Trump proposes 50-year mortgage to help affordability

[22lcidw]

Did you see Trinity county? $280,000. Hell, Lassen is even cheaper, $236,000--but only prison guards live there, LOL. But Trinity, they are certainly on my radar. But when you got four counties in the Bay Area stroking close to two million, it distorts the numbers. And I don't get it, what is the draw? My sons have friends living in this area. Yeah, they are all renting. Nice places, don't get me wrong, but making crazy money. Engineers from Google and Facebook, or whatever they are called now. Money managers for some of the biggest names in Hollywood. Couples, I can name more than a few, knocking down half a million a year in income in California, and RENTING! Blows my mind. What is there?

No, this 50 year mortgage is little more than clown theater. But I think I understand Trump a little better now, and in some ways, that is kind of a good thing. Trump is all about TODAY. And there really is a place for that. Going to business school, the right way, after about a decade "in the field". Finance class, graduate level, professor asks what the corporate goal should be. Oh, I jump on it, get recognized, "Maximize contribution". "Wrong", he goes, and I look at him like he just grew another head.

Little punk ass frat boy in the back gets recognized, "Maximize stock price". "Exactly" the professor goes. Damn, I about go in to toxic shock. I mean I am freaking the **** out. Professors comes back to me and asks if I have a problem. In my slow, pronounced, Appalachian drawl I said, "You mean to tell me how much other people think I am going to make tomorrow is more important than how much money I made today?". He was like, "exactly". My response, "well I just pissed away thirty grand", the whole class erupted in laughter.

But, there is a little background that I haven't revealed. Suffice it to say, that professor came to know me well. Like Trump, I was about today. You can't eat tomorrow. And you can live that way, for a while, but it can't go into perpetuity. Eventually, you got to pay the piper. That is where Trump finds himself now. I kind of feel bad for the old fool. He never had a chance.

The real problem is that homes became an investment instead of something to live in. The prices increase more than the wages increase for workers. So, as the years increase in the loan even if most is interest, the price of the homes increase also. Now though it takes longer loans to get people qualified. This is why politicians want lower prime rates. It still will not solve the problem of homes increasing in price in current policies unless conditions in loans are like the 2008 melt down. We may need to take our medicine. Unfortunately, the people who played by the rules at that time got screwed over. Ask barney frank and the gang. Costing trillions of dollars and downsizing their lives. Slow torture is not good enough for those politicians involved. Investing in reanimating their corpses so they can be tortured some more would be a good investment. And any scum people involved in selling and buying homes treated the same.

 

[Concerned American]

Forever debt. We are becoming India.

Sure, keep renting and see how much net worth you build ------ for the landlord.

 

[Concerned American]

Unfortunately, the people who played by the rules at that time got screwed over.

Not all. The people who entered the market in the preceding five years or so were hurt. No doubt about that. However, those who had purchased homes before that were protected in varying degrees---and those folks who purchased near the time of the bust survived and profited if they stayed the course and did not panic sell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When you rent taxes and insurance are passed on along with the increase.

Correct, same as if you own. So your implication that owning a home bypasses the "rent increases" was obviously wrong.

 

[struth]

Forever debt. We are becoming India.

Hardly forever you can sell or refinance

I’m all for more options for homeownership

Playing rent forever is no way to get ahead

 

[The Irish Ram]

Correct, same as if you own. So your implication that owning a home bypasses the "rent increases" was obviously wrong.

My daughter's mortgage payment is about 1/3 the cost that her monthly rent was.

 

[struth]

Correct, same as if you own. So your implication that owning a home bypasses the "rent increases" was obviously wrong.

Who it passed on to if you own?

 

[whitehall]

"Housingwire.com" endorsed Kamala Harris for president. So much for their opinion on 50 year mortgages.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

My daughter's mortgage payment is about 1/3 the cost that her monthly rent was.

And your daughter's payment is set and not subject to yearly rent increase

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My daughter's mortgage payment is about 1/3 the cost that her monthly rent was.

