Land Development Agency (LDA), John Moran, says the new State body should focus on developing rental-only apartments in city centres

Rubberchikken

nothing, except death, will 'incentivise' me to leave my large home, with very large garden.

GreeBo

Are the huge property prices not incentive enough?

iamwhoiam

Rubberchikken wrote: »

nothing, except death, will 'incentivise' me to leave my large home, with very large garden.

Nor me ! Its not very large but I like space now to spread out , plus rooms when my tribe come to visit , plus room for the grandkids toys . I am going nowhere !

Spanish Eyes

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.

Seems crazy to me that a single or widowed person can remain in a three/four bed property for life, when their needs would be met with a smaller property. Iveagh Trust did this in Ballyfermot, very successful and now more three bed homes are available for those on the housing list.

One thing I feel has to be addressed though. If people are to be incentivised to move out of larger properties, the alternative property would need to be within the same community I think. Hard enough for people to move away from an area when young and starting out, but if you have lived in an area for maybe fifty/sixty years, it would be very difficult to start afresh somewhere new.

Just some thoughts.

Graham

AlanG wrote: »

Unless they change the rules on the Fair Deal Scheme any incentive is destined to fail. Currently if an older person wants to protect their kids inheritance (which most do) then the best thing they can do is buy a bigger house for their primary residence. If you downsize all your nest egg can be taken under Fair Deal. Money (70%) wrapped up in your primary residence is protected.

Very true, it will be interesting to see what (if anything) will be proposed to counteract the fair deal threat.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

One thing I feel has to be addressed though. If people are to be incentivised to move out of larger properties, the alternative property would need to be within the same community I think. Hard enough for people to move away from an area when young and starting out, but if you have lived in an area for maybe fifty/sixty years, it would be very difficult to start afresh somewhere new.

There's a few nods towards that but very little in the way of detail yet..

"The objective is to ensure older people stay socially connected within their community and to provide essential care where needed."

rightmove

One thing they could do is look at all the small ll leaving the market .......oh no that would be just crazy. ...to look at the ppl actually providing the service currently

Claw Hammer

The Fair Deal scheme is ludicrous. It is keeping habitable dwellings from the occupied at the time of housing shortage. Houses under the fair Deal scheme which are vacant for 12 months should be sold.

1hnr79jr65

Graham wrote: »

There's mention of CPO changes but not in the context of incentivising downsizing.



There's also no mention of forcing anything, 'incentivising' is the headline.

Yes they want to incentivise, however if they don't get their way they don't want challenges and want to be able to force a change in their favor.

I think there is an extremely sneaky agenda here.

Spanish Eyes

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The Fair Deal scheme is ludicrous. It is keeping habitable dwellings from the occupied at the time of housing shortage. Houses under the fair Deal scheme which are vacant for 12 months should be sold.

I don't understand why this is. There are three houses on my road empty for the past two/three years now because of FD.

Family says it is just too much bother to rent them out and pay the taxes, register for Income Tax and all that jazz. Plus the income from rent reduces the FD subvention. I think I have that right.

Trampas

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The Fair Deal scheme is ludicrous. It is keeping habitable dwellings from the occupied at the time of housing shortage. Houses under the fair Deal scheme which are vacant for 12 months should be sold.

Why should they be sold. How about allowing them to be rented out and that’s the only cost to the person so really they pay nothing bar renting their property

Claw Hammer

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't understand why this is. There are three houses on my road empty for the past two/three years now because of FD.

Family says it is just too much bother to rent them out and pay the taxes, register for Income Tax and all that jazz. Plus the income from rent reduces the FD subvention. I think I have that right.

What happens is, if the house is rented out, the income is considered to be that of the owner of the house. After this income is taxed, the Nursing home can avail of it towards the cost of the care. From the point of view of the family, it is a zero sum game. They will be renting out the house, taking risk and getting no benefit for themselves or the elderly person in care. It is absolute madness. The house could be sold and the money kept in trust until the elderly person dies.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

One thing I feel has to be addressed though. If people are to be incentivised to move out of larger properties, the alternative property would need to be within the same community I think. Hard enough for people to move away from an area when young and starting out, but if you have lived in an area for maybe fifty/sixty years, it would be very difficult to start afresh somewhere new.

Just some thoughts.

Nail on head. People get used to their shops, pubs, bingo, neighbours, parks, supermarkets, bus routes etc. It would want to be a pretty big incentive to convince someone to move out of their gaff of 30+ years and start afresh.


