I don't consider Trump a dumb man but his 50 year mortgage idea is pure stupidity

[QUOTE=diamenz;15042211]you buy a home that's fifty years old and by the time it's paid off it's a hundred. unfortunate no doubt.[/QUOTE]

Does have some applications though, like if you've just accepted that you won't be able to get into the market on a 30 year, then you can take this and still get benefits when prices rise that you wouldn't renting. You can also better yourself while having the relative lower monthly expense so you can make more later and pay off the mortgage much quicker. Also, even though it does suck how much more expensive it'll get over 50 years compared to 30, but you can set up the next generation of your family into a much better situation inheriting a house that's mostly paid off.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15042150]The entire problem with the housing market is just a capitalism thing. It is a very simple issue of supply and demand. Low supply/high demand = high prices.

A REAL solution? The Gov should flat out give people financial help when buying a home based on their own personal income. A family of 4 making $80k a year total? That family needs real help, not work around help and tax deducations. They need actual money.[/QUOTE]

A problem across most of the western world is that housing is now seen as an investment that you expect to rise while you have ownership. All politicians of the countries own and many have entities supporting them who also benefits from housing rising, so any plans to build higher, taking airnbnbs off the market, force empty offices into apartments, it's all not in their own interest to get it done.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15042481]Does have some applications though, like if you've just accepted that you won't be able to get into the market on a 30 year, then you can take this and still get benefits when prices rise that you wouldn't renting. You can also better yourself while having the relative lower monthly expense so you can make more later and pay off the mortgage much quicker. Also, even though it does suck how much more expensive it'll get over 50 years compared to 30, but you can set up the next generation of your family into a much better situation inheriting a house that's mostly paid off.



A problem across most of the western world is that[B] housing is now seen as an investment[/B] that you expect to rise while you have ownership. All politicians of the countries own and many have entities supporting them who also benefits from housing rising, so any plans to build higher, taking airnbnbs off the market, force empty offices into apartments, it's all not in their own interest to get it done.[/QUOTE]

NOW see an investment? Real estate?

Real estate has always been seen as an investment.

[QUOTE=bladefd;15042028]Moron has no idea what he is saying... "50 YAY!! BIGGER NUMBER THAN FDR!!!"

Savvy businessman, my ass. He doesn't understand finance 101.

If someone took a 50yr loan at 30, they would likely be dead before they finished paying off the loan lol. What happens then? The bank takes over the house? Do NOT take out a 50yr loan. Ever. You're better off renting if you don't have enough income for a 30yr loan. Even 30yr loans aren't great tbh.[/QUOTE]


Savvy business men know if you can lock in a rate of 2.3% for a home, which millions did in 2018, you would wish the loan is 1000 years long clown

[QUOTE=TeflonDonTrump;15042567]Savvy business men know if you can lock in a rate of 2.3% for a home, which millions did in 2018, you would wish the loan is 1000 years long clown[/QUOTE]

Blade is a fukking retard.

[I]"If someone took a 50yr loan at 30, they would likely be dead before they finished paying off the loan lol. What happens then? The bank takes over the house?"[/i]

No you moron, the owner's estate does. By the time that person dies, hopefully in their old age, that same property will be worth exponentially more. Whoever inherits the property can either:

- Live there and keep making payments
- Live there and refinance
- Rent the house to tenants and turn it into a monthly income
- Sell the property, pay back the bank in full, and walk away with hundreds of thousands in profit.

The bank doesn't take over the property unless there's a failure to pay.

Imagine making fun of other people for being financially illiterate, and then in the next breath try to make the case that renting is better than owning a home and taking on a 30 year mortgage. Which is basically the standard length mortgage for most home buyers.

[QUOTE=TeflonDonTrump;15042567]Savvy business men know if you can lock in a rate of 2.3% for a home, which millions did in 2018, you would wish the loan is 1000 years long clown[/QUOTE]

This is false. Do you know what amortization is?

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15042606]This is false. Do you know what amortization is?[/QUOTE]

You're an idiot.

If a bank is lending you money at 2% then you absolutely, positively want to borrow as much money as you possibly can during that time. You should be taking on MULTIPLE mortgages if you can and buying as many properties as humanly possible.

