To downsize, or not to downsize?
Are those of us aged over 50 really hogging all the detached houses in suburbs close to the amenities of the CBD, at the direct expense of younger families who can’t find homes to buy?
There’s been a fierce blame game all week after the Australian Population Research Institute claimed "empty nesters" are forcing kids to grow up without backyards by refusing to downsize and move out.
As an issue it has everything; intergenerational warfare (with baby boomers somehow at fault), the inflated and unaffordable property market, and a big slab of presumed guilt for not moving on.
Sure, the census shows up to 60% of those desirable freestanding homes in Sydney’s and Melbourne’s inner and middle suburbs are occupied by those aged over 50. And why not?
They have grown older there and are part of the community. It’s close to health facilities and as Australian Seniors’ Michael O’Neill rightly pointed out, these were often much more humble areas in the past.
In addition the recent changes to pension eligibility outlined in the last Budget mean that if you downsize and liberate the capital from the family home, you stand to lose some or all of the pension.
Should over-50s downsize from the family home so younger families can have more space, as media reports suggested this week?
The data suggests almost all of those lucky enough to be living in such places will stay there until they are at least 75 - and even then, they will usually choose to buy another freestanding home.
The boffins behind the report say there’s a shortfall of tens of thousands of detached houses and it will get worse over time.
So what’s to be done, and who ends up paying given that the planners or the market seem to have got it so wrong?
Inevitably there have been controversial suggestions that the family home should be included in the pension’s assets test to encourage downsizing.
Another bright idea, which arguably would hit also hit older Australians harder, would be to replace the stamp duty on sales with an annual property tax levied for just living in your home.
None of the pundits seem to mention how many grandparents in some of these homes and gardens provide childcare for 837,000 kids a week at some cost to themselves (see our October 1 blog on this issue).
Inevitably there’s no easy answer but the first response should not be to sheet home the blame and the cost for so-called reforms to those who have done nothing else but buy and love their homes.
As you’ll see from some member comments below, you seem to feel much the same. Also do answer our snap poll on the issue - ">Should over-50s downsize from the family home so younger families can have more space, as media reports suggested this week?"