I wouldn't hold my breath. Asking someone in their 60s or 70s to up sticks and move house for the sake of a few bob is grand, in theory, but doomed to failure, in my opinion.

Spanish Eyes

Trampas wrote: »

Why should they be sold. How about allowing them to be rented out and that’s the only cost to the person so really they pay nothing bar renting their property

I don't think there is any impediment to renting them out, apart from taxes, registration with RTB, standards and so on. Oh, and the FD will take the income into account also.

I could be wrong though. Interesting feature of the proposals just the same.

Claw Hammer

Trampas wrote: »

Why should they be sold. How about allowing them to be rented out and that’s the only cost to the person so really they pay nothing bar renting their property

There allowed to be rented out as it is. There is absolutely no incentive for the elderly person or their family to do so and quite a few downsides to renting out. If the family the house occupied then it wouldn't be sold.

AndrewJRenko

Rubberchikken wrote: »

nothing, except death, will 'incentivise' me to leave my large home, with very large garden.

That's a great argument for increasing property taxes.

AndrewJRenko

AlanG wrote: »

Unless they change the rules on the Fair Deal Scheme any incentive is destined to fail. Currently if an older person wants to protect their kids inheritance (which most do) then the best thing they can do is buy a bigger house for their primary residence. If you downsize all your nest egg can be taken under Fair Deal. Money (70%) wrapped up in your primary residence is protected.

That's a great argument for capping the value of the family home protected under Fair Deal.

Graham

Low property taxes also mentioned in one of the articles....

Carrot & stick???

tayto lover

Get your beady eyes of our homes.
We struggled to pay for them through several recessions.
The Govt should be building houses rather than trying to grab ours.
We have lives and friends where we live now.
Feck off.

Idbatterim

Just increase the next to non existent lpt...

1874

When you can get any sort of neighbour when moving, why would anyone who is settled and happy in their location want to up sticks and move? some may want to for many reasons, but its a lot of hassle and stress moving, never mind the cost.
I dont think most people want it. Sounds like just moving the deck chairs around by those that are trying to distract from the fact that the ship is sinking. Of course, point the finger at those who might not retaliate, I recal this was brought up before by some politician/civil servant and rightly it was shot down. So they may have some extra space, so space for family if they visit, no hassle dealing with people taking over unallocated parking, or are they allowed own cars?
Maybe they have it all set up as they like it, are near shops, the area is mature and as few gurriers around as they've all grown up or moved on.

Graham

1874 wrote: »

why would anyone who is settled and happy in their location want to up sticks and move?

Hence the incentives, whatever they may turn out to be.

Spanish Eyes

Bedroom tax like in the UK should be first on the list, and rightly so, provided tenants can stay in their area following downsizing by the Council.

Might make a lot more sense to incentivise large private home owners to convert their properties into two. You know, an upstairs self contained unit, and a downstairs for the owners. No one has to move, but space is maximised. I cannot see many really doing this, but might be worth exploring just the same.

seasidedub

Idbatterim wrote: »

Just increase the next to non existent lpt...

Obviously you don't own a home or you wouldn't so quick to call it "next to non-existent". Most of us have to work very hard, save and sacrifice a lot in order to pay it. Mine is 790e on a bog-standard house in an area which was nothing special and where I always lived, but suddenly became "desirable".

1874

Idbatterim wrote: »

Just increase the next to non existent lpt...

Well, if thats the case its in line with the non existent return for it

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's a great argument for increasing property taxes.

ok, Im all ears, what is it? I doubt it very much though, getting nothing in return for it. Id happily pay similar to the UK if it was ringfenced for services and made its way into libraries, sports facilities, amenities and swimming pools. Live in a built up area, the return is, the average cost of providing that service should go down and be more likely, bins paid for.
What do we get for it? nothing it seems, just get bilked and then bilked again, and no justification other than it must be so.

tayto lover

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Bedroom tax like in the UK should be first on the list, and rightly so, provided tenants can stay in their area following downsizing by the Council.

Might make a lot more sense to incentivise large private home owners to convert their properties into two. You know, an upstairs self contained unit, and a downstairs for the owners. No one has to move, but space is maximised. I cannot see many really doing this, but might be worth exploring just the same.

How will the Govt know how many bedrooms I have?

1874

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Bedroom tax like in the UK should be first on the list, and rightly so, provided tenants can stay in their area following downsizing by the Council.

Might make a lot more sense to incentivise large private home owners to convert their properties into two. You know, an upstairs self contained unit, and a downstairs for the owners. No one has to move, but space is maximised. I cannot see many really doing this, but might be worth exploring just the same.