Short of increasing the housing supply, lowering the monthly payment is a way of getting more people into homes. The point is that because of our $38 trillion debt, the government will have no choice but to inflate the US dollar. So 30-40-50 years into the loan, your (fixed) mortgage payment will be peanuts (you are repaying the loan with CHEAPER dollars). The alternative of renting benefits the landlord - not the tenant as landlord has a FIXED mortgage and increases the rent to cover property taxes and insurance.

Of course, lowering the barrier will allow more people to qualify and drive up demand. Really the solution is to build more houses but that's on the local government regulations, environmental crazies protesting, selfish surrounding owners voting to restrict more building, etc.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15042609]You're an idiot.

If a bank is lending you money at 2% then you absolutely, positively want to borrow as much money as you possibly can during that time. You should be taking on MULTIPLE mortgages if you can and buying as many properties as humanly possible.[/QUOTE]

He was talking about the length of the loan. You wouldn't want a 1,000 year loan at any interst rate. The first like 100 years would be mostly just interest payments that the appreciation couldn't make up for. Not for decades anyway.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15042617]He was talking about the length of the loan. You wouldn't want a 1,000 year loan at any interst rate. The first like 100 years would be mostly just interest payments that the appreciation couldn't make up for. Not for decades anyway.[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn't you want a 1000 year loan at 2.3% interest when you can get returns of 5% elsewhere. Do you even know what you are talking about? I would never pay off any loan for perpetuity if its at 2.3% when s&p gives out 5

I'll gladly pay any interest at 2.3% if i can get 5% elsewhere.

[QUOTE=TeflonDonTrump;15042634]Why wouldn't you want a 1000 year loan at 2.3% interest when you can get returns of 5% elsewhere. Do you even know what you are talking about? I would never pay off any loan for perpetuity if its at 2.3% when s&p gives out 5

I'll gladly pay any interest at 2.3% if i can get 5% elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

You were talking about a 1,000-year home mortgage at 2.3% not a straight cash loan. We are talking about Americans getting into homes right? I was already being generous with the 2.3% part given that interest rates are no where near that today anyway so it's pointless.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15042617]He was talking about the length of the loan. You wouldn't want a 1,000 year loan at any interst rate. The first like 100 years would be mostly just interest payments that the appreciation couldn't make up for. Not for decades anyway.[/QUOTE]

You are right on the money. Interest must be paid first before you ever dent the principal. On a 1000-year loan, the interest would be outrageous. Even a 50yr loan, the interest would take a couple of decades to pay off before you even start paying back the principal on the loan.

The only scenario it would be worth it is if you take the loan and do extra principal payments annually to get the interest down. You would need extra capital for that.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15042636]You were talking about a 1,000-year home mortgage at 2.3% not a straight cash loan. We are talking about Americans getting into homes right? I was already being generous with the 2.3% part given that interest rates are no where near that today anyway so it's pointless.[/QUOTE]

Even if its a 1000 year mortgage i wouldn't pay it off. Any money i earn i can use it to invest in something else. Just different money goes elsewhere. You really aren't that smart huh.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15042493]NOW see an investment? Real estate?

Real estate has always been seen as an investment.[/QUOTE]

Sure, but more so today where people expect higher returns and are much more likely to own a second home they rent out as a generating asset.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15042678]Sure, but more so today where people expect higher returns and are much more likely to own a second home they rent out as a generating asset.[/QUOTE]

I don't think the average person was as savvy back then, nor do I think they were thinking along those lines. People spent money differently back then. They were more frugal. The average family didn't even look to own more than one car, let alone more than one house.

But even still, it's not real estate investors driving up the price of homes. There's no reason to go after real estate investors.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15042683]

But even still, it's not real estate investors driving up the price of homes. There's no reason to go after real estate investors.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that the government should go after investors but how can you say investors don't drive up prices? There's no way you can justify that statement when investors target low price homes and 27% of all homes under 450k sold this year (and at least 26% every year since 2021) were sold to investors. Even worse. If you live outside California, NY, Texas or Florida, most of the investor homes purchased in your state were by out of state investors.

