In practice, a 50-year mortgage would amount to renting the house from the bank -- but with the renter responsible for all of the upkeep and bearing most of the risks.
If you think renters do NOT pay property taxes (indirectly -- bundled into the rent), I'd like to show you some prime Florida real estate :) (And yes, this applies to the upkeep also -- but at least it is the landlord who has to make the arrangements, deal with the contractors, and manage the cash flow.)
Unless you are continually losing money on that rental, you are charging at least enough rent to cover all the expenses -- including upkeep, taxes, and mortgage interest (if the property is mortgaged). And, unless you are running the rental as (effectively) a charitable undertaking, you are also making a reasonable return on your investment.
Maybe you need to reread the whole thread. I took issue with your implicit assertion that it is not the tenant who (ultimately) pays the property taxes on a rented property.
As I had thought would be clear from my original comment (now some 15 hours ago), I doubt that a 50-year mortgage would be beneficial to the buyer in most situations -- but I suppose there may be a few situations wherein it would make sense.
Epstein 'toons might end up being a forever thing. By the time they release "all" the files no one alive will know who he was and his pedo file gang. My favorite two 'toons: 1. the locust complaining about tariff ruined farms 2. the arc of trump with all (or some) of the victims. Happy 'tooning. SNAP! SNAP!
This is a sham. A homeowner will pay all the interest first before any substantial principal is paid. Drumpf knows that. He doesn’t care. He’s giving the banks a nice gift.
Yep. I mentioned above that, at least in most cases, it would look a lot like a rental but with the "buyer" (renter) taking on more of the risks.
One situation where it might work to the buyer's advantage is if they are planning to sell after a few years, and they expect the value to rise substantially in that time. In that case, they will have paid about the same amount of interest as they would have on a shorter loan (assuming the same rate), and they will make the same profit on the sale, but they will have had a more advantageous cash flow by not having to pay as much toward the principal.
Apparently, this housing czar, Bill Pulte, owns a construction company and his houses are reportedly incredibly shoddy. Can you believe Trump would be involved with a shyster like that?
How could a homeowner afford the cost of living in an elder facility and still be paying his/her mortgage? Ain't going to happen!
Ha! Don't forget student loans.
Most likely they’d be living in broke-down student housing that a university has sold off as insufficient.
Or one of the high-rise developments that was built for students. Ha!
In practice, a 50-year mortgage would amount to renting the house from the bank -- but with the renter responsible for all of the upkeep and bearing most of the risks.
AND paying all the freaking property taxes !!!!
If you think renters do NOT pay property taxes (indirectly -- bundled into the rent), I'd like to show you some prime Florida real estate :) (And yes, this applies to the upkeep also -- but at least it is the landlord who has to make the arrangements, deal with the contractors, and manage the cash flow.)
Interesting so tell that to my renter on a fixed income 🙄
Unless you are continually losing money on that rental, you are charging at least enough rent to cover all the expenses -- including upkeep, taxes, and mortgage interest (if the property is mortgaged). And, unless you are running the rental as (effectively) a charitable undertaking, you are also making a reasonable return on your investment.
So what's your point Perry ? You like the 50 year mortgage *idea* or sumpin ?
Maybe you need to reread the whole thread. I took issue with your implicit assertion that it is not the tenant who (ultimately) pays the property taxes on a rented property.
As I had thought would be clear from my original comment (now some 15 hours ago), I doubt that a 50-year mortgage would be beneficial to the buyer in most situations -- but I suppose there may be a few situations wherein it would make sense.
Epstein 'toons might end up being a forever thing. By the time they release "all" the files no one alive will know who he was and his pedo file gang. My favorite two 'toons: 1. the locust complaining about tariff ruined farms 2. the arc of trump with all (or some) of the victims. Happy 'tooning. SNAP! SNAP!
Trump has always been his own worst enemy. The Epstein Files are the ultimate mirror.
Epstein, Epstein everywhere, oh my!
Ha! Bill Bramhall's nod to Sisyphus had me laugh out loud. Soon, the boulder will roll back down.
This is a sham. A homeowner will pay all the interest first before any substantial principal is paid. Drumpf knows that. He doesn’t care. He’s giving the banks a nice gift.
Yep. I mentioned above that, at least in most cases, it would look a lot like a rental but with the "buyer" (renter) taking on more of the risks.
One situation where it might work to the buyer's advantage is if they are planning to sell after a few years, and they expect the value to rise substantially in that time. In that case, they will have paid about the same amount of interest as they would have on a shorter loan (assuming the same rate), and they will make the same profit on the sale, but they will have had a more advantageous cash flow by not having to pay as much toward the principal.
Great point.
Apparently, this housing czar, Bill Pulte, owns a construction company and his houses are reportedly incredibly shoddy. Can you believe Trump would be involved with a shyster like that?
If he stands to make money on it, yes.