I’m gonna be dead in 20 years, so I’m so sorry to have to turn this down lol
I’ll counter with a 100 year 2% mortgage
I’m pretty sure interest only mortgages already exist in some places.
Isn’t that just renting?
Almost, it’s just now you also have to pay for renovations and stuff yourself.
You do get to keep any growth in the value of the property too
Or eat any loss in the value of the property
Cool. Put it on my credit card.
Is the image AI? The face of the guy to the left is kinda weirdly focused.
I think it’s a famous photo of folks at NASA celebrating but it does look different. You might be right that this one’s been touched up or even fully generated by AI as the depth of field is just all over the place in a way that cameras don’t do. Also some funky compression artifacts that don’t really look like compression artifacts (which I’ve seen AI image generators add generate fake compression artifacts to generated images before)
Is this an actual thing in the us? We don’t have 50 year mortgages in Denmark but I can get a 30 year fixed interest at 3.5%
trump just announced 50 year mortgages
this is so awesome I can’t wait to be in debt my entire life
and your kids will be in debt.
If mortgages were capped to 20 years, the prices of houses would plummet.
That’s the fun part, you probably were already going to be!
Debt slavery is the new black. Indentured servitude is back.
But are they really 17% interest rate?
No, it’s just some exaggeration to make it even more ridiculous. As if 50 years isn’t enough.
What’s really awful is when you see how little the payment lowers between a 30yr and 50yr mortgage with current rates. It’s not nearly as big a difference as you’d think.
Don’t forget about paying back triple what you borrowed!
Life hack for renters: You can just steal from the bank.
Bank workers are, at best, getting a small bonus when you sign that mortgage. Your fellow worker isn’t the enemy.
The Nürnberger defense.
Yeah every commissioned salesperson you don’t like is literally nazi ss. Go off, you galaxybrained god.
These are the financial professionals that normal people should be able to trust to make important decisions.
No, they’re not. A lot of them don’t even have a degree in anything.
Your personal financial advisor is a person you should be able to trust with your important financial decisions. They guy at the bank handing you a contract to sign is an employee with a script on rails, a manager, and a commission structure.
In a better world it wouldn’t be like that but in a better world I don’t think I’d be going to a bank in the first place.
I mean… They’re salesmen more than trustworthy professionals.
I see your point but the main issue is that nobody should ever trust the seller of anything to give them the info they need.
People should only ever trust trustworthy independent third parties… But those are hard to find.
I really don’t know what the solution is besides getting a better education, and I don’t mean a crap degree, I mean some more tangibile subjects in lower levels of school. I don’t blame them lightly, but people that accept this kind of thing aren’t the brightest.
Having worked at a bank before (in their IT dept specifically), banks are extremely risk averse (and that extends to all aspects of the bank, from financial risks to HR risks to IT risks), and all of the loan officers I worked with were far more interested in doing their job right than being sales people.
It’s in the banks best financial interest if it’s customers get wealthier because where does that wealth go? Into the bank they already bank at. Banks need to keep a certain amount of deposits in reserve, so the more cash deposited the more money the bank can invest in financial products itself to make itself more money. If all the bank does is mint loans that customers struggle to pay back their deposits will be very low and therefore they’ll make less money.
Also sketchy loans are harder to sell as securities, as security bundles have to have balanced risk profiles both for legal compliance and for investors to be interested. Investors in mortgage backed securities (MBS) aren’t investing in MBSes for insane growth, they’re investing in a relatively safe security to park some cash in as part of their diversification
I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank. Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries. We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions. Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.
At this point I’m just buying an RV.
That’s what I did.
The american dream of home ownership is rooted in settler colonialism, and used as a tool to keep workers in debt and afraid to take risks organising
Right that’s why no other country had dreams of home ownership.
American exceptionalism really did a number on you guys!
The Pueblo, Iroquois, and other non-nomadic Native American groups might disagree about the colonialism part.
Why?
A 50 year mortgage will be a lot like renting. Because the bank will own your shit until you die.
That’s what we get for saying “why can’t I get a mortgage when I pay more in rent just bc my credit is bad”, the banks figured out how to rent properties to you.
So I did the math. A 30 year fixed and a 50 year fixed have a monthly payment difference of $1.
What the absolute fuck.
Because for the first lot of years you are paying basically 0 principal
You’re right, but he did say the monthly payment was the difference, not the interest payments. That typically doesn’t change throughout the life of the loan. I wonder what the math formula looks like for a 50 year fixed?
I owned my first house for 19 years, which was purchased in the fall of 2006. We sold it for the exact same price as we paid for it, and barely came out ahead. I know it was poor timing, but the idea of leaving a home and using it as part of your retirement income is a lie. The banks are laughing all the way to the bank.
Poor timing? You bought at the absolute peak of something known as The United States Housing Bubble. Your experience is not typical. You’re one of the unlucky people who had the absolute worst timing possible.
The idea of using a home as part of your retirement should be a lie, but unfortunately for the vast majority of people it isn’t. The world would be much better off if people only got what they paid back when they sold their houses. But, the reality is that most people have been absurdly lucky and their homes have been going up faster than all but the best stocks on the stock market. You just happened to be someone who jumped on the ride at exactly the wrong time.
I don’t disagree with any of your points.
Median home prices peaked at $216,000 in August 2006. The lowest they’ve been in 2025 is $414,000. You had some absolutely atrocious luck. You buy in Detroit or something?
Not who you responded to but it depends entirely on the location. In the northeast there is decent and consistent appreciation and there has been for decades because it has always been populated. But home appreciation over 20, 30, or 50 years will struggle to beat the S&P500. Factor in property taxes and upkeep and you may just barely keep up with inflation. Just from inflation $216k in 06 would be $358k in 2025. As an asset its primary function is being a store of wealth that happens to be the roof on your head, something you can refinance to borrow money, and something to sell basically to pay for whatever you downgrade to when you enter the stage of preparing for death, whether it’s a condo or a nursing home.
All the money to be made comes from buying in bulk and renting out to people who cannot afford because everyone bought to rent out, while local government restricts supply through zoning because it would lower property values of everyone who only had their house as retirement because wages have not kept up with productivity or inflation and pensions and unions have been gutted.
With this math I just acquired a 10 year fixed for $1 more per month.
What?
Some random numbers that are of course VERY variable, but I just ran the calcs with 400k, 5% down, 6% APR for 30 and 50 years
$2648 for 30 years $2369 for 50
Now that is of course not a great deal, presumably you’d also get a little better rate for the longer loan (more points) but it’s not a dollar.
Edit: wait you’ll get a better rate for the shorter term loan, so this will probably further close the gap. Still not to $1 surely
Yeah I compared some numbers and guessed a plausible interest rate for the 50 year based on the 15 vs 30 year interest rates at a couple of real banks near me
50 years at 6% with 5% down on 200k (fairly plausible for a decent home where I live and realistic for a first time home buyer who 50 year mortgages are clearly catering to) is 1k/mo almost exactly
- 30 years at 5.85% is 1,121/mo
- 20 years at 5.75% is 1,334/mo
- 15 years at 5.50% is 1,553/mo
So the difference is pretty small on a realistic first time home buyer’s home, but having been on the edge of approval for a home loan before that $100/month can absolutely be the difference between getting the home now and having to wait another 2-4 years depending on markets. In my case they assumed my insurance would cost more and that actually made all of the difference in my home loan application because that shaved about $100 per month off
One interesting side note, one of the local credit unions I looked at offers different interest rates depending on the value of the loan! For a 30 year fixed loan they offer the following rates:
- 800k or less: 6%
- 300k or less: 5.875%
- 200k or less: 5.875% (the APR is lower for this one so presumably the origination fees are lower)
- 100k or less: 5.75%
So yeah that’s new! I’ve not seen that before!
Don’t forget that on top of all of that you have to pay property taxes.
The calc I used for that number put $3k property tax annually amortized, good call
$3k is generous. We’re paying $12k
And my property taxes are 2k per year and that’s high for this county. It’s all relative and back of the envelope math is all about getting a rough idea, not getting spot on for any specific person
Fair, but it also shouldn’t affect the relative prices from 30 and 50 year
I just question if the 50 is getting the same rate as the 30. Obviously, all else equal, math is math. Banks see that $300 savings as a potential extra $150 a month.
This raises questions about the opportunity cost of $300/mo. It’s not a huge amount of money, but for some budgets, it might make a car payment or groceries possible. Or, if saved or invested wisely, would it tip things in favor of the 50-year term?
$300/month (at the beginning of the month) invested over 30 years, compounded annually at 6% = $198,290.40
If you kept that going for a full 50 years, the last 20 years of interest really starts to ramp up and gives you a final value of $1,084,402.22
If instead, you ONLY paid the mortgage for 30 years, then invest the full mortgage payment of $2,648 into the investment account for the next 20 years (a total of 50 years out. Same end point) you would have an investment account worth $1,215,042.49
So, even in your scenario it is still a loss to take a 50 year over the 30 year, and the 300$ difference is negligible. If $300 was the difference of someone being able to afford groceries or not for the month, then they should not have qualified for a $2,648/mo mortgage.
Why would anyone take one out in that case then? You can always overpay and pay it off sooner though.
I would rather eat my own children than sell them out to the future the banks have in mind.
These people have abandoned humanity.
Modesty
These people have abandoned humanity.
I wish they would abandon Earth too.
So… how was your vasectomy?
I really don’t understand your comment. Are you implying that I will have children and sell them out despite my claim?
These people have abandoned humanity.
Well fucking said.
A 350k house assuming the national average on taxes and interest rates comes out to just shy of 1 million dollars. Over 650k in interest. The payment is $1700 which to put it in perspective my home was 260k at 2.8% interest and my payment is $1830 on a 30 year mortgage.
Usually folks signing a very high interest mortgage do so to snag property while prices are down due to the rough market then will refinance in 2-5 years when rates are lower.
As long as homes are investments, buying a home as soon as you can regardless of interest rate is the most accessible path to financial success for the average middle class American
For one thing, when you buy a home you’re basically locking in your home payment for decades. A 30 year mortgage originated in 1998 would have the exact same payment this month as it did in 1998. Unless of course you pull equity out of the home in a HELOC or refinance but that’s generally not a good idea anyways since you’re trading long term wealth for short term cash, and that’s basically always a path to economic ruin. Point is though, whatever payment you lock in with your initial mortgage it’s not going to change significantly until the mortgage is fully paid off. Even if you refinance, even considering property tax changes, your home costs are largely not going to increase. About the only wildcard is insurance which those rates are mostly determined by the risk of property loss, so as long as you don’t live somewhere that is at relatively high flood, fire or hurricane risk you’ll probably not see a dramatic increase
Is that on the 17% joke rate?
I mean honestly good luck finding a 350,000 home. Even the homes that are 40 years old in my area are selling for 4 to 500,000. The new home build s are averaging 400 to $450,000 to start. So getting a home at $260,000 that you got would be a dream.
good luck finding a 350,000 home
This is going to vary wildly by region. There’s tons of large cities where the going rate for homes is around 300k and there’s notable large cities where you’re lucky to find any property for under a million.
Depending on the market you might simply need to lower your standards if you’re filtering by homes built too recently or homes with a ton of square footage or a high number of bedrooms/bathrooms. Or you might be in a truly fucked market where your best bet is to get creative and either buy a home with friends and/or family or even buy a home with a family member or friend helping with the intial mortgage and then rent out some space or find some other hustle with the property (I’ve heard of folks buying homes & property in the country and turning it into a wedding venue for example. Or renting it out for film shoots or AirBnB or whatever else happens to work where you live. I know a guy who built an ADU just to rent out on AirBnB as a side stream of income)
Even the homes that are 40 years old in my area
That’s…extremely new even by American standards. I say this sitting in a home which was built while the ottoman empire still existed. Yeah there’s quirks and it would be nice if the home was built to more modern standards, but it’s nothing that a bit of creativity, ingenuity and maybe a contractor or two when you can afford them can’t sort out. Plus the equity I’ve gained in just a few years makes it a damn good choice that I bought when I did and didn’t wait until I could afford to buy the perfect house
So getting a home at $260,000 that you got would be a dream.
