People pay rent so they can save to buy later. But house prices always go up, they never go down, what they really mean is they can't afford the house they think they deserve so they rent it. I bought a home 5 years ago, I'm retired so we paid cash, everyone said we "way overpaid." The house across the street from us is taxed at $150k less than ours but sold 3 months ago for twice what we paid for ours. Aside from the lack of liquidity it's hard to say houses are a bad investment.

I said this on an another thread, but thats how I look at it when someone says they want to do a 15 yr loan instead of 30. Almost no one is keeping the same loan terms for more thsn 5 yraes, much less living in their house the life of the loan.

so while this feels very doom and gloom for society in a way, itll be another tool for a savvy buyer/lender and eventually will be the new norm.

Renting only makes sense when it's a house that the owner has had for long enough the mortgage is low enough that they can actually afford to maintain it and still make money for less than it would have cost me to buy it myself. When I see someone offering up a brand new house, or one they recently purchased, I know whoever rents that house is getting fleeced unless the owner is using it as a means to lower their taxes.

The people I see pushing the "rent don't buy" argument the most are landlords.

That said, this 50 year mortgage just seems like a way to make the bank more of your landlord than they were before.

OldArmyCT said:

---

People pay rent so they can save to buy later. But house prices always go up, they never go down, what they really mean is they can't afford the house they think they deserve so they rent it. I bought a home 5 years ago, I'm retired so we paid cash, everyone said we "way overpaid." The house across the street from us is taxed at $150k less than ours but sold 3 months ago for twice what we paid for ours. Aside from the lack of liquidity it's hard to say houses are a bad investment.

---

After two rounds of foundation work, an underslab plumbing repair, a new AC, and replacing hardwood floors due to powderpost beetles, I'll be lucky to break even on my house when I go to sell. I may buy again eventually but will be content to rent for the foreseeable future.

As far as 50 year mortgages go, they're effectively an interest only loan, so anyone preaching home ownership as an investment should be all over it if you understand cash on cash returns.

ETA: forgot the AC replacement until I saw the post below.

jamey said:

---

Trump suggested a 50 year mortgage and its all over Twitter

So many strange takes like if you buy, then you got maintenance, taxes and insurance that doesnt exit if you rent, as if all that stuff plus profit is not calculated into rent pricing

My financial advisor buddies have gone back and forth for at least a decade. They say buying is bad, i say its good and this some before Trumps 50 year mortgage.

I'd have to do some thinking on a 50 year and how sound that idea is. I already bought central metroplex so job location cant force a move. Thats always an assumption for me.



Other than that I live in a neighborhood thats probably 50% renters and 50% owners. Renters pay substantially more per month above the mortgage. At least 700$

---

I said this on the F16 thread or somewhere over there, but you have to factor the TCO of a home. It's not just mortgage + utilities vs rent + utilities.

It's mortgage + taxes + insurance + maintenance (in all its various forms) + random oh **** something broke and I can't call the landlord.

This last category can be a massive financial hit that a renter will never have.

Examples:
- Replacing HVAC for $10-20K a pop.
- Plumbing emergencies that are hundreds to thousands including water heater failure, burst pipe in a wall or underneath a floor.
- Foundation issues at $1K a pier to prevent/fix.
- Tree falls in the yard and destroys something.
- Landscape beautification, maintenance, and replacement is thousands of dollars over course of house lifetime assuming you just don't give a **** about the outside of your house.

These are examples off the top of my head that I've personally dealt with across owning 3 homes. So, the math isn't as clear as people think it is once you start factoring TCO. Buying could certainly still be cheaper over time when factoring TCO, but you better at least have a some kind of idea of what you are getting into with a house. Even if you think you can mitigate some of this through buying a certain type, age, location of a home, bad **** is going to happen with a house that you just didn't budget for.

It's an interest only loan by another name. If you stay in your house 12 years you wouldn't even pay off 5% of the principal. And even for a 750k loan it only changes the payment a few hundred dollars a month (and that's assuming they have the same rate which assuredly wouldn't be the case).

JobSecurity said:

---

It's an interest only loan by another name. If you stay in your house 12 years you wouldn't even pay off 5% of the principal. And even for a 750k loan it only changes the payment a few hundred dollars a month (and that's assuming they have the same rate which assuredly wouldn't be the case).

