(11-11-2025 11:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:27 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 07:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're showing Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham tonight.

On the 50-year-mortgage, it wasn't Trump's idea, and he has no clue what he's talking about.

Trump says the idea came from someone in the Treasury Department, but he didn't name them.

Also, when Ingraham mentioned that lots of Repubs are firmly against this idea, Trump brushed it off, saying it's not a big deal, that they give out 40 year mortgages now.

When Ingraham corrected him and said, "No, it's 30-year," Trump said, "Well, it's no big deal."

THAT was his argument, lol. He had zero clue about any details before he popped off and made it a national issue of concern.

What a doofus.

We have an idiot leading the country and those that voted for him should be shunned.

Nope. That was the last guy. Your side lost. Suck it up, buttercup. We had to when your guy "won" so you can, too. Don't like it? Tough.

Oh, and before your sorry butt responds, I have this to say: "I don't really care, Margaret." Seriously, go away.

No don't think I will.

(11-11-2025 11:44 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:27 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 07:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're showing Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham tonight.

On the 50-year-mortgage, it wasn't Trump's idea, and he has no clue what he's talking about.

Trump says the idea came from someone in the Treasury Department, but he didn't name them.

Also, when Ingraham mentioned that lots of Repubs are firmly against this idea, Trump brushed it off, saying it's not a big deal, that they give out 40 year mortgages now.

When Ingraham corrected him and said, "No, it's 30-year," Trump said, "Well, it's no big deal."

THAT was his argument, lol. He had zero clue about any details before he popped off and made it a national issue of concern.

What a doofus.

We have an idiot leading the country and those that voted for him should be shunned.

Nope. That was the last guy. Your side lost. Suck it up, buttercup. We had to when your guy "won" so you can, too. Don't like it? Tough.

Oh, and before your sorry butt responds, I have this to say: "I don't really care, Margaret." Seriously, go away.

No don't think I will.

I guess the Fat Commie Bastard and Elvis needed reinforcements so they got some "brand new person" to come and "shun us" for not voting for Drunk Kamala.

Thanks, leftists. I needed that laugh.

(11-11-2025 11:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:44 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:27 AM)Roxie Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 07:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  They're showing Trump's interview with Laura Ingraham tonight.

On the 50-year-mortgage, it wasn't Trump's idea, and he has no clue what he's talking about.

Trump says the idea came from someone in the Treasury Department, but he didn't name them.

Also, when Ingraham mentioned that lots of Repubs are firmly against this idea, Trump brushed it off, saying it's not a big deal, that they give out 40 year mortgages now.

When Ingraham corrected him and said, "No, it's 30-year," Trump said, "Well, it's no big deal."

THAT was his argument, lol. He had zero clue about any details before he popped off and made it a national issue of concern.

What a doofus.

We have an idiot leading the country and those that voted for him should be shunned.

Nope. That was the last guy. Your side lost. Suck it up, buttercup. We had to when your guy "won" so you can, too. Don't like it? Tough.

Oh, and before your sorry butt responds, I have this to say: "I don't really care, Margaret." Seriously, go away.

No don't think I will.

So you have me on ignore but won't leave me alone.

So back on topic. I think Mensa said something that should be worth noting. We should be limiting institutional investors. That said, a 50-year mortgage might be an option worth considering as long as buyers can refinance and get a shorter mortgage after, say, ten years. Give people more options so they can become homeowners. (That also includes building more homes, too.)

Oh, and welcome back, Mensa. Glad you got back home safe.

How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

There is little benefit to a 50. With the .6 - .8 minimum point bump in interest rate the payment will be close to the same as a 30 with almost no principal being paid for 15 years. It's a scam. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you can't afford a 30 with the down payment, you can't afford a 50 with the same 80% LTV and almost zero equity accrued from principal payments. If the market prices correct the entire system collapses. You soften up underwriting requirements you end up with the exact same thing we faced in 2007-09.

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

That's a good question. I honestly don't know. I'm sure a legal (well, financial) advisor would be able to answer that question though.

(11-11-2025 11:39 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Dave Ramsey hospitalized after learning about 50-year mortgage:

https://babylonbee.com/news/dave-ramsey-...r-mortgage

That was great.

Where'd the new prog filth come from?

(11-11-2025 11:53 AM)Roxie Wrote:  So you have me on ignore but won't leave me alone.

Whose sock puppet are you?

(11-11-2025 12:25 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Where'd the new prog filth come from?

Well, I didn't let her in.

(11-11-2025 12:24 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

That's a good question. I honestly don't know. I'm sure a legal (well, financial) advisor would be able to answer that question though.

It's sorta impossible in our legal framework.

Perhaps tax the hell out of non owner occupied over a certain number of properties under the same organizational umbrella. That won't happen, though.

