Have their grandkids co-sign

😐



✌🏻

Most parents in their old age have seen their kids move out long ago to pursue their own dreams. Why should our kids have to pay off our mortgage? They inherit the property and all they want to do is sell it. But a big chunk gets taken out for the bank!

What about in the case of divorce? If half the marriages in the US end in divorce, who gets the house with the incredible debt that they probably can't handle? One partner walks away with no debt and no investment, the other partner is saddled with too much debt and loses it all. Who gains then? This is completely unworkable, and it's way worse than paying rent your entire life.

At least with 30-year mortgages, most families can hope to have that paid off already.

Sell price. It just….doesnt matter.

My wife and I went with 15-year mortgages on our last three home. We stayed in each 4 year, 11 years, and 6 years, respectively

I cant believe people take out 6 and 7 year lone on cars. While I’d never do it, I’m fine with those who do. I have same attitude with 50-year mortgages. No one has to go that route.

The mortgage portability and assumability thts being talked about is a much bigger deal and could help many people.
I can understand banks not liking them, but who cares?!

Some things disruptive and innovtive need to be done to help Americans get into homes.

Japan introduced 100-year, multi-generational mortgages during the real estate bubble of the late 1980s and early 1990s as a way to make high-priced homes appear more "affordable". These products, however, largely failed to increase general home affordability and are not common today.

Historical Context and Function

Purpose: The extended loan terms were a response to sky-high property prices, designed to lower monthly payments by stretching repayment across three or four generations.
Mechanism: Heirs could inherit both the property and the remaining debt, effectively binding succeeding generations to the mortgage payments when the original borrower passed away.

Outcome: These long-term mortgages did not achieve widespread success in promoting general home ownership. Instead, they were more likely to be used by affluent homeowners as an estate-planning tool to reduce inheritance taxes. The practice was associated with the excessively loose credit standards that contributed to Japan's financial crisis in the 1990s.

If you need a lower payment get a 50 year, then pay it early or own it and pay it for your lifetime. If you want and can pay a 30 year, get a 40 year. Options are good. What am I not understanding? You don’t have to take a 50 year loan.

should the government protect people from predatory practices? People can be gullible, naive, and/or desperate. Sales people can use lots of psychological tactics to convince people that they should do something which is not wise or in their best interest. Should the government make that exploitation easier buy allowing banks to offer an option that is profoundly predatory?

Options are not always good. Before the housing crash, no down payment mortgages proliferated. That was an option. Was it good? If so, for who? Not for people who got talked into buying a house they could not afford and were left with no home, debt, and bad credit. It also wasn't good for the economy. The banks got a bailout, the people got screwed. 50 year mortgages falls into the same category.

They are arguing against 50 year mortgages because it qualifies more of the masses to buy homes that shouldn’t have them. So…we think that people aren’t smart enough to make informed decisions….they think the poor will buy houses and tighten the market.

There are now 7 year car loans. Did you protest that?
Probably not because it creates a lower payment to allow you to buy, which will historically advantage you over a renter. If I would buy a house now, it would be at the longest term possible and lowest rate for safety, and I’d pay it off early. If you don’t want a 50 year mortgage….don’t get one. You think that it can be abused so you prevent everyone from having one. You do know that 30 year mortgages aren’t best for everyone, but you don’t become such a nanny state that you prevent everyone from having the option.

Likely this will also create in between loans like 40 years as well. Fantastic. More choices for home ownership for the people.

Research shows that people are not good at making these sorts of decisions (Kahneman and Tversky won the Nobel Prize in Economics for it). History shows us the same thing. We don't "think" people aren't "smart" enough to make informed decisions - we KNOW the way human's brains work makes it HARDER for us to make SMART decisions even when we are informed. FFS people bought the whole supply side economics/Laffer curve when the most cursory analysis combined with some psychological knowledge shows that both fall apart very quickly. Look up judgment under heuristics or judgment under uncertainty. Even highly intelligent and highly educated people make terrible decisions, especially when it comes to money. And bankers KNOW this stuff. They KNOW people aren't good at making decisions like this and they propagandize their sales language in a way that makes it even harder for people to make these types of decisions.

Not all people have the level of privilege you have to allow yourself to take the risk of a longer loan and pay it off earlier. 50 year mortgages would double the amount of interest people would pay for the house to save a few hundred dollars. It is yet another way to transfer wealth from the poor and working class to bankers and the wealthy. It is a predatory practice pushed under the guise of "options." It is a form of usury in sense that it makes a loan that unfairly enriches the lender.

There are better ways to provide more choices for homeowners than allowing bankers to prey on them even more! How about we pay people enough money to be able to afford to buy a house?

And no ability to lock in pricing….i don’t need others to set my choices in the market. There is a place for a longer mortgage. There is a place for reverse mortgages. I fail to see where a longer choice is predatory.

Under the current system, you are dooming future generations to rent. Rent will not be below the cost of the asset plus cost plus interest. Paying a longer mortgage that is building equity, even slowly, does not disadvantage the owner to renting.

And if 50 year mortgages became remotely common, it would significantly inflate housing prices. Also, interest rates would be necessarily higher for 50 year mortgages which would nullify much of savings on monthly payments. So instead of helping with housing affordability, it would make things far worse. They are a terrible idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/13/trump-50-year-mortgages-housing

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2025, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Bad idea....

No One will force you into 50y

10, 15, 30, 40...

Lots of choices

principle. It's a dream come true for mortgage brokers and a nightmare for homeowners. Once you sign on the dotted line, you're stuck. If the market goes down and you want to sell for some reason, you might find yourself with less-than-zero equity.