Video here:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6384870387112

Not too much of a fan of this unless it has some refi incentives somehow. In general I think its a bad idea

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(11-09-2025 02:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  Not too much of a fan of this unless it has some refi incentives somehow. In general I think its a bad idea

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

I have mixed feelings. It means people pay much more over the life of the loan, and banks profit greatly from it.

BUT...it also means that some homebuyers will be able to enter the market, who cannot currently do so.

Double-edged sword, so to speak...but I don't see the harm in offering the longer mortgage. It's up to individuals to take that on, or not. Just like everything else in life.

Friggin crazy.

Let's have 20 year car loans for mini vans.

Not a fan. Because of the risk, the interest rate would likely be higher. If the interest rate was significantly lower, it'd likely make it more beneficial to young buyers.

As someone this is targeted towards, gotta say it’s a terrible idea. Unless you bought in your early to mid 20s, you’d never get to the point of actually owning your home on a 50 year mortgage. That’s not even getting into the fact that you’d be paying way more in the long run.

No, this would be stupid. The real issue is local governments and corporations inflating the numbers due to illegal immigration or speculation.

I don't understand the dissension. Offering a 50-year mortgage doesn't force you to take one. You can still take out a 30-year loan, pay cash, whatever else.

How does that hurt anything, other than the person who is free to decide for themselves, and has to pay much more for a longer period? Especially if it's the only way a person can initially take out a mortgage and become a homeowner, which helps society in general.

Now, if offering 50-year mortgages causes ALL interest rates to rise, that's different, but I don't see why that's a given. Actually, I think a longer loan period might actually result in lower interest rates.

Offering a 50 year mortgage makes banks and mortgage brokers huge $$ and encourages people to end up in a lifetime of debt and foreclosures among the elderly and retired will skyrocket.

It's retarded as ****.

Most people who would want it will just make the minimum payment until they are 80-90 years old. lol.... It's a forever credit card debt. Selling homes to people who will spend a lifetime not owning it yet will have to pay for property taxes and maintenance and utilities.

(11-09-2025 02:45 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Offering a 50 year mortgage makes banks and mortgage brokers huge $$ and encourages people to end up in a lifetime of debt and foreclosures among the elderly and retired will skyrocket.

It's retarded as ****.

Lost people will make the minimum payment. It's a forever credit card debt.

Is this not a free society? We can't save everybody from making bad financial decisions. It's not like anybody would be forced to do this.

When I was younger, I would have possibly considered a lower payment for a longer period, especially if I was just starting out.

You can always sell, and the next buyer can acquire his own mortgage under whatever terms he prefers. I don't see the issue here.

It's stupid as ****. I don't care who proposed it.

If you need 50 years to pay for a home, you don't need to be buying a home.

And watch what property values do...lol. Law of unintended consequences.

Let's jack up prices even higher and then make people pay on it for 5 decades.

(11-09-2025 02:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It's stupid as ****. I don't care who proposed it.

Opinions vary. To me, being "stupid as ****" isn't a strong enough argument.

I think it would open up the home market to more buyers, which is a good thing economically for everybody.

(11-09-2025 02:52 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If you need 50 years to pay for a home, you don't need to be buying a home.

And watch what property values do...lol. Law of unintended consequences.

Let's jack up prices even higher and then make people pay on it for 5 decades.

If you jack up prices, then you are killing the incentive to do it in the first place. Then we're back to square one. That makes zero sense.

Also, how do you jack up prices and kill property values simultaneously?

Opinions shouldn't vary. Bits a retard idea designed to fleece people and make corpshites a truckload of evergreen $$z

(11-09-2025 02:55 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Opinions shouldn't vary. Bits a retard idea designed to fleece people and make corpshites a truckload of evergreen $$z

Then don't take out a 50-year mortgage!!! Do something differently.

Don't give mortgages to people who need a 50 year term. It's predatory.

Predatory lending on 30 year terms is what ****** the economy in 2007-8.

Lenders, developers and people who own lots of real estate would love this....oh yeah, our presidents family are developers.

Today most people buying a home is not marrying their terms of their mortgage. While it takes longer with 50 years to build up equity, this allows people to get a home and then 5 years down the road refinance it at better terms. If they want to do that. As long as the total cost after maintenance, taxes, insurance, is lower than rent. It's still a win for that home buyer.

While its taking longer to build up equity through payments, if home ownership hold the course of history. You will be building equity through ownership. Honestly, with the rate people are selling their home and moving.....

it's not a lot of equity being build through your payments, today, on a 30 year note.

The downside to this it will increase the prices of homes as a lot more people are able to get into the market. We have seen that when car notes went from 5 to 7 years, which is basically the same as 30 to 50 on a home note. One huge difference is that home is going to hold or increase value. While the car isn't, you are losing money after day one.

So other than the fact home prices going up. That is the only downside to this because just like with higher rates. You still buy, as long as you can afford payment. You are betting at some point in the future those rates will fall and you are in better position to take advantage of them.

One benefit this can do for renters...

you take another 15 to 20% out of that market, it has to bring prices on rent back under control. Which then lowers that cost and in 5 to 10 years you have a more stable housing market....buying and renting. At that point its break even on renting or a 50 year note.


Lets not forget 6 years ago all the rage was....

why buy when you can rent, move after a short lease no upkeep. The price of homes were stable to historical increases. So where the cost to rent. As long as we keep the border under control. This could do that also. But it could cause another short term bidding war and home prices go up.

Rates will be higher than 30 year fixed rates (just like the 30 is higher than 20, etc). Prices will spike so buyers will spend a lot more for the same product. PMI will become a bigger deal since there will be more lender exposure long term. Down payments will have higher requirements. Developers and banks will make piles of cash on the front end.

This is just normalizing a lifetime of being in debt.

Think there are better ways help with the housing issue for younger people.

First thing is getting crime down in the populated cities so the older smaller homes are able to be entry level and the buyer is not going to get murdered or burglarized in week one.

Mixed feelings on limiting corps buying single family, I think some sort of local zoning could help with that, especially in the entry level market.

Tax credit expansion for first time buyers.

But all In all most nice municipalities outside of populated areas are not allowing entry level small housing for obvious reasons.

Renting is better than this option, this feels like a pay day loan option and thats not good.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk