50 year mortgage?

[Doublehalf]

Does anyone really think it's a good idea to extend mortgages to 50 years? Following the logical conclusion to its end point it seems home prices would just increase more eventually with the option to pay over the course of half a century... 

Also seems like people won't really own anything anymore unless you're part of a conglomerate buying up real estate with cash offers.

[Bigbrog]

I agree...at first glance this doesn't look like a good idea to me.  We should be trying to figure out a way to reduce the terms of mortgages versus increasing them...again in my opinion.

[headshuck]

God help us if millions of young families take out 50 year mortgages and a future administration attempts to eliminate the debt at taxpayer expense.

[TylerDurden]

I'm sure someone will try to argue it's a good idea. That person won't be me, but someone will twist themselves up to tell us why doubling the total interest you could pay and significantly extending your equity timeline is a good thing. 

If you ignore the math on interest and equity timelines, a bank writing a 50-year note for a person who is 40+ years old is assuredly going to write it a much higher rate than a 30-year mortgage. That erases the alleged (and maybe only) benefit of reducing a monthly payment. 

If you don't ignore the math on interest and equity timelines, you quickly come to the conclusion that this is a terrible idea. 

[red viking]

Another Trumptard idea that is bad for the actual consumers. 

[Caveira]

Well the government is already talking about sizing properties.   Do we even own our homes?

 

 

[ionel]

How many working folks can guarantee they have a 50 year job when filling out application ... or 30 year and 20 year pension/retirement funds.   

[Gene Mills Fan]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

How many working folks can guarantee they have a 50 year job when filling out application ... or 30 year and 20 year pension/retirement funds.   

how many can guarantee to stay alive that long?

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

Another Trumptard idea that is bad for the actual consumers. 

Seriously...are you ever able to think about a topic without obsessing over Trump??  Man...

Guess what...EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT is going to have a terrible idea, or two, or three no matter what letter they ran under...why can't those be discussed in terms of the actual policy without attacking the person whose idea it was??

[Offthemat]

I’ve known people who signed 99 year leases.

[red viking]

31 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Seriously...are you ever able to think about a topic without obsessing over Trump??  Man...

Guess what...EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT is going to have a terrible idea, or two, or three no matter what letter they ran under...why can't those be discussed in terms of the actual policy without attacking the person whose idea it was??

Would be nice if he had a good idea. "America First" was the one good idea I recall but he's done a complete 180 on that. 

[Doublehalf]

51 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Well the government is already talking about sizing properties.   Do we even own our homes?

 

 

I don't see a problem with fining land lords that aren't immediately fixing dangerous living conditions. 

[Caveira]

55 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

I don't see a problem with fining land lords that aren't immediately fixing dangerous living conditions. 

He didn’t say fine.  He said the city will eventually sieze.  
 

now I don’t disagree slum lords are trash.  But now you’re dealing with the government deciding when to sieze your home or business.   I don’t trust the government to not scope creep this idea (if it ever happens) into places it shouldn’t be.  
 

they legally spy on Americans now.  That shit isn’t right.  They legally use propaganda on Americans.   The government isn’t our friend.  

Edited November 12, 2025 by Caveira

[TylerDurden]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Well the government is already talking about sizing properties.   Do we even own our homes?

 

 

There's nothing wrong with holding landlords to account if their properties are in dangerous conditions. 

If you own a home, you pay rent to the government every year in the form of property tax and face consequences for not paying. We do receive benefits from those payments, both direct and indirect, but no, we don't truly own our homes. 

 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, TylerDurden said:

There's nothing wrong with holding landlords to account if their properties are in dangerous conditions. 

If you own a home, you pay rent to the government every year in the form of property tax and face consequences for not paying. We do receive benefits from those payments, both direct and indirect, but no, we don't truly own our homes. 

