Is he saying it like 'what the bankers have done to this country is evil and 200 year mortgages aren't the solution' or is he doing the 'my parents pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and you can too' boomerism?
I would take advantage of the reduced monthly cost of a 50 year mortgage. In that kind of time, if shit doesn't go sideways for me, my income will have increased and the value of the dollar dropped due to inflation, meaning that 300k home is a lot easier to pay off. And if it's a fixed-rate loan, that's beneficial to me, especially in a collapse. It would also be better in case I lose my job as the minimum monthly payment would be lower than a 30 or 15 year loan making it easier for me to make ends meet. After examining the situation, if you don't get into the mortgage where the 50 year is barely manageable, it seems like a pretty good deal, especially if it's fixed-rate.
It would also be better in case I lose my job as the minimum monthly payment would be lower than a 30 or 15 year loan making it easier for me to make ends meet.
Will the $200/month difference really matter that much?
No offense but I don't see a way to pay a $2k mortgage with no income. Either you get another job or you don't.
All the other benefits (inflation on loan etc) are the same for a 30 year. But you get way more equity, so you actually get something for the money you're putting in. If you're planning on investing the difference in monthly payments, you may get some value out of the 50 year scheme, but it doesn't sound like that's the plan.
Sound like you'd be better off to get a much cheaper house that you can easily pay off instead of a house you can barely afford with built-in expectation of losing your job and lower minum payments stretched out to 50 years and then forced to sell it anyway because you couldn't find the next job in time
I've been looking at houses with land that are under 200k, some under 150k, and they're not ratholes either. Essentially houses I can afford on my current salary, meaning that if I get the job I'm gunning for, I'll be able to easily afford the payments and still stock money away or invest it.
Let's say for the sake of the argument you could full pay the extra $200, and that allows you to have a 30 year mortgage. That's great, on paper you will beat the guy who has the 50 year mortgage.
However if you know of a better way to invest that 200 dollars, then after 30 years the person with the 50 year mortgage will have made a smarter financial decision because that 200 a month over 30 years ($72,000) could be turned into considerable profit if you pick the right investments or even just create a diversified portfolio of S&P 500 futures or even just metals like gold could have a significant yield for you
Yes. But the maturity window required is very long for that drip-fed investment to beat the ridiculous interest payments on a 50-year. A person who "needs" to go for a 50-year is living on the edge. Imo it's more likely that they'll have to get liquid due to life circumstances before his investment sufficiently matures, than it is for that investment to pay out.
This scenario also depends on a lot of "could." When the Japanese started throwing out 50+ year mortgages, it was the canary in the coalmine. Subsequently they crashed and their stock market took 30+ years to recover.
"Make a bet your investments will make up for 200% total interest after 30-50 years" is just not a great proposition.
A 200K house on a 30 year mort. is 992, with a total paid of 594K if paid to term.
The same 200K on a 50 year mort is 880, with a total paid of 923K if paid to term.
The tradeoff is paying $112 per month less, to then pay 330K more over the term of the loan. That makes no sense. Please don't do this. For a large loan where you can prepay, send an extra $50 per month at the start of the loan, when the interest costs are largest, because the principal balance is the largest.
my income will have increased and the value of the dollar dropped due to inflation
The sad part about inflation is wages don't rise in proportion to the loss of the value of money. The idea that wages will rise to make the debt paid with less valuable money doesn't work for wage earners. If you have 200K in investments, like index funds, there's a reasonable chance the loan can be repaid with cheaper money over 10/15 years, but that's still a risky bet.
Same rate for both loans, the longer-term loan should be higher interest, to price in the risk of a devaluing currency. This would result in a slightly higher monthly payment for the 50 year loan and higher total paid, but the numbers are good enough for comparison.
The fact that you can pay almost 3x the original amount in a 30 year mortgage isn't better than paying almost 5 times the amount from a 50 year mortgage.
The bank is profiting 300 to nearly 1000%.
So they could announce 10,000 year mortgages for all I care. The entire system should be reworked to where the profit margin is only 25% at most, so if you get a 200k mortgage, they can get at most their money back plus 50k.
That's a fair return, they get 50k for doing nothing at all rather than hundreds of thousands for nothing at all.
Interesting fact: commercial properties have a payback of ~10 years; so 10 years of rent, net of expenses, should pay the cost of the property.
No reason houses shouldn't be the same way, in that 10 years of equivalent rent (which includes maintenance expenses) should pay for the house. That's dreaming, for sure.
For each individual person - it makes sense to get a 50 year mortgage.
But for society as a whole - it doesn’t make sense to introduce 50 year mortgages. It is a way of devaluing the dollar and work. But increasing the value of houses.
Doc Paul is an awesome man. We wouldn’t have the problems we have now if even half of our politicians cared about this nation like Ron Paul does, sadly they were and are all traitors, aside from RP and Massie. I think Ron Paul’s 2012 run for president was the last chance at salvaging our nation through executive influence, but of course, there was a concerted effort in media and in the GOP to deny RP a shot at winning the primary.