Hey, the house across the street from me is listed at that right now. It’s got a pool and some nice updates, decent amount of bedrooms and bathrooms. Cute place. I live in a pretty small town so you might not like that, especially since job availability can be a struggle here even during good job markets if you’re in a white collar role. On the other hand if you’re willing to change careers entirely it’s pretty affordable. Guy who’s selling it works for a landscaping company and mows lawns on the side for several folks in the neighborhood. Or I’m thinking I’ll go be a school bus driving as a backup if things go south with my employment status for example. See above about either lowering your standards to what you can afford or getting creative if you’re in a more fucked market.
Ultimately life in this world is all about finding the best way to enjoy the opportunities available to you. If you’ve got a career you love living somewhere you love maybe it’s worth renting for an extra decade or two until you can finally afford to buy. Or maybe you aren’t fully in love with your career and/or where you live so relocating or a creative change to your finances might make sense.
I mean 40 years is really not new even by American standard. Hell I have half a dozen neighborhoods around my house that have been built within the last 2 years probably doubled almost triple the number of homes within my area. Any of the homes that are you know 30 40 years old are considered old in the area. We do have homes that are well over 100 years old within the area but 40 to 50 years is definitely not new by American standard unless you live in an area that’s literally just recently been built. We do have two or three whole cities that have basically been built within the last 40 years that those homes are still considered new wish but they’re definitely not new because they continue to build in those areas every single year.
I mean I bought a 2100ft² house on 0.8 acres in 2024 for 320k @ 5.5%, 11 miles put from the center of one of the 50 most populated cities in the US.
Not the best deal, not the worst, but definitely possible
2300 sqft historic home in a capitol city downtown… 8 years ago… but I do have to put up with a few quirks like the homeless everywhere and the serial killer that was actively preying on them for several years, and the sword-carrying superhero who then came along to patrol and ‘fight’ this killer.
We have a security system.
I want to know more about this vigilante sword man
Plot twist: he was actually the serial killer hiding in plain sight
~i don’t actually know anything about this guy, just so we’re clear~
That’s one theory yes. The serial killer stopped in late 2021, we assume he was incarcerated for another crime. The superhero at least somewhat matched his description. It was wild.
You can still find sub 50k homes, but you will have to temper your expectations for the area and condition. Can’t be afraid to learn a few renovation tricks and get your hands dirty!
I ain’t moving to rural Mississippi
Truth is rural any state usually has affordable homes, just not the jobs. It’s a good option if you work remotely or in an extremely in-demand job like healthcare
Average age of a first time homebuyer is now over 40. Even at a reasonable interest rate, most buyers would die before they actually own the house.
As intended
Can’t pass it on to your kids when the bank forecloses on it
I really thought medical bills would solve that problem.
Were not enough boomers taking them up in reverse mortgages?
Because that’s where all my “generational” wealth went. “We can’t take it with us Jimmy” though we did, in fact, take it from those who came before.
Late stage capitalism demands that you will own nothing.
For now… until they want you to have less. For fun this time.
The year I turned 40, was the year I moved into my first non-rental property.
I’m living proof that shit is fucked up
I’m a couple of years older and JUST escaped renting. It’s ridiculous!
Welcome to the club.
What percentage of your income now goes to your mortgage payment? For me, it’s like 110%… But I have help, so my share is only like 35%
I’m turning 40 in a few days. I finally moved into a crazy beat-up fixer-upper/possible crime scene about 3 weeks ago.
Welcome to the club. Were you able to afford the fixer upper on your own, or did you need to split the financial burden with another person?