Correct me if Im wrong, but that was solely for council housed people, certainly not something Id insisit on foisting onto elderly people, christ let them have something and enjoy their old age, next thing some extremist will insist on a bedroom tax on private homeowners if they have spare bedrooms, or how about a window tax.
Incentivise home owners to convert their properties into two units, retrofits would be massively expensive, may not be in keeping or suit an area, where everyone may not be doing it. Better to start froms cratch and just build proper energy efficient apartment blocks with mixed living, turf anyone out who dciks around or is anti social, have security etc than retrofit here and there, The govt just removed the incentive scheme for home owners to renovate, do you think theyll offer incentives for people to retrofit which is a much bigger deal? Better to go purpose built one up one down than retrofit.

Spanish Eyes

tayto lover wrote: »

How will the Govt know how many bedrooms I have?

Only applies to Council tenants, and councils SHOULD know which size houses are rented to whom.

1874

tayto lover wrote: »

How will the Govt know how many bedrooms I have?

you'll be flogged in public until you tell,

Idbatterim

seasidedub wrote: »

Obviously you don't own a home or you wouldn't so quick to call it "next to non-existent". Most of us have to work very hard, save and sacrifice a lot in order to pay it. Mine is 790e on a bog-standard house in an area which was nothing special and where I always lived, but suddenly became "desirable".

My motor tax a year is two and a half times that figure. That figure would rent you an acceptable room in Dublin per month. Shane Ross proposed a grant to split homes a few months back. One generation f*cked, yet on the other hand , the hypocrite politicians say, “we can’t have massive rises in lpt” they have no issue with masses more money being landed out by the young on rip off rents or forced to live at home. No issue with property prices rising multiple fold a month of what the yearly lpt would be, Funny that. Morally corrupt vermin... when there is a fifty percent marginal income tax rate over a relative pittance, being paid by the working poor, I think the lpt can be highlighted for the farce it is. Way too many in this country have far to easy a ride, paid for often by those that can’t even afford their own property

Spanish Eyes

1874 wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong, but that was solely for council housed people, certainly not something Id insisit on foisting onto elderly people, christ let them have something and enjoy their old age, next thing some extremist will insist on a bedroom tax on private homeowners if they have spare bedrooms, or how about a window tax.
Incentivise home owners to convert their properties into two units, retrofits would be massively expensive, may not be in keeping or suit an area, where everyone may not be doing it. Better to start froms cratch and just build proper energy efficient apartment blocks with mixed living, turf anyone out who dciks around or is anti social, have security etc than retrofit here and there, The govt just removed the incentive scheme for home owners to renovate, do you think theyll offer incentives for people to retrofit which is a much bigger deal? Better to go purpose built one up one down than retrofit.

Correct, the bedroom tax applies only to Council Tenants.

I agree with your other points. Just put the retrofit out there for people's views.

Artifacting

Incentivising people to look at downsizing is about as far as would be politically acceptable here. If you started to go down the route of trying to force older people out of larger homes, I think you'd be looking at FG's political retirement. Anything to do with property and homes here tends to be political dynamite.

I mean there are big advantages to moving closer to towns, cities and facilities when you're older as it gives you a lot more freedom and independence. However, I'd still see a few issues with some people seeing it as an asset grab.

Idbatterim

Artifacting wrote: »

Incentivising people to look at downsizing is about as far as would be politically acceptable here. If you started to go down the route of trying to force older people out of larger homes, I think you'd be looking at FG's political retirement. Anything to do with property and homes here tends to be political dynamite.

100% nail on the head. Incentives are as far as it will go. Even offering them money will probably be deemed “offensive and an attack on the elderly” ...

1874

Idbatterim wrote: »

My motor tax a year is two and a half times that figure. That figure would rent you an acceptable room in Dublin per month. Shane Ross proposed a grant to split homes a few months back. One generation f*cked, yet on the other hand , the hypocrite politicians say, “we can’t have massive rises in lpt” they have no issue with masses more money being landed out by the young on rip off rents or forced to live at home. Funny that. Morally corrupt vermin... when there is a fifty percent marginal income tax rate over a relative pittance, being paid by the working poor, I think the lpt can be highlighted for the farce it is. Way too many in this country have far to easy a ride, paid for often by those that can’t even afford their own property

your motor tax, well you have a choice there, a fixed address and little opportunity to move, then youre stuck, big difference. As for Shane Ross, that guy is a sham. So yu're unhappy with one tax, which will not go down and you propose another to make it fairer? until they are doing better with taxes, I want to see improvements in services not just throw more money onto problems.