I bet Ron Paul is sitting on a nice stack of gold. He's been collecting for a long time. I wish I started collecting gold and silver coins when I first heard Ron Paul shilling bullion companies for ad revenue. One of the few commercials I should have listened to.
Thanks. Very true. I used to try to tell people about these things and get them to read his books or the Creature from Jekyll Island but people don’t listen
That's the kind of thing I heard about him when I was made aware of his existence many years ago. He was a "Crazy nut job who believes in space aliens." And because I was so young and ignorant of politics, I ate it up. Now I realize it was all smears and yellow journalism intended to stop him from ending the fed.
I also got fooled by the ruling class about him. They convinced me this guy was a white supremacists, neo Nazi back when I was a teenager. It was a major red pilling moment to find out they lied. Then going "but why did they want to lie about him 🤔"
I would be all on board with ending the Fed, but I am getting a little annoyed with various supposedly right-of-center voices, the lolberts among them, counter-signalling every time Trump does something to revitalize the American middle class. Yes, the 50-year mortgage idea is far from perfect, but if the alternative is never owning property while Chinese and Saudi and PNW dark money buys up all the land in the country, then it's better than nothing.
"revitalize the American middle class"................. lol
but if the alternative is never owning property while Chinese and Saudi and PNW dark money buys up all the land in the country, then it's better than nothing.
$200/month difference is going to stop people from owning property? Call me crazy, but maybe we should just outlaw corporations from buying single family dwellings.
It's a moot question anyway because prices are going to shoot up even more from the collision of new homebuyers with static supply, making the 50 year as unaffordable as the 30 year, because this is an attempt to sustain the housing bubble. At that point we will introduce the 100 year mortgage.
Is he saying it like 'what the bankers have done to this country is evil and 200 year mortgages aren't the solution' or is he doing the 'my parents pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and you can too' boomerism?
Given who it is I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it's the former.
Agreed. He has been taking about this stuff for years.
Check out his interviews from the 2000s on the debt/credit situation in our country. This guy hates banks and loans.
100% the former.
Now where is that """expert""" who claimed printing money wouldn't cause inflation?
Do you mean the "infinite amount of cash at the federal reserve" guy?
I thought it was one retard from the Biden era, turns out I was wrong...
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=3Z6IWcM0Sqo
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=tmGiaxFIyNA
https://web.archive.org/web/20200310022925/https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=3-dvi1f_2vA
"He's just saying that because he wants to strangle Joos... now economically as well as physically."
Based
I would take advantage of the reduced monthly cost of a 50 year mortgage. In that kind of time, if shit doesn't go sideways for me, my income will have increased and the value of the dollar dropped due to inflation, meaning that 300k home is a lot easier to pay off. And if it's a fixed-rate loan, that's beneficial to me, especially in a collapse. It would also be better in case I lose my job as the minimum monthly payment would be lower than a 30 or 15 year loan making it easier for me to make ends meet. After examining the situation, if you don't get into the mortgage where the 50 year is barely manageable, it seems like a pretty good deal, especially if it's fixed-rate.
Will the $200/month difference really matter that much?
If I'm trying to make every penny count when I have no income, absolutely.
No offense but I don't see a way to pay a $2k mortgage with no income. Either you get another job or you don't.
All the other benefits (inflation on loan etc) are the same for a 30 year. But you get way more equity, so you actually get something for the money you're putting in. If you're planning on investing the difference in monthly payments, you may get some value out of the 50 year scheme, but it doesn't sound like that's the plan.
Sound like you'd be better off to get a much cheaper house that you can easily pay off instead of a house you can barely afford with built-in expectation of losing your job and lower minum payments stretched out to 50 years and then forced to sell it anyway because you couldn't find the next job in time
I've been looking at houses with land that are under 200k, some under 150k, and they're not ratholes either. Essentially houses I can afford on my current salary, meaning that if I get the job I'm gunning for, I'll be able to easily afford the payments and still stock money away or invest it.
Let's say for the sake of the argument you could full pay the extra $200, and that allows you to have a 30 year mortgage. That's great, on paper you will beat the guy who has the 50 year mortgage.
However if you know of a better way to invest that 200 dollars, then after 30 years the person with the 50 year mortgage will have made a smarter financial decision because that 200 a month over 30 years ($72,000) could be turned into considerable profit if you pick the right investments or even just create a diversified portfolio of S&P 500 futures or even just metals like gold could have a significant yield for you
Yes. But the maturity window required is very long for that drip-fed investment to beat the ridiculous interest payments on a 50-year. A person who "needs" to go for a 50-year is living on the edge. Imo it's more likely that they'll have to get liquid due to life circumstances before his investment sufficiently matures, than it is for that investment to pay out.