I know someone living in the Netherlands (home of Lemmy.world!) that told me they had interest only mortgages that didn’t pay toward the principal and that this was common over there. It seems like these new 50 year mortgages in the USA are a step going that same way. Anyone from that area confirm this?
At that point, the bank is buying the house, they’re just renting it to you for a very cheap rate, with the stipulation that you’re responsible for all of the maintenance and etc. The “purchase” is just you entering into a long-term rental agreement.
Without the benefit of renting. Hell don’t forget home insurance.
It an overall bad deal in my mind, but there are some upsides (not enough for me to take it). Assuming you get a fixed rate, you lock in your payment and your “rent”/mortgage will decline over time just from inflation eating away at it. I think most folks would love to have their rent decline by 3% every year. This effectively does that.
Additionally, if you are the homeowner instead of the renter, if the real estate increases in value, when you sell, you pocket the increase. There’s nothing like that in renting.
There is still some optionality like maybe you get a windfall from a boomer dying and you can pay the principal. Or in 30 years your currency devalues to the point you can afford the principal.
Anyway it all feels like fool’s hope. Situation is fucked.
I’m Dutch, just bought a home, and I’ve never heard of that.
Edit: I think that is called an “aflossingsvrije” mortage, banks stopped providing those after 2008 for obvious reasons.
Eidt 2: Apparently it still exists, but can no longer be used to finance an entire house. From my research it is often still possible for up to 50% of a house’s value. It was also not an option in the way we bought our house.
In the UK they were popular for “buy-to-let” properties - so it didn’t really matter that you have barely any equity in your second home, so long as the rental income covers the interest payments.
Congratulations on your new home!
Thanks for providing that info on the “afloasingsvrije” mortgages. It was a few years before 2008 when she bought, so that tracks with what you’re reporting.
Here in the USA we have fixed rate mortgages, where you have a single fixed interest rate for the entire length of the mortgage, but I know that not all countries have that. From what I understand in Canada the rates fluctuate during the mortgage where you can get something like fixed for 5 years (maybe 10?) but then the rate can increase on the existing mortgage you’ve already got.
How does the Dutch system work? Fixed for life of mortgage? Continuously variable? Fixed for a time like Canada? Something else?
We have different types of mortages, but most (maybe all, at least the most common types) have a fixed rate over 30 years. Maybe variable rates exist, but they are at least very uncommon. Shorter mortages are also possible I think but are of course very expensive.
One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible. (Progressive parties are i.m.o. rightfully trying to abolish this subsidy for the owning class, but I digress.) for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.
One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible.
This matches the USA system for mortgages.
for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.
This sounds new to me. In the USA we do have amortized mortgages so a very high percentage of the monthly payment is interest with little going to principal. Over time that relationship flips where you’re paying more principal that interest. However, in our system the mortgage payment stays the same, only how much of that fixed payment goes to interest vs principal changes.
Oh yeah the gross mortage payment stays the same. But over tme less of it is tax deuctible. Sounds like that system is the same across the countries.
Dutchie here, nope. We are paying both principal and interest. Plus when i to it out, my mortgage was 102% of my home’s value. And as it stands, the bank owns my ass exactly until I retire 🤷♂️
At least someone wants to pay for your ass. I can’t give this thing away.
I hear ass is pretty easy to give away. Much harder to get ass, especially if you’re choosy about the gender of the ass owner.
Screw .world
you…realize thats not only where this Lemmy Community is…but also your user account, right?
Not sure if this is what they were talking about, but balloon mortgages are a thing here too. I can’t ever imagine considering one, but they exist.
Balloon mortgages would be good in only two situations:
- you’re not planning on living in the house very long, so you likely exit before the balloon payments hit.
- you believe interest rates will decline in the next few years and you can refinance to a fixed low rate
I don’t ever see myself using a Balloon mortgage. Worse, they are frequently sold via predetory lending methods. Unsavvy buyers are convinced to take a balloon mortgage not understanding the payments will rise dramatically in the years ahead. This can lead to eventual foreclosure when the owners can service the higher payments.
