jkag89 said:

---

“I was there, Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I was there when I took out the current mortgage on Rivendell.” pic.twitter.com/WVfBAvBmQW

— Raven (@raven_brah) November 9, 2025

---

Dammit this is funny.

Assuming a $300K loan, extending the maturity from 30 years to 50 years would save $213 a month based on current rates.

If you take the spread in rates from a 15 year and a 30 year, and assume the 50 yr would have the same spread over the 30 yr, you'd be saving $82 a month.

So the monthly savings would be somewhere in that range of $82-213 a month (on a $300K loan).




Assuming 15 yr conforming at 5.62% and 30 yr at 6.203% current rates.

Pulte, of Pulte Homes?


Huh.

ETFan said:

---

Pulte, of Pulte Homes?


Huh.

---

Just now putting that together?

I can assure you Pulte will be kind to his big builder brethren.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

15 yr mortgages in residential seem to have very little upside compared to 30 yr mortgages these days. I'm curious, if this really happens, how long it will take for 50 yr mortgages to become the norm

the average first time buyer only lives in their home 5-7 years anymore, so its not like people are living out their mortgages often anyway.

---

True, but almost none of the principal is paid off in 5-7 years on a 50 year loan. So almost no building of equity, and in extreme danger in a down market/recession to default. Because - lack of reserves.

So, essentially praying for an ever-rising market and we saw what happened then in what, 2008???

But, desperate folks will take this if it is offered, particularly with rents being relatively high.

I don't see this as a good thing, but it isn't predatory, so let people do what they will.

It isn't predatory but will screw the economy when thousands of homes start to be defaulted on just as happened in 2008.

this is literal insanity.

should we now just ask people to pay down $100 for a new Porsche Carrera and put it on a 40 year note?

LMCane said:

---

It isn't predatory but will screw the economy when thousands of homes start to be defaulted on just as happened in 2008.

this is literal insanity.

should we now just ask people to pay down $100 for a new Porsche Carrera and put it on a 40 year note?

---

Banks do not have to offer it and should do their own underwriting on 50-year mortgages.

Banks and MBS markets along with out of control, over zealous builders of all types out making it rain were responsible for 2008.

As I mentioned earlier, a savvy bank will offer this whilst also maintaining a robust REO department to liquidate the foreclosure.

As long as there is no government bail-out, then

If these become or are proposed to federally backed, then it's overall a bad idea IMO.

The concept of your primary residence being a financial nest egg is impossibly ******ed. I understand it is indeed seen by many to be their most substantial and primary source of "wealth", but you are NOT wealthy if the equity in your private residence is your biggest asset.

Again, that's my opinion. Also, people really need to understand that unless you have your own nuclear weapons and intend to use them, then the Government of the United States and other lower levels of government retain an interest in your home or land in response to not letting others rape, burn and pillage your abode.

LMCane said:

---

It isn't predatory but will screw the economy when thousands of homes start to be defaulted on just as happened in 2008.

this is literal insanity.

should we now just ask people to pay down $100 for a new Porsche Carrera and put it on a 40 year note?

---

This was at the front of my mind, as well. Which is why I brought it up in my post.

But it was also the last time house prices got "reasonable" so not all bad? Pretty sure the govt/reserve added quite a bit to long term inflation/deficit though.

hph6203 said:

---

You haven't seen the landscaping in my neighborhood. A real trunk of change being spent.

---

Branch offices?

Anyone see Nikki Haley's son tonight on (Jesse? on FNC) Nalin Haley talking about some of the Gen Z perspective? He doesn't think he could buy a house even though does "well" as put it. What is more, Rachel chimed in an cited her own numbers when buying a house not that long ago, and costs and they were radically lower -- -this is not some mere difference in a score years kind of thing. It was insanely disproportional -- a number like 95 had become 425. (Just making up the figures, but the relation is about right.

Anyway, it had direct relevance to this thread and where some of Gen Z feels.

Dan Scott said:

---

Can somebody check on Dave Ramsey? I believe this is an admission that housing is unaffordable and we can't do anything about it.

---

Funny you should say that OP.

Dave Ramsey In Critical Condition After Learning Of 50-Year Mortgage https://t.co/CH77RUn7dV pic.twitter.com/EXlcPyvcCk

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) November 10, 2025

GaryClare said:

---

JP76 said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Group and I were chatting about housing the other day. It's a spending and saving problem.

Take a young couple... Even if they're actively trying to have kids... Concerns about schools are 5 years away, you don't have to chase the good school areas to start. Plus in 5-8 years where the good schools are can change.