 

Well it’s gonna be required if you freeze rent.  As investment in a frozen asset that isn’t growing financially isn’t gonna happen all that often.  
 

it’s like this idea has already happened and failed in the past.  Weird. 
 

wait for more corruption somehow.    People bribing inspectors.    Special treatment for certain landlords who donate to political parties.   Etc.   

Edited November 12, 2025 by Caveira

[1032004]

Is it any surprise that the guy who probably came up with this idea has a family business building homes?

[mspart]

50 year mortgages should not be the rule, but the exception.   The costs of the loan are way more than a 30 year which is way more than a 15 year loan.   But the monthly cost has to be taken into account.   

The upshot is that hardly anyone pays off their mortgage now anyway.   The house is sold way before the mortgage is done.  

mspart

[TylerDurden]

Just now, Caveira said:

Well it’s gonna be required if you freeze rent.  As investment in a frozen asset that isn’t growing isn’t gonna happen all that often.  
 

it’s like this idea has already happened and failed in the past.  Weird. 

They aren't investing in the asset as it is. That's why they would be in dangerous conditions.

But honestly, what are you arguing against? You don't want safe living conditions standards for rent-stabilized units whose operators receive government subsidies? 

It's literally holding people accountable for taking government funds.  

[Caveira]

Just now, TylerDurden said:

They aren't investing in the asset as it is. That's why they would be in dangerous conditions.

But honestly, what are you arguing against? You don't want safe living conditions standards for rent-stabilized units whose operators receive government subsidies? 

It's literally holding people accountable for taking government funds.  

Rent control.   Always fails.   I don’t want rent control.    Let the market decide.  
 

they’re talking about seizing houses because they know once profit is capped at what I already make investments in the property will dwindle.   Add to that the gov is now likely taxing me more cause I’m rich and buying buildings….. so I’m losing more $$ there.   The gov has a habit of not stopping where it starts so I assume they will just tax me more when they run out.     Add to that inflation.     Add to that corruption.  
 

Name a massive city under rent control that has been a successful project somewhere else in the world ?   Stockholm?   Berlin?  Mumbai?

[Doublehalf]

14 minutes ago, Caveira said:

He didn’t say fine.  

Thats literally the first line in your quoted tweet post haha -oy vey...

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, Doublehalf said:

Thats literally the first line in your quoted tweet post haha -oy vey...

Fair lol.  He said fine first.  Sieze second.  What could go wrong with the government deciding what properties are siezeable or not.  
 

That won’t  go wrong lol.   

Edited November 12, 2025 by Caveira

[TylerDurden]

12 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Rent control.   Always fails.   I don’t want rent control.    Let the market decide.  
 

they’re talking about seizing houses because they know once profit is capped at what I already make investments in the property will dwindle.   Add to that the gov is now likely taxing me more cause I’m rich and buying buildings….. so I’m losing more $$ there.   The gov has a habit of not stopping where it starts so I assume they will just tax me more when they run out.     Add to that inflation.     Add to that corruption.  
 

Name a massive city under rent control that has been a successful project somewhere else in the world ?   Stockholm?   Berlin?  Mumbai?

The market deciding would have millions of people homeless. Are you ok with that? 

This also isn't a "massive city under rent control" - this is a specific segment of units who aren't living up to their end of the bargain. 

No one forces people to own or operate rent-controlled units. What has been a long-standing issue is the landlords being held to the standards they agreed to. They've known for years that they can take advantage of the government. Now that someone is proposing to check in, you're against it because you think they aren't incentivized enough on the profit side. That's a wild position. 

[1032004]

34 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Fair lol.  He said fine first.  Sieze second.  What could go wrong with the government deciding what properties are siezeable or not.  
 

That won’t  go wrong lol.   

Agree.  Kinda like deciding what boats in the middle of the ocean to blow up

[Caveira]

Just now, 1032004 said:

Agree.  Kinda like deciding what boats in the middle of the ocean to blow up

I’m not for that boss.  
 

And I would be more afraid of the gov having this sort of power.  The government abuses their power.