If you’re not planning to live there long, I don’t think you shouldn’t be buying; that’s one of the few times I’d choose to rent. I guess maybe if home prices are rising then you can accrue some equity, but then you risk buying at the top of the market. I genuinely how it would compare to a fixed rate mortgage though.
If you think interest rates are going to decline, you can easily refinance a fixed rate mortgage as well. I don’t see any benefit in that scenario, but there’s a downside in that if rates don’t go down you still have that balloon payment to worry about, and if you don’t qualify for a traditional mortgage, you’re really in a bind.
Maybe if you’re flipping a house it makes sense, especially if you want to minimize cash outflow. Otherwise, there are so many more downsides that are much more severe than the mild upsides that you might gain. Perhaps there’s a few niche applications that I haven’t considered though.
How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”
UK has even worse, buy to let. Interest only with the intent of renting it out. So you profit on the rents and profit on the house going up in value. Obviously you vote for governments that will lead to an increase in house prices too. Oh yeah most of government is made up of
parasiteslandlords too.Sorry, my brain is struggling. How is this different from the U.S., for example? Isn’t it the same? If you buy, the only way to make money is to improve or rent out to someone even more desperate…?
Normally you also make payments towards the principal and build equity. As I understand, most of these buy to let loans actually only have you pay interest so you’ll never own the property. If the value even after 20 or 30 years drops below the initial value, you’re in the negative and need to pay up the difference if you can’t make payments anymore. Whereas with a normal mortgage once you’ve paid it off, fluctuating values can’t put you in severe financial trouble.
How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”
Yes. The tradeoff is you have a property that is in your name (with a bank note attached), and if the property increases in value during the time you own it, when you sell, you pocket the difference. If you have a fixed interest rate, it also caps the growth of your payment for housing for the entire time you live there. There’s quite a bit of value in that.
And then their kids keep paying until they die and still haven’t paid it off, even though they’ll have paid twice the original amount by that point. Whoever came up with this bullshit is probably right now buying their third yacht from the bonus.
30 year mortgage means you pay for the house twice with interest. 50 year mortgage means paying for the house 3x.
So basically you won’t own shit.
Never did.
My favorite part of this whole 50 year mortgage thing is the shock that you’d pay like $1.7m for a $400k house over the 50 years while not batting an eye at paying $900k for a $400k house over 30. It’s even funnier because houses don’t have a set value, can change on a whim and have become a path to wealth instead of the necessity that is shelter.
The quality of the materials and the precision of the build has gone down while the prices rise, and everyone’s like “oh this sucks, but the market”.
At least cars are considered a valid housing choice these days, which is why car prices are rising.
Honestly, I thought it is actually not allowed in a lot of states to live in your car.
So that’s why PC cases have gotten so expensive.
Like stocks, and art, they’re only as valuable as what people will pay for them.
If you want a shelter, you can use sticks and leaves in the forest and build something halfway decent at least. If you want a building to call your home, pay up dickhead.
Meanwhile, people who should be buying are renting, people who should be renting are in airbnbs or living in their cars, and the family dwellings are owned either by some jerkwad who wanted an income property, or a corporation that just felt like owning more land because they could.
I’m so proud of our society. Such progress! Capitalism is great!
If you want a shelter, you can use sticks and leaves in the forest and build something halfway decent at least.
Wrong, someone owns the forest and your encampment will be destroyed upon discovery.
Neat, go build another one down the river.
“Like stocks, and art, they’re only as valuable as what people will pay for them.” Except this only takes into consideration what the rich will pay and that sets the “value”. I’m a people and my value for things is super low.
Yeah, the market only cares about the maximum that people will pay for it. You’re not offering the maximum, so you’re not important enough for the market forces to care about.
I’m not either, so… We’re in this boat together. You want to row on the starboard side? Or port?
I can’t believe this is real.
Home ownership out of reach? No problem, just never own a home. Bing bang boom.
I’m European so I’m out of the loop. Do you actually have 17% interest rates? I’m getting 2% over here.
Thankfully no. I think they’re more like 5.5-6% currently. Back in 2020 I managed to get a 2.375%.