This scenario also depends on a lot of "could." When the Japanese started throwing out 50+ year mortgages, it was the canary in the coalmine. Subsequently they crashed and their stock market took 30+ years to recover.
"Make a bet your investments will make up for 200% total interest after 30-50 years" is just not a great proposition.
A 200K house on a 30 year mort. is 992, with a total paid of 594K if paid to term.
The same 200K on a 50 year mort is 880, with a total paid of 923K if paid to term.
The tradeoff is paying $112 per month less, to then pay 330K more over the term of the loan. That makes no sense. Please don't do this. For a large loan where you can prepay, send an extra $50 per month at the start of the loan, when the interest costs are largest, because the principal balance is the largest.
The sad part about inflation is wages don't rise in proportion to the loss of the value of money. The idea that wages will rise to make the debt paid with less valuable money doesn't work for wage earners. If you have 200K in investments, like index funds, there's a reasonable chance the loan can be repaid with cheaper money over 10/15 years, but that's still a risky bet.
What interest rate are you assuming?
Used the default (6ish) here: https://www.calculator.net/mortgage-calculator.html.
Same rate for both loans, the longer-term loan should be higher interest, to price in the risk of a devaluing currency. This would result in a slightly higher monthly payment for the 50 year loan and higher total paid, but the numbers are good enough for comparison.
The fact that you can pay almost 3x the original amount in a 30 year mortgage isn't better than paying almost 5 times the amount from a 50 year mortgage.
The bank is profiting 300 to nearly 1000%.
So they could announce 10,000 year mortgages for all I care. The entire system should be reworked to where the profit margin is only 25% at most, so if you get a 200k mortgage, they can get at most their money back plus 50k.
That's a fair return, they get 50k for doing nothing at all rather than hundreds of thousands for nothing at all.
Interesting fact: commercial properties have a payback of ~10 years; so 10 years of rent, net of expenses, should pay the cost of the property.
No reason houses shouldn't be the same way, in that 10 years of equivalent rent (which includes maintenance expenses) should pay for the house. That's dreaming, for sure.
A 10,000 year mortgage might make more sense if it reduces your monthly payment to $5. Lol
For each individual person - it makes sense to get a 50 year mortgage.
But for society as a whole - it doesn’t make sense to introduce 50 year mortgages. It is a way of devaluing the dollar and work. But increasing the value of houses.
Doc Paul is an awesome man. We wouldn’t have the problems we have now if even half of our politicians cared about this nation like Ron Paul does, sadly they were and are all traitors, aside from RP and Massie. I think Ron Paul’s 2012 run for president was the last chance at salvaging our nation through executive influence, but of course, there was a concerted effort in media and in the GOP to deny RP a shot at winning the primary.
I bet Ron Paul is sitting on a nice stack of gold. He's been collecting for a long time. I wish I started collecting gold and silver coins when I first heard Ron Paul shilling bullion companies for ad revenue. One of the few commercials I should have listened to.
They darn took yer
jerbshomes!Old man yells at cloud.
He has been talking about the dangers of the Fed/fiat currency/fractional reserve banking for years.
Thanks. Very true. I used to try to tell people about these things and get them to read his books or the Creature from Jekyll Island but people don’t listen
Eh, he's been right about more things than just about anyone.
That's the kind of thing I heard about him when I was made aware of his existence many years ago. He was a "Crazy nut job who believes in space aliens." And because I was so young and ignorant of politics, I ate it up. Now I realize it was all smears and yellow journalism intended to stop him from ending the fed.
I also got fooled by the ruling class about him. They convinced me this guy was a white supremacists, neo Nazi back when I was a teenager. It was a major red pilling moment to find out they lied. Then going "but why did they want to lie about him 🤔"
I would be all on board with ending the Fed, but I am getting a little annoyed with various supposedly right-of-center voices, the lolberts among them, counter-signalling every time Trump does something to revitalize the American middle class. Yes, the 50-year mortgage idea is far from perfect, but if the alternative is never owning property while Chinese and Saudi and PNW dark money buys up all the land in the country, then it's better than nothing.
"revitalize the American middle class"................. lol
$200/month difference is going to stop people from owning property? Call me crazy, but maybe we should just outlaw corporations from buying single family dwellings.
It's a moot question anyway because prices are going to shoot up even more from the collision of new homebuyers with static supply, making the 50 year as unaffordable as the 30 year, because this is an attempt to sustain the housing bubble. At that point we will introduce the 100 year mortgage.
Almost every financial product is an evil scam that harms society.
Easy fix, make foreign ownership of real estate illegal. Plenty of other countries don't let foreigners buy them out, so why can't we?
Because that would exclude Israelis.
I'm already sold, you don't have to keep selling me
Americans are drowning in debt, and this will add even more. It's worse than nothing.
If our "representatives" listened to this old man yell at clouds, we'd all be in a massively better spot.
What are you? 12?