OT: 50 year mortgages?

[Zanary]

There is no reason homes that aren't owner occupied aren't taxed at a significantly higher level.  Make an exception for a 2nd home st the lake or whatever,  but I agree,  there needs to be a financial deterrent to people buying up housing.  

However,  if people aren't smart enough to protect themselves,  there is very little we can do to help them without creating other issues.  It's a free country and if somebody allows themselves to get duped then I guess its unfortunate.   I would make the exception for minors mentally disabled, and elderly.

I just dont see how in a free market free country you can place enough safeguards without either being called discriminatory or other.  Seems to me there used to be more protections in place,  but those were deemed racist or other because low income people couldn't qualify and often those low income people were of other minority statuses.

Edit:  and homes used as air bnb/ vacation rentals/ etc....definitely at much higher levels,  really shouldn't be allowed as they are then more of a commercial property and are zoning law violations in most cases.

I have to gently point out that basic life skills classes like Home Economics and lessons like balancing checkbooks/budgets aren't taught with anything like the priority that they were, previously. Furthermore, a typical American with usual TV/online/commute habits is absolutely pummeled by (literally) thousands of ads, every single day, many of which are subliminal to a huge degree. The most recent 2-3 generations won't remember a time without constant distraction at levels never conceived before.

On one hand, it's absolutely reasonable to blame all the "woke" and similar studies for the survival lessons being pushed aside...but, on the other, it's the same businesses and services that shovel kickbacks to ALL of our politicans that are keeping the digital static rolling.

[mblack]

IF the payments on a 50 year loan are significantly lower than a 30 year loan than it makes some sense to use the lower payments to build some wealth.  If the difference is negligible, than it doesn't.  

A mere google would give you the answer to this. It has been pointed out already on this thread.
The monthly payment is a bit lower but you are paying 95% on interest vs 83% on a 30 year which already sucks.
All the other stuff you say is wishful thinking based on what ifs.
You keep touting refinancing after 10 years and building equity...

After 10 years, this is the amount of equity you would have in the home for each mortgage duration:

• 30 year: $81,571
  
• 50 year: $21,636
  

This is the biggest problem people have with a 50 year mortgage. You don’t really build any equity outside of home price growth.
Source: The Economics of a 50 Year Mortgage

another...

The real drawback comes from how slowly you build home equity. Because more of each payment goes toward interest—and does so for decades—it takes much longer to make progress on the principal....
...“The drawbacks are that a 50-year mortgage results in almost double the interest payments of a 30-year mortgage and a longer path to meaningful home equity,” Realtor.com Senior Economist Joel Berner said.
Source: 

But again you would rather talk about IF, MIGHT and CERTAIN SITUATIONS and refinancing. How many times does the average American need to be screwed over or burdened with paper work and uncertainty?
This again is not a solution. It is a terrible idea regardless of where it is coming from.

Lastly, 

Sensible Mortgage Advice
For now, the most reliable rule of thumb in personal finance remains: shorter fixed terms and larger down payments build wealth faster — unless future home-price appreciation persistently and substantially exceeds the mortgage rate, an assumption no household can guarantee or hedge against. Fifty-year mortgages carry many risks — as does borrowing over any extended period.
Source: Trump’s 50-Year Mortgage: Lower Payments, Higher Lifetime Cost

[Waterboy]

A mere google would give you the answer to this. It has been pointed out already on this thread.
The monthly payment is a bit lower but you are paying 95% on interest vs 83% on a 30 year which already sucks.
All the other stuff you say is wishful thinking based on what ifs.
You keep touting refinancing after 10 years and building equity...

another...

But again you would rather talk about IF, MIGHT and CERTAIN SITUATIONS and refinancing. How many times does the average American need to be screwed over or burdened with paper work and uncertainty?
This again is not a solution. It is a terrible idea regardless of where it is coming from.

Lastly, 

Per your logic, why offer a 30 yr mortgage?

[mblack]

Per your logic, why offer a 30 yr mortgage?

Thats what you deduced from my post? Interesting!
Anyway, the 30 year mortgage already exists. It’s not great but it’s tolerable and already too much for the everyday American. It’s already hard paying that off.  

Even then, from a home equity standpoint, in a 10 year span no one in their right mind (I know opinions on this thread make me wonder) would pick a 50 term over a 30 year term. That begs the question… of what use is a 50 year term and who really stands to benefit from it?

As a reminder, the issue under discussion is that someone is adding a 50 year mortgage and lying that it fixes the housing problem. The point of government is to help people not see how much they can tolerate and how miserable and uncertain we can make their lives. Thats what this 50 year idea does.

If you read my post you’d see I have stated that the 30 year option is not great. This 50 year option makes a bad situation worse and largely benefits the rich who don’t have to do anything and does close to nothing to the common man (unless they jump through all types of hoops to have a near fighting chance of benefiting from it)

I tried providing different view points from public literature but I am not surprised you skipped all the literature and just moved the goal post. 

This is becoming a pointless conversation since facts and options by qualified professionals don’t matter so I’ll exit and leave you to it. What a world we live in!

[AGRforever]

Thats what you deduced from my post? Interesting!
Anyway, the 30 year mortgage already exists. It’s not great but it’s tolerable and already too much for the everyday American. It’s already hard paying that off.  