Spanish Eyes

Artifacting wrote: »

Incentivising people to look at downsizing is about as far as would be politically acceptable here. If you started to go down the route of trying to force older people out of larger homes, I think you'd be looking at FG's political retirement. Anything to do with property and homes here tends to be political dynamite.

But why not start with Council housing?

There are many three and even four bed properties totally under occupied since kids have gone and maybe the last person there is widowed.

There are few incentives for such people to surrender their big home for a smaller more manageable property that suits their needs.

Many families would benefit from an increased supply of larger Council property surely?

Private property owners can do whatever they wish. It is their home and paid for by themselves.

Graham

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But why not start with Council housing?

Isn't that the apparent plan?

The unpublished report says older people living in social housing will be offered financial incentives before the end of the year, ahead of extending the scheme to private homeowners.

seasidedub

If you have social housing and are paying a low rent possibly out of social welfare payments- meaning it's free - then you should get housing appropriate to your needs and be made move when you no longer need a larger space. Sorry, but you have not provided your own housing so you get what is appropriate and that's it. If your kids are grown, out you go so another family can get housing appropriate to their needs.

If you've bought your home and sweated to pay off the mortgage then it's NOBODY'S business whether you stay in your large detached house or not. Nobody's. We don't live in a Stallinist state, no matter how much Coppinger, Murphy et al would like to. Yes, it might be better to move/downsize. But it's the homeowner's choice. Called democracy.

And property tax is NOT cheap here. I lived in a large, detached house 20 mins by bus from the centre of Helsinki and property tax was 500e a year. Here in a bog-standard house 45 minutes by bus to city centre it's 790e.

They want us to move to flats with up to 3k a year "maintenance fees" which cover bins and little else. I've lived in apartments in Europe with nowhere near those fees. How would I pay 200e fees a month on a pension? They just want us to die basically. Feck off.

Idbatterim

1874 wrote: »

your motor tax, well you have a choice there, a fixed address and little opportunity to move, then youre stuck, big difference. As for Shane Ross, that guy is a sham. So yu're unhappy with one tax, which will not go down and you propose another to make it fairer? until they are doing better with taxes, I want to see improvements in services not just throw more money onto problems.

Totally true about the motor tax. That is a personal choice. I’ve a big issue with the us v them divide. Which there is here with property owners v non owners. Starts at the top. It makes total sense for the owners and vested interests, to financially nail the young / poor to the wall. A roof over the head isn’t a luxury , so everything else gets culled or paired to the bone to pay for it. My primary issue is with the government for allowing it and encouraging it. You are very right about the value for money too woth taxes , appalling value!

Graham

There are no proposals to force anyone to move anywhere.

seasidedub

Idbatterim wrote: »

My motor tax a year is two and a half times that figure. That figure would rent you an acceptable room in Dublin per month. Shane Ross proposed a grant to split homes a few months back. One generation f*cked, yet on the other hand , the hypocrite politicians say, “we can’t have massive rises in lpt” they have no issue with masses more money being landed out by the young on rip off rents or forced to live at home. No issue with property prices rising multiple fold a month of what the yearly lpt would be, Funny that. Morally corrupt vermin... when there is a fifty percent marginal income tax rate over a relative pittance, being paid by the working poor, I think the lpt can be highlighted for the farce it is. Way too many in this country have far to easy a ride, paid for often by those that can’t even afford their own property

Buy a cheaper car. I drive a polo SO I CAN STAY IN MY HOME

1874

Graham wrote: »

There are no proposals to force anyone to move anywhere.

I didnt think anyone said force, but gentle brow beating, berated in the media for being so selfish, next it will be us, or probably already has. They should set up a hotline to rat out old people who are still alive.

Spanish Eyes

Graham wrote: »

Isn't that the apparent plan?

Yes, but it is not highlighted. The immediate response seems to be from private property owners. They can do what they wish really, and no one is forcing that cohort to do anything at all.

State provided accommodation is a different matter, and incentivising them should be more to the fore.

Sheep Shagger

Why should someone move out of their big house, don't bother with incentives- just build enough to meet demand, that will push prices down it there are adequate credit measures in place (banks not throwing money like its confetti).

Mucking around with subsidies, incentives etc just distorts the market. We should have learnt that from the last boom and bust.

And before anyone asks no I dont have massive gaff.