---

Pretty much and the vast majority of America will be fine with it. It just solidifies home "ownership" as a misnomer and should really force a deliberate analysis on actually purchasing vs renting going forward factoring what I posted.

20% down on a $500k home is a six year b/e on the incremental rent ex market returns on the cash. The more expensive the house, the longer the b/e on buying vs rent. This also excludes closing costs.

This has been floated before. It's not new with Trump.

it seems logical that renting would be more expensive than owning- but in fact the reality is that is not the case the last few years in many locations:

"In 2025, renting is the more affordable option in most major US cities, but owning remains a better long-term investment in many other markets, especially in the Midwest and South.

The decision depends heavily on location, and while renting has lower upfront costs, buying can provide equity growth, tax benefits, and more stability, but requires significant savings for a down payment.

Where it's cheaper to rent

Major metropolitan areas: Renting is often cheaper in expensive cities on the West Coast and in other major metros.

Top 50 metros: As of June 2025, renting a starter home was significantly cheaper in 49 out of 50 of the largest metropolitan areas.

Example cities: Renting is more affordable than buying in cities like Oakland, CA, and Honolulu, HI.

LMCane said:

---

it seems logical that renting would be more expensive than owning- but in fact the reality is that is not the case the last few years in many locations:

"In 2025, renting is the more affordable option in most major US cities, but owning remains a better long-term investment in many other markets, especially in the Midwest and South.

The decision depends heavily on location, and while renting has lower upfront costs, buying can provide equity growth, tax benefits, and more stability, but requires significant savings for a down payment.

Where it's cheaper to rent

Major metropolitan areas: Renting is often cheaper in expensive cities on the West Coast and in other major metros.

Top 50 metros: As of June 2025, renting a starter home was significantly cheaper in 49 out of 50 of the largest metropolitan areas.

Example cities: Renting is more affordable than buying in cities like Oakland, CA, and Honolulu, HI.

---

Another factor if you have kids is school. On our second house we bought in an ISD where all the schools are rated between an 8 and a 10.

This cost us approximately 80K more than a similar house in a nearby bad school district.

So i traded private school sunk costs for an extra 80K more expensive house in a good ISD that has appreciated 50%

This is basically taking a long on the house and a short on fiat IMO. I actually like it.

YouBet said:

---

jamey said:

---

Trump suggested a 50 year mortgage and its all over Twitter

So many strange takes like if you buy, then you got maintenance, taxes and insurance that doesnt exit if you rent, as if all that stuff plus profit is not calculated into rent pricing

My financial advisor buddies have gone back and forth for at least a decade. They say buying is bad, i say its good and this some before Trumps 50 year mortgage.

I'd have to do some thinking on a 50 year and how sound that idea is. I already bought central metroplex so job location cant force a move. Thats always an assumption for me.



Other than that I live in a neighborhood thats probably 50% renters and 50% owners. Renters pay substantially more per month above the mortgage. At least 700$

---

I said this on the F16 thread or somewhere over there, but you have to factor the TCO of a home. It's not just mortgage + utilities vs rent + utilities.

It's mortgage + taxes + insurance + maintenance (in all its various forms) + random oh **** something broke and I can't call the landlord.

This last category can be a massive financial hit that a renter will never have.

Examples:
- Replacing HVAC for $10-20K a pop.
- Plumbing emergencies that are hundreds to thousands including water heater failure, burst pipe in a wall or underneath a floor.
- Foundation issues at $1K a pier to prevent/fix.
- Tree falls in the yard and destroys something.
- Landscape beautification, maintenance, and replacement is thousands of dollars over course of house lifetime assuming you just don't give a **** about the outside of your house.

These are examples off the top of my head that I've personally dealt with across owning 3 homes. So, the math isn't as clear as people think it is once you start factoring TCO. Buying could certainly still be cheaper over time when factoring TCO, but you better at least have a some kind of idea of what you are getting into with a house. Even if you think you can mitigate some of this through buying a certain type, age, location of a home, bad **** is going to happen with a house that you just didn't budget for.

---

your Homeowners Insurance policy didn't kick in here?