Yes it's $10 Starbucks. It's Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Paramount. It's going out to lunch everyday. It's happy hour after work 2-3 times a week. It's the newest iphone or Android when your current isn't even paid off. It's an 8 year car loan on a car that costs more than your parents first house.

It's not any one of those things I've listed above (ok maybe the car) but in aggregate they all add up.

There ARE affordable homes. They may not be in the hottest or trendiest areas. So what? So you want a home or do you want to keep chasing vibes in the trendy part of town where rents are almost equal to the mortgage?

Do you want to buy a home? Or do you want to ***** about not being able to afford it? Just pick one.

---

In 1975 a starter home in central Texas was ~$20,000. The minimum wage was $2.10 Adjusted for inflation that's about $122,000 in 2025. Currently the starter homes in the same area 250-300k. Minimum wage is $7.25. That math has zero to do with Netflix or Starbucks.

---

When my parents were in their mid 30's, they bought a "starter home" in 1973 for $17,500. It is a 1,514 square foot, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house built in 1929. My mother still lives in that house. It did not have air conditioning, had linoleum tile floors peeling on the corners, 30 year old appliances, essentially cardboard cabinets, cheap fake wood panelling, old windows, etc. etc. It had a one car, uncovered carport, which was fine because we only had one car. I went to A&M in 1981 and never lived in that west Texas house with air conditioning. I remember laying in bed and letting the lifted sheet slowly drift down and create a slight breeze against my sweaty body.

We walked to school each day because my mother drove my father to work and picked him up and the idea of driving me to school was not even a remote consideration or expectation. And as an aside, because our neighborhood was hilly, we actually did have to walk uphill both ways to school.

I would say our neighborhood was safe, but there was a white trash drug house across the street three houses down. One of the bank presidents in town lived across the street from it. There was never any problems from them though and we always played football or baseball in the street and were safe. Through junior high I had two pair of jeans and 4 shirts - not even enough shirts to have something different to wear through the week.

We ate out one time per month and I got the treat of having a Coke with that meal. I still fondly remember our monthly "going out to eat" visit to Poncho's Mexican Food and the luxury of sitting in an air conditioned building and the wonderful chemical reaction from the combination of that Coke and the cheese enchiladas. There was no fake food back in those days and it really tasted good, so we did have that going for us - which was nice.

All this to say, we were solidly middle class. There were people with more money and people with a lot less. But there were a lot of people just like us. I had a friend with a house with a wood floor and his "chore" was to trim the weeds/grass when it grew up between the floor boards. We had one 19 inch television with three channels.

I drive through my hometown now and look at the houses where my "rich friends" lived and I wouldn't consider them as a purchase at this point in my life.

Cars? They were the same way. 5 speed, no a/c, am radio - fm radio if it was fancy, lucky if they had power steering or power brakes. But they drove and they seemed nice enough.

The Point: When the cost of housing in the 70's or 80's is compared to today, it is not a reflection of reality. We lived way, way more modest lifestyles back then. And we had better lifestyles than the generation before us. I remember looking at a Coke machine and just dreaming of when I would have a quarter to buy a Coke and now I shake my head at the lines at Starbucks. I'm kind of rich now and I don't even spend money at Starbucks. IF the current generation had the lifestyle and life expectations of the people of that era, they could afford a house also. The problem is that no one today really could, or chooses to, live like people lived back then. Yet I have fond memories of the time.

The Victim Mentality is the cancer that is killing the current young generation.

---

You nailed some of it. A lot of us Gen X'ers in West Texas grew up the way you described, some in even worse conditions and some in a little better conditions. The problem today, the option to live the way you described happily and peacefully doesn't exist anymore. The small towns are flooded with tweekers, methheads, etc that would rob their own grandmas, that makes those once safe older neighborhoods like you described unsafe. My little hometown in West Texas never had a single murder for decades, and have now had 4 that I can think of in the last 10 years. Things have changed drastically. If you don't want anything stolen, you better chain it down. It's not like the old days where you could leave your doors unlocked and everyone knew everyone else and neighbors looked out for each other. Those days are long gone.

As far as vehicles, you can't just buy a plain jane truck anymore with a standard transmission. They have soccer mommed the crap out of all of them. Everything's electric and computerized and they charge for every little extra.. Even make you pay for all the government "required" emissions crap equipment they put on the vehicles that make them less polluting "supposedly", but also destroys the engines in them. A diesel truck won't last for 300,000 plus miles anymore and run like the day you drove it off the lot.. The automobile manufacturers aren't even considering finding ways to make them cheaper, they are just looking for ways to add more crap they can charge more money for.

