Well, the USA has 96 month automobile loans and this kind of shit does not surprise me. None of the asswipes in DC are discussing the piss poor income distribution in the USA which leads to affordability and a decent middle class life. In 1789, the French were 100% correct.
Also, if the dealership is offering you 29% on a 7 year loan, please walk away. Stop giving in to that shit. It’s better for you, and it’s better for the rest of us.
Why does he suddenly have vampire teeth
Probably because it’s a cropped section of a shitty AI upres of a video still, here’s an original.
It’s from 2012 when the NASA JPL team did a successful first-ever “rocket crane” landing to get the Curiosity rover onto the surface of Mars. It was actually a really touching / exciting moment, there’s lot of other photos out there of the team hugging and celebrating.
Such a stupid, stupid society.
I’m gonna be dead in 20 years, so I’m so sorry to have to turn this down lol
They’re considering offering a 50-year mortgage product to a market where the average first time buyer age is 40. Like no joke they’re aiming to lock people into a mortgage that would cost more per month than renting the same property until they’re 90.
Me too bro, me too.
I’ll take a 90% 1,000 year loan please.
(hint: it would be over $30,000 per month payment)
I’ll counter with a 100 year 2% mortgage
I’m pretty sure interest only mortgages already exist in some places.
Isn’t that just renting?
Almost, it’s just now you also have to pay for renovations and stuff yourself.
You do get to keep any growth in the value of the property too
Or eat any loss in the value of the property
Cool. Put it on my credit card.
Is this an actual thing in the us? We don’t have 50 year mortgages in Denmark but I can get a 30 year fixed interest at 3.5%
No, but our Treasury Secretary recently floated the idea so it might become a thing soon. I believe there are already some 40-year mortgages, but they’re rare and non-standard. The 30-year mortgage has been an American institution since it was standardized under FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s.
Not a thing yet AFAIK, but Trump proposed the idea this week. You can get 30-year ones here in Canada too, but I’m not sure what the lowest fixed interest rate is currently.
trump just announced 50 year mortgages
this is so awesome I can’t wait to be in debt my entire life
and your kids will be in debt.
If mortgages were capped to 20 years, the prices of houses would plummet.
Debt slavery is the new black. Indentured servitude is back.
Don’t forget about paying back triple what you borrowed!
That’s the fun part, you probably were already going to be!
But are they really 17% interest rate?
No, it’s just some exaggeration to make it even more ridiculous. As if 50 years isn’t enough.
What’s really awful is when you see how little the payment lowers between a 30yr and 50yr mortgage with current rates. It’s not nearly as big a difference as you’d think.
Is the image AI? The face of the guy to the left is kinda weirdly focused.
Yeah it’s a cropped AI upres of a video still, this is the original.
It’s the Curiosity Rover team celebrating a successful world-first rocket crane landing.
Thanks! The original image is so nice, why do the cropped AI version? :(
I think it’s a famous photo of folks at NASA celebrating but it does look different. You might be right that this one’s been touched up or even fully generated by AI as the depth of field is just all over the place in a way that cameras don’t do. Also some funky compression artifacts that don’t really look like compression artifacts (which I’ve seen AI image generators add generate fake compression artifacts to generated images before)
Life hack for renters: You can just steal from the bank.
Bank workers are, at best, getting a small bonus when you sign that mortgage. Your fellow worker isn’t the enemy.
What kind of wacko lib upvotes this nonsense?
Banks are capitalist AF. Literally the heart of capitalism.
Pretty disgusting to hear these leeches framed as “workers”.
There’s literally no work involved in collecting mortgage payments. That’s why it’s called “passive income.” That’s the whole point of hoarding land and housing.
Bro, do you really think the owning class is the one on the other side of the desk when you sign the paper? No, it’s another peon like you or me.
Have some fucking class solidarity
The guy who facilitates your mortgage contract isn’t getting your mortgage payments. The corporation that employs them is. The guy is making a wage or maybe just an hourly salary, plus commission.
By your logic, the checkout worker at costco is skimming off your wages to gate your access to food and clothing. The only difference is that you wouldn’t personally object morally to that line of work, but your personal morality isn’t a class distinction.
All companies are “capitalist AF”. It’s not just banks. But even a sleezy car salesman who is trained to convince you to sign an extortive lease isn’t oppressing you. He isn’t betraying you at a class level. He isn’t the one getting your monthly payments. His plight is exactly the same as yours.
This isn’t “wacko lib”, it’s literally Marx. And if we can’t understand that and stomach the differentiation, we will forever collectively stay oppressed.
These are the financial professionals that normal people should be able to trust to make important decisions.
I mean… They’re salesmen more than trustworthy professionals.
I see your point but the main issue is that nobody should ever trust the seller of anything to give them the info they need.
People should only ever trust trustworthy independent third parties… But those are hard to find.
I really don’t know what the solution is besides getting a better education, and I don’t mean a crap degree, I mean some more tangibile subjects in lower levels of school. I don’t blame them lightly, but people that accept this kind of thing aren’t the brightest.
Having worked at a bank before (in their IT dept specifically), banks are extremely risk averse (and that extends to all aspects of the bank, from financial risks to HR risks to IT risks), and all of the loan officers I worked with were far more interested in doing their job right than being sales people.
It’s in the banks best financial interest if it’s customers get wealthier because where does that wealth go? Into the bank they already bank at. Banks need to keep a certain amount of deposits in reserve, so the more cash deposited the more money the bank can invest in financial products itself to make itself more money. If all the bank does is mint loans that customers struggle to pay back their deposits will be very low and therefore they’ll make less money.
Also sketchy loans are harder to sell as securities, as security bundles have to have balanced risk profiles both for legal compliance and for investors to be interested. Investors in mortgage backed securities (MBS