Oh, well, now that I have heard your personal anecdote, that changes everything.

Of course rent is more than a mortgage, because the renters take on none of the risk the owner retains. Like, a new roof, new appliances, plumbing problems, etc.

The problem here is that housing is too expensive, compared to wages. Renters come and go, by design. Whereas sweeping foreclosure events undermine the entire economy.

So s9meone who has been struggling to pay $2000 rent for years may very well not qualify for a $1500 mortgage payment, as writing a mortgage is more risky than writing a one year lease.

 

[Mr Natural]

I bought my first house back in 1975 for $34,000. My payment at the time was somewhere around $300 a month or $3600 a year. They didn’t have 50 year mortgages back then but assuming they did I would’ve put somewhere around $180,000 into it.

These days, that house is probably worth about $450,000 putting me $270,000 ahead.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My daughter's mortgage payment is about 1/3 the cost that her monthly rent was.

And your daughter's payment is set and not subject to yearly rent increase

Just for clarity...

It's only the mortgage P & I that is set, mortgage payments are still subject to increases for taxes and insurance (Escrow).

WW

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Correct, same as if you own. So your implication that owning a home bypasses the "rent increases" was obviously wrong.

Owning a home certainly does bypass most of the Costa of renting. Increases in taxes and insurance pale in comparison to rent increases. Not to mention the common practice of landlords to evict when they deem necessary. A relative needs an apartment, they need a write off and will use the loss from an unrented apartment, yours.

 

[Concerned American]

I bought my first house back in 1975 for $34,000. My payment at the time was somewhere around $300 a month or $3600 a year. They didn’t have 50 year mortgages back then but assuming they did I would’ve put somewhere around $180,000 into it.

These days, that house is probably worth about $450,000 putting me $270,000 ahead.

My mom bought her small house in 1970 for $9K and sold in 2005 for $250K. LOL, conversely, I bought one in 1987 for $107K and sold after the bubble burst in CA in 2014 for $275K--being in the right place at the right time.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Oh, well, now that I have heard your personal anecdote, that changes everything.

Of course rent is more than a mortgage, because the renters take on none of the risk the owner retains. Like, a new roof, new appliances, plumbing problems, etc.

The problem here is that housing is too expensive, compared to wages. Renters come and go, by design. Whereas sweeping foreclosure events undermine the entire economy.

So s9meone who has been struggling to pay $2000 rent for years may very well not qualify for a $1500 mortgage payment, as writing a mortgage is more risky than writing a one year lease.

If my daughter set aside the difference between her rent and her mortgage, she'd have more than enough to fix whatever breaks. Why not pay yourself instead of a landlord? Every mortgage payment she makes is more equity for her, instead of someone else...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Owning a home certainly does bypass most of the Costa of renting.

"Most"

An obvious lie that is not even worth addressing.

Moving on...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If my daughter set aside the difference between her rent and her mortgage, she'd have more than enough to fix whatever breaks.

Another ad hoc lie. Another personal anecdote.

Not useful.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Just for clarity...

It's only the mortgage P & I that is set, mortgage payments are still subject to increases for taxes and insurance (Escrow).

WW

Absolutely correct. I had the escrow removed from her mortgage, so the price now will never increase. It is a trade off though. She is now responsible for her taxes and insurance. That amount will fluctuate, but her mortgage payment will stay the same for the remainder of the mortgage.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Absolutely correct. I had the escrow removed from her mortgage, so the price now will never increase. It is a trade off though. She is now responsible for her taxes and insurance. That amount will fluctuate, but her mortgage payment will stay the same for the remainder of the mortgage.

Teach her, mama

 

[The Irish Ram]

Another ad hoc lie. Another personal anecdote.

Not useful.

Buy a house that doesn't need to be fixed. So far, she replaced her stove, because it wasn't new and pretty. What is it you think I lied about? She could make 2 mortgage payments a month with what she would have been paying in rent.
The other smart thing she did was to buy while Trump was in office and her interest rate is very low.