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

This wasn't a problem for Democrats when they passed the ACA.

(11-11-2025 12:26 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 11:53 AM)Roxie Wrote:  So you have me on ignore but won't leave me alone.

Whose sock puppet are you?

Prob from the org. 50 posters, 5 people

(11-11-2025 12:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:24 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

That's a good question. I honestly don't know. I'm sure a legal (well, financial) advisor would be able to answer that question though.

It's sorta impossible in our legal framework.

Perhaps tax the hell out of non owner occupied over a certain number of properties under the same organizational umbrella. That won't happen, though.

That's a good solution. But yeah, you're right in that it probably won't happen.

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

There is little benefit to a 50. With the .6 - .8 minimum point bump in interest rate the payment will be close to the same as a 30 with almost no principal being paid for 15 years. It's a scam. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you can't afford a 30 with the down payment, you can't afford a 50 with the same 80% LTV and almost zero equity accrued from principal payments. If the market prices correct the entire system collapses. You soften up underwriting requirements you end up with the exact same thing we faced in 2007-09.

Thats a tough one. The only thing I can come up with is no corporate ownership of single family dwellings---period. Restrict corporate ownership to multi-family only. Anything else I thought of would be too easy to circumvent or evade. I dont really see any reason why corporations need to be in the single family residential market space---but I dont know if that type of restriction would even be constitutionally legal.

(11-11-2025 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

There is little benefit to a 50. With the .6 - .8 minimum point bump in interest rate the payment will be close to the same as a 30 with almost no principal being paid for 15 years. It's a scam. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you can't afford a 30 with the down payment, you can't afford a 50 with the same 80% LTV and almost zero equity accrued from principal payments. If the market prices correct the entire system collapses. You soften up underwriting requirements you end up with the exact same thing we faced in 2007-09.

Thats a tough one. The only thing I can come up with is no corporate ownership of single family dwellings---period. Restrict corporate ownership to multi-family only. Anything else I thought of would be too easy to circumvent or evade. I dont really see any reason why corporations need to be in the single family residential market.

I don't either. And thanks for chiming in. You usually have very well thought out posts on topics in the Spin Room.

See, this is why we should have folks like Mensa on this board. He brought up something we missed that needs to be addressed. He may be a leftist, but I think he and most everybody else on this subforum can agree that the cost of buying a home is artificially inflated and we need to bring them back down to a more acceptable level. So again, welcome back, Mensa.

(11-11-2025 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

There is little benefit to a 50. With the .6 - .8 minimum point bump in interest rate the payment will be close to the same as a 30 with almost no principal being paid for 15 years. It's a scam. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you can't afford a 30 with the down payment, you can't afford a 50 with the same 80% LTV and almost zero equity accrued from principal payments. If the market prices correct the entire system collapses. You soften up underwriting requirements you end up with the exact same thing we faced in 2007-09.

Thats a tough one. The only thing I can come up with is no corporate ownership of single family dwellings---period. Restrict corporate ownership to multi-family only. Anything else I thought of would be too easy to circumvent or evade. I dont really see any reason why corporations need to be in the single family residential market space---but I dont know if that type of restriction would even be constitutionally legal.

I'd be in violation because my home is owned by a LLC that my wife and I are the members of. See how difficult it would be?

(11-11-2025 12:46 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-11-2025 12:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  How do you reasonably limit institutional investors? Many of them set up individual LLCs per property.

There is little benefit to a 50. With the .6 - .8 minimum point bump in interest rate the payment will be close to the same as a 30 with almost no principal being paid for 15 years. It's a scam. Creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. If you can't afford a 30 with the down payment, you can't afford a 50 with the same 80% LTV and almost zero equity accrued from principal payments. If the market prices correct the entire system collapses. You soften up underwriting requirements you end up with the exact same thing we faced in 2007-09.

Thats a tough one. The only thing I can come up with is no corporate ownership of single family dwellings---period. Restrict corporate ownership to multi-family only. Anything else I thought of would be too easy to circumvent or evade. I dont really see any reason why corporations need to be in the single family residential market space---but I dont know if that type of restriction would even be constitutionally legal.

I'd be in violation because my home is owned by a LLC that my wife and I are the members of. See how difficult it would be?

Are you and your wife the sole members of it? If so, there shouldn't be a problem.

Often people do this with another LLC or corporate entity as the member. We did that with our family's lake property.

You can't prohibit corporate ownership. Won't work legally. Have to come up with another solution.

Taxing is the only thing that would possibly work and even that would be an administrative mess to verify and enforce.

It's the solution I advocated to limit foreign entities and persons from buying agricultural land. Tax it into the stone ages to curb incentive.


Honestly, for single family residential even taxing would probably just pass the added expense on to renters prices.