Even then, from a home equity standpoint, in a 10 year span no one in their right mind (I know opinions on this thread make me wonder) would pick a 50 term over a 30 year term. That begs the question… of what use is a 50 year term and who really stands to benefit from it?

As a reminder, the issue under discussion is that someone is adding a 50 year mortgage and lying that it fixes the housing problem. The point of government is to help people not see how much they can tolerate and how miserable and uncertain we can make their lives. Thats what this 50 year idea does.

If you read my post you’d see I have stated that the 30 year option is not great. This 50 year option makes a bad situation worse and largely benefits the rich who don’t have to do anything and does close to nothing to the common man (unless they jump through all types of hoops to have a near fighting chance of benefiting from it)

I tried providing different view points from public literature but I am not surprised you skipped all the literature and just moved the goal post. 

This is becoming a pointless conversation since facts and options by qualified professionals don’t matter so I’ll exit and leave you to it. What a world we live in!

We have a rental property (airbnb). I would do a 50yr on it. It would give me payment flexibility in slow months and the ability to pay more then the minimum any month there was additional income. We bought the Airbnb property to protect home costs for our children. The way the market is increasing here utilizing it as a backstop for home prices going up is a workable strategy. 

A 50 year would make sense for everyone bitching about not ever being able to own a home vs renting. Again, the payment isn’t the maximum you can pay every month. So for someone whose debt/income doesn’t hit the right ratio, they could qualify and pay off early if they don’t bring on more debt. 

I’m not saying the normal person would be disciplined to do that but at least the option would exist.

[Waterboy]

Thats what you deduced from my post? Interesting!
Anyway, the 30 year mortgage already exists. It’s not great but it’s tolerable and already too much for the everyday American. It’s already hard paying that off.  

Even then, from a home equity standpoint, in a 10 year span no one in their right mind (I know opinions on this thread make me wonder) would pick a 50 term over a 30 year term. That begs the question… of what use is a 50 year term and who really stands to benefit from it?

As a reminder, the issue under discussion is that someone is adding a 50 year mortgage and lying that it fixes the housing problem. The point of government is to help people not see how much they can tolerate and how miserable and uncertain we can make their lives. Thats what this 50 year idea does.

If you read my post you’d see I have stated that the 30 year option is not great. This 50 year option makes a bad situation worse and largely benefits the rich who don’t have to do anything and does close to nothing to the common man (unless they jump through all types of hoops to have a near fighting chance of benefiting from it)

I tried providing different view points from public literature but I am not surprised you skipped all the literature and just moved the goal post. 

This is becoming a pointless conversation since facts and options by qualified professionals don’t matter so I’ll exit and leave you to it. What a world we live in!

Maybe re-read the posts. Optimally nobody would ever take a loan.  I personally live debt free, paid my home off in 12 years and wouldn’t be a customer for any of these things. However, there is a sweet spot for  30, 40, and 50 year loans depending on circumstances.  I love all the overreaction and rich shaming going on though. It’s par for this board.

[StickierBuns]

This is becoming a pointless conversation since facts and options by qualified professionals don’t matter so I’ll exit and leave you to it. What a world we live in!

You finally got there, my friend. Its pointless. Your patience is admirable. Its hard dealing with the brainwashed. 

[JimmyinSD]

You finally got there, my friend. Its pointless. Your patience is admirable. Its hard dealing with the brainwashed. 

And this is a reminder of why we didn't allow these threads on this forum...I let it go for a few reasons,  but its simply a matter of time before they just become a rolling insult fest so im going to move it now.

[badgervike]

Cmon gang. Take the politics out of this. It's simply a math and risk issue. Nobody has any of the important details if this ever were to come to fruition nor is it the most important way to improve the housing market which is to dramatically increase inventory and to reduce interest rates. The key would be how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae deal with a 50 year mortgage in the secondary market and since there's no way of knowing..the so called "experts" are just guessing. Depending on their political bent, the monthly payment savings go down. There's a discussion on Bluesky that the monthly payments would be higher using some of that new math to shame the Trumpheads. CNBC is likely the most balanced as they balance their network politics with legitimate financial advice. They have the monthly savings as $230 per month (again without all the facts). Bessent (who is actually involved in the real discussions) pegged the number at $330. If you use the CNBC projection, you would cover the cost of a refinance in about 4 months. If the difference is only $50..the thing never sees the light of day. For those expressing angst about speculative investment in homes..the argument seems a little disingenuous. Is there any guarantees that home values continue to grow by an average of 4%? Nope. But..I'm guessing most of your have 401ks or equivalent investments in the speculative stock market. There's no guarantees there either. The tribal politics in this make me laugh. Some of you hate this because it's Trump. Some if you support it because it's Trump. I'll wait to see an actual proposal with numbers and decide if its good policy. At this point, its tough to say.

[Waterboy]

One poster had all the answers from the start and forgot about basic math, has severe political bias, and some obvious hidden rage. It’s pretty obvious that given the right circumstances certain loan lengths will have advantages over others and that includes a 50 yr loan. The fact that he made his declaration early showed you his true intent, to take a political shot on the main forum board. I called it out right away and that’s why he became so agitated. It’s how people react when they’re caught red handed.