@NFLPlayerProps said:

---

This is basically taking a long on the house and a short on fiat IMO. I actually like it.

---

Exactly, its the debasement trade

The water heater failure was in the garage and we live on the coast so our house is built to handle water on the lower level. No damage so I just paid for buying a new water heater that was unexpected. Didn't make a claim.

The pipe burst under the floor was at our house in Dallas. Trying to recall if I made a claim on that one....

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I said this on an another thread, but thats how I look at it when someone says they want to do a 15 yr loan instead of 30. Almost no one is keeping the same loan terms for more thsn 5 yraes, much less living in their house the life of the loan.

so while this feels very doom and gloom for society in a way, itll be another tool for a savvy buyer/lender and eventually will be the new norm.

---

I'm not sure how savvy it is to take the (presumably) higher rate that a 50 year would include, if you assume that the buyer will refinance well before the loan is paid off.

Seems like it's more likely a tool to "increase affordability" by stretching out payments longer. We all know that ends up increasing RE prices, so it will serve to enrich developers/builders more than homeowners.

Very similar to what we've seen happen to college tuition when the actual cost gets detached from the payments.

got it. I read your original post to say "hundreds of thousands" so I was thinking it must have been a catastrophic accident.

Makes more sense now.

The US Trump Administration is reportedly working on 15 year car loans.

US President Donald Trump also posted yesterday regarding allowing 50 year mortgages.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) November 10, 2025

Millenials trying to buy homes

Diggity said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I said this on an another thread, but thats how I look at it when someone says they want to do a 15 yr loan instead of 30. Almost no one is keeping the same loan terms for more thsn 5 yraes, much less living in their house the life of the loan.

so while this feels very doom and gloom for society in a way, itll be another tool for a savvy buyer/lender and eventually will be the new norm.

---

I'm not sure how savvy it is to take the (presumably) higher rate that a 50 year would include, if you assume that the buyer will refinance well before the loan is paid off.

Seems like it's more likely a tool to "increase affordability" by stretching out payments longer. We all know that ends up increasing RE prices, so it will serve to enrich developers/builders more than homeowners.

Very similar to what we've seen happen to college tuition when the actual cost gets detached from the payments.

---

Yes, that is the sole reason they are doing this. I assumed we all understood that. It's to improve "affordability" as that is now the economic buzz word this month.

It's all about the monthly payment; however long you make the payment is irrelevant because actual ownership is no longer the goal.

Same reasoning car leases got popular even they do not make financial sense for most people.

Why are people even talking about this like it's some genius idea and he is actually running the show. Last I checked mortgages are financial products offered by banks to finance house purchases. They are not offered by Trump. The supposed free market pro capitalist party sure does quickly fall into state capitalism with a cult leader like China, Russia, or North Korea very quickly. Donald Trump is not our economy, so maybe we should stop talking about him like he is.

50 year mortgages have been offered for a long time in Europe so let's not pretend like this is some revolutionary idea. It only makes sense if you believe inflation is going to go much higher over the 50 year timeline. Otherwise the tradeoff is that homeowners build much less equity at today's 6% interest rates and debt as a much larger portion of home owner EV.

Gordo14 said:

---

Why are people even talking about this like it's some genius idea and he is actually running the show. Last I checked mortgages are financial products offered by banks to finance house purchases. They are not offered by Trump. The supposed free market pro capitalist party sure does quickly fall into state capitalism with a cult leader like China, Russia, or North Korea very quickly. Donald Trump is not our economy, so maybe we should stop talking about him like he is.

50 year mortgages have been offered for a long time in Europe so let's not pretend like this is some revolutionary idea. It only makes sense if you believe inflation is going to go much higher over the 50 year timeline. Otherwise the tradeoff is that homeowners build much less equity at today's 6% interest rates and debt as a much larger portion of home owner EV.

---

I haven't seen anyone on this board talking about this as a genius idea. The vast majority of people on here have questioned it and recognize it for what it is.

I assume you are talking about the larger internet.

They would have to be subsidized/purchased by the government as no private lender would extend those fixed rate terms without a guaranteed buyer.

Not sure 50 year mortgages are super prevalent in Europe from some quick research, but admittedly not an expert.