Over_ed said:

---

YouBet said:

---

In addition, I think this 50-year mortgage idea is getting ahead of reality and is unnecessary simply because we are about to have a major housing glut in the next few years. We already do but it's going to get worse, and prices will HAVE to fall.

But I get why Trump is doing this. He doesn't have time to wait for that because R's are going to get murdered in the mid-terms if something doesn't give...right or wrong; fair or not...so this is him throwing a hail mary to try and get some relief out there.

---

If you are talking about us boomers dying, it's going to take longer than you think. Good for us, bad for housing affordability.

---

Not only that, but people are staying in their homes much longer.

When a family member moved to an independent living facility a couple of years ago, I asked the sales director about the average age of the residents. She said it was 82.

That place was built for people 55 and up. For lots of reasons, it's not ideal for residents in their 80s. But people aged 55 no longer want that lifestyle. They want to stay put as long as possible.

Whoever pitched this idea need to be shown the door. Post haste!

Im Gipper said:

---

Whoever pitched this idea need to be shown the door. Post haste!

---

A bird has for over a month told be Bill Pulte will be one of the first to go. But who knows.

If banks want to offer it and people want to sign up for it, fine. But the government should not be able to back 50-year mortgages. Needs to be completely on the private sector.

EclipseAg said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

YouBet said:

---

In addition, I think this 50-year mortgage idea is getting ahead of reality and is unnecessary simply because we are about to have a major housing glut in the next few years. We already do but it's going to get worse, and prices will HAVE to fall.

But I get why Trump is doing this. He doesn't have time to wait for that because R's are going to get murdered in the mid-terms if something doesn't give...right or wrong; fair or not...so this is him throwing a hail mary to try and get some relief out there.

---

If you are talking about us boomers dying, it's going to take longer than you think. Good for us, bad for housing affordability.

---

Not only that, but people are staying in their homes much longer.

When a family member moved to an independent living facility a couple of years ago, I asked the sales director about the average age of the residents. She said it was 82.

That place was built for people 55 and up. For lots of reasons, it's not ideal for residents in their 80s. But people aged 55 no longer want that lifestyle. They want to stay put as long as possible.

---

Having recently gone through independent, assisted, nursing home options over the past year for my mother, I going to have to throw a flag on whatever the sales director told you. That or it was real small and there were some of those 200 year old social security recipients living there that DOGE found.

Many if not most over 55 want something smaller with less maintenance. I would have to see some macro data vs our anecdotes to be convinced this is actually part of the problem.

Over_ed said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

15 yr mortgages in residential seem to have very little upside compared to 30 yr mortgages these days. I'm curious, if this really happens, how long it will take for 50 yr mortgages to become the norm

the average first time buyer only lives in their home 5-7 years anymore, so its not like people are living out their mortgages often anyway.

---

True, but almost none of the principal is paid off in 5-7 years on a 50 year loan. So almost no building of equity.....

---

Would that be true though?

Even if they pay zero of the principal, the house appreciates, creating equity. In 7 years when they decide to move, they have funds to apply to the next property. At that point, they can switch to a 20/30 year note.

Yes, they had to make their monthly payments...but that's not going away whether they buy or rent.

To me, a 50 year note is similar to renting a property, but it allows you to take the equity when you leave.

50 year note seems like a really bad decision in most circumstances. But I do think it would be useful for a first time home buyer who isn't buying their 'forever home', and just wanted to start earning equity in a property.

Who cares if old people stay in their homes? Build lots of 1000-2000 sq ft homes. Build lots of apartments. Housing should be a zero inflation sector. Declining real cost.

1500 sq ft house is excellent for most people. DINKS to a family of 4, if honest, would find it satisfactory. House I grew up in was 1300 sq ft. 5 kids and two parents and 3 dogs at one point.

Wally and the Beav shared a room and it was good for them. People buying 3500 sq ft house should be allowed to, but most of them are making a mistake.

hph6203 said:

---

Who cares if old people stay in their homes? Build lots of 1000-2000 sq ft homes. Build lots of apartments. Housing should be a zero inflation sector. Declining real cost.

1500 sq ft house is excellent for most people. DINKS to a family of 4, if honest, would find it satisfactory. House I grew up in was 1300 sq ft. 5 kids and two parents and 3 dogs at one point.

Wally and the Beav shared a room and it was good for them. People buying 3500 sq ft house should be allowed to, but most of them are making a mistake.

---

Comrade, you seem to be on to something. We must do this. It has worked so well in the past.