[QUOTE=TeflonDonTrump;15042663]Even if its a 1000 year mortgage i wouldn't pay it off. Any money i earn i can use it to invest in something else. Just different money goes elsewhere. You really aren't that smart huh.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm


Gazillion year loans exist today. It's called "renting" :roll:

[QUOTE=Baller234;15042609]You're an idiot.

If a bank is lending you money at 2% then you absolutely, positively want to borrow as much money as you possibly can during that time. You should be taking on MULTIPLE mortgages if you can and buying as many properties as humanly possible.[/QUOTE]

Herein lies the problem. While this is a smart individual investment in times like these, it's horrible for the market in the long run. I don't know how you stop this other than barring individuals from purchasing a certain number of properties. Don't know what that would look like though.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15042770]Herein lies the problem. While this is a smart individual investment in times like these, it's horrible for the market in the long run. I don't know how you stop this other than barring individuals from purchasing a certain number of properties. Don't know what that would look like though.[/QUOTE]

How is more people being able to purchase homes a bad thing? When the cost of money is cheap, that's a great thing for home buyers.

Both investors and end users.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15042867]How is more people being able to purchase homes a bad thing? When the cost of money is cheap, that's a great thing for home buyers.

Both investors and end users.[/QUOTE]

I was referencing your comment about individuals buying as many homes as possible when rates are low.

It’s basic supply and demand dude. Yes it’s great for investors but it’s horrible for future buyers because it will inevitably sky-rocket the prices.

A 1300 square foot condo now costs more than a 5000 square foot home with a basement did 30 years ago. Younger generations are screwed.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15042892]I was referencing your comment about individuals buying as many homes as possible when rates are low.

It’s basic supply and demand dude. Yes it’s great for investors but it’s horrible for future buyers because it will inevitably sky-rocket the prices.[/quote]

First of all there's nothing stopping a homeowner from also becoming an investor. When money is cheap, buying a second property is still a smart move even if you already own a home. Also, homes are turned over all the time from end to user to investor and then back to end user. A lot of those investors are going to sell eventually, especially if there is strong demand and they can get out at a great price.

People need homes to rent too, not just buy. Investors in the market have their place so long as the number of investors doesn't outweigh the number of end users, and that's never going to happen.

[quote]A 1300 square foot condo now costs more than a 5000 square foot home with a basement did 30 years ago. Younger generations are screwed.[/QUOTE]

So then unless we do something about:

- Inventory
- Blocking international money

You should want interest rates to come down and the price of money to be as cheap as possible.

[QUOTE]When money is cheap, buying a second property is still a smart move even if you already own a home.[/QUOTE]

I've never argued against this. In fact, I think I've gone out of my way to acknowledge that yes, it is a smart move for an individual.

[QUOTE]Investors in the market have their place so long as the number of investors doesn't outweigh the number of end users, and that's never going to happen.[/QUOTE]

Of course that's never going to happen, but it doesn't matter. If you have 10 people and 10 homes, then a reasonable market with reign. However, if one of those 10 is wealthier and decides to buy 2 of those homes then that will put pressure on the other 9 fighting for 8 places. And prices of all of them will increase.

I don't know if there is a fix because even if you increase inventory there is only a finite amount of desirable space to live. Infinitely increasing supply is not feasible.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15042908]


[B]Of course that's never going to happen, [/B]but it doesn't matter. If you have 10 people and 10 homes, then a reasonable market with reign. However, if one of those 10 is wealthier and decides to buy 2 of those homes then that will put pressure on the other 9 fighting for 8 places. And prices of all of them will increase.

I don't know if there is a fix because even if you increase inventory there is only a finite amount of desirable space to live. Infinitely increasing supply is not feasible.[/QUOTE]

Well it hasn't been going on long enough for you to say "never". Investors holding on to single family homes to rent out en masse is a relatively new phenomenon. Up until the mid 2000s that number never reached over 10%. And those that did mainly concentrated on urban and vacation areas. Now they are buying everywhere in the US, urban, suburbs, and rural. As long as they can make a buck. Of course house flippers have been going on forever, but not 20-30% of homes held on to for rentals.

Supply affected by technology - more national/international buyers, airbnb, zillow, realtor.com - available to all.

I consider Trump dumb as sh!t.

The only thing dumber is his cult members.