Quote:

---

Key housing standards and features
Limited space per person: A common guideline was around 9-10 square meters per person, though this was often not met, especially in later Soviet times when the recommendation dropped to 5.5 or 7 square meters per person.

Standardized layouts: Mass-produced apartment blocks, or Khrushchyovkas, were the norm and featured standardized, compact layouts with small kitchens and bathrooms, often with a small window between them.

Five-story buildings: Many Soviet buildings were limited to five stories to avoid the expense of installing elevators, which increased construction costs.

Utility access: While early apartments were sometimes built with basic amenities like centralized water and heating, lower-class buildings might have lacked these, with residents needing to use stoves for heating and carry water.

High-quality vs. mass-produced housing: There were different standards for different types of housing. "Stalinkas" were built for the elite before the mass-produced apartments and featured higher ceilings and more amenities, while the mass housing was designed to be uniform.

Communal living: It was common for multiple families or generations to share an apartment originally designed for a single family.

Common amenities: Balconies were often used for storage rather than living space. The entrance to an apartment building would include a small lobby, or "padest," which provided a space to put keys, hang coats, and store items.

Lack of individualism: Most apartments, particularly those from the mass-produced era, were very uniform and lacked personal touches. The tradition was to take only personal belongings and leave behind the furniture.

---

People need to understand the purpose of a house it to provide shelter. It is NOT a saving nor retirement account.

flown-the-coop said:

---

People need to understand the purpose of a house it to provide shelter. It is NOT a saving nor retirement account.

---

I mean, at it's most basic core, you're correct. But it can be both a home and an investment. (I'd argue it should be).

flown-the-coop said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

YouBet said:

---

In addition, I think this 50-year mortgage idea is getting ahead of reality and is unnecessary simply because we are about to have a major housing glut in the next few years. We already do but it's going to get worse, and prices will HAVE to fall.

But I get why Trump is doing this. He doesn't have time to wait for that because R's are going to get murdered in the mid-terms if something doesn't give...right or wrong; fair or not...so this is him throwing a hail mary to try and get some relief out there.

---

If you are talking about us boomers dying, it's going to take longer than you think. Good for us, bad for housing affordability.

---

Not only that, but people are staying in their homes much longer.

When a family member moved to an independent living facility a couple of years ago, I asked the sales director about the average age of the residents. She said it was 82.

That place was built for people 55 and up. For lots of reasons, it's not ideal for residents in their 80s. But people aged 55 no longer want that lifestyle. They want to stay put as long as possible.

---

Having recently gone through independent, assisted, nursing home options over the past year for my mother, I going to have to throw a flag on whatever the sales director told you. That or it was real small and there were some of those 200 year old social security recipients living there that DOGE found.

Many if not most over 55 want something smaller with less maintenance. I would have to see some macro data vs our anecdotes to be convinced this is actually part of the problem.

---

I wish my parents wanted less maintenance. They just built a new house at 82 freaking years old. My mom can't see or hear but they built a house instead of doing an assisted living situation. Stubborn ass mom is gonna do stubborn ass things.

So now they have two houses because they can't sell the other one. Mind you, these are very smart people who extremely financially savvy, but they refused to acknowledge reality on this one despite my brother and I pleading for them not to build a new home. So, if something happens to my dad then we have to immediatley put my mom in a home because she can't take care of her itself which leaves us with two houses just sitting out there that no one wants to buy. Maddening.

AgGrad99 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

People need to understand the purpose of a house it to provide shelter. It is NOT a saving nor retirement account.

---

I mean, at it's most basic core, you're correct. But it can be both a home and an investment. (I'd argue it should be).

---

Ah hell, here we go.

AgGrad99 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

People need to understand the purpose of a house it to provide shelter. It is NOT a saving nor retirement account.

---

I mean, at it's most basic core, you're correct. But it can be both a home and an investment. (I'd argue it should be).

---

It CAN be, but should not be expected nor planned for.

You want to preserve value and maybe some modest appreciation.

There was a B&I thread on this a couple of years ago and did a good job laying out both sides of this debate.

Difference between a top down government instituted plan and a cultural decision. It is a critique of people building 3500 sq ft houses and then having rooms they rarely enter. It's a critique of limitations on construction that slows development.

Not saying the government should do it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

People need to understand the purpose of a house it to provide shelter. It is NOT a saving nor retirement account.

---

I mean, at it's most basic core, you're correct. But it can be both a home and an investment. (I'd argue it should be).

---

It CAN be, but should not be expected nor planned for.

You want to preserve value and maybe some modest appreciation.

There was a B&I thread on this a couple of years ago and did a good job laying out both sides of this debate.

---

Given the choice, I'm not sure why you'd choose to pay for something that doesnt appreciate much, compared to something that does.

But we can just agree to disagree. I dont care enough if people think property is a good investment or not to debate it.

YouBet said:

---

I wish my parents wanted less maintenance. They just built a new house at 82 freaking years old. My mom can't see or hear but they built a house instead of doing an assisted living situation. Stubborn ass mom is gonna do stubborn ass things.

So now they have two houses because they can't sell the other one. Mind you, these are very smart people who extremely financially savvy, but they refused to acknowledge reality on this one despite my brother and I pleading for them not to build a new home. So, if something happens to my dad then we have to immediatley put my mom in a home because she can't take care of her itself which leaves us with two houses just sitting out there that no one wants to buy. Maddening.

---

About 15 years ago my mother was living in one DFW suburb but wanted to move to our DFW suburb to be near her sons and grandkids.

God she wanted another garden home (she was a committed widow so just her and always just her). I essentially told her no, not going to happen. Let's look at apartments.

She lived there until about 6 months ago until we got her into assisted living... at the same time her health really declined (unrelated to the move).

That turned out to be one of flown-the-coop's finest decisions as it simplified her life tremendously, made the discussion of the move to assisted living very easy, and made the process of post-mortem sorting of 75 years of accumulating stuff marginally easier.

I feel for you. My in-laws are early 80's and live in a 4500sf home. I never miss a chance to tell them to please, for the sake of the children, move to a smaller, ideally independent living apartment or assisted living, and enjoy the remaining years.

Instead, my 81 FIL mows his grass on July afternoons. Stubborn does not begin to describe the man, God love'em.

Its nice when it does appreciate it. The problem is people (and more broadly the market) now EXPECT and ACCEPT this appreciation.

This contributes to the affordability problem.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the government involve itself in this. But its a free market that has been continually encouraged to run amuck.

Owning a home being the zenith of the American Dream may not be the best idea.

Homeownership doesn't return value except for the leverage you get from a mortgage. A paid off home returns real returns of like .5% per year (4% appreciation vs 3.5% average inflation since the 80's). That .5% appreciation comes from a relative shortage in supply of land to develop and housing built. It's a mirage.

Homeownership gives you the opportunity to say "**** you it's mine, I'll do what I want with it", space and privacy. If my house were still worth half as much as it is today it would change my life none. My investments make me plenty and more per dollar spent.

The fact you gain on leverage incentivizes it becoming an actual investment for non-occupiers, which creates more renters than there otherwise would be, and a larger proportion of the population feeling like they're a workforce to be exploited rather than a shared owner of the country.

I'm not sure if I agree with that sentiment. I mean 'The Zenith?'...no. But it's absolutely a useful tool.

And back to the issue at hand, I can see how the 50 year note would help people start building equity, so they can get a more reasonable loan on their next home.

I think the problem will lie, with people who just continually roll one 50 year note into another, and the banks who will gladly facilitate it.

hph6203 said:

---

Homeownership doesn't return value except for the leverage you get from a mortgage. A paid off home returns real returns of like .5% per year (4% appreciation vs 3.5% average inflation since the 80's). That .5% appreciation comes from a relative shortage in supply of land to develop and housing built. It's a mirage.

---

4 percent?

That seems extremely low. I've never owned a home that experienced such low appreciation.

I dont have any mortgages anymore- that would tear me up having to pay that much interest for a house plus the taxes. Just stupid yet there is no way to avoid it if you dont have the cash

Median home price 2001 179,000. Median home price 2025 411,000. 3.4% CAGR. Inflation over that period 2.5% per year. Current asset prices are artificially high, because millions of people nabbed 2.5% mortgages in a current 6.25% rate environment. If we actually build homes then expect low returns on your home.

It's a passive way to gain value and you're gaining on the asset value relative to the cash deposit + periodic cash installments minus other expenses, so actual return on cash is more than the .9%, but it's not great and it comes at the cost of pissed off younger people when there are far better investment opportunities to be had.


That delta in appreciation and broad inflation is a wealth transfer from the young to the old and makes it incrementally harder to buy a home.

Oh, I agree there are better investment opportunities. I'm not debating that.

But it's not as if we can take that 1.5k per month and simply stick it into an index fund instead. You still need a roof over your head.

So my comments are assuming people have to allocate funds towards housing...and the best way to do that.

The last word?

Banks Now Requiring Your Grandkids To Co-Sign Your 50-Year Mortgage https://t.co/B0j05yyCNa pic.twitter.com/bTEPt1kDUS

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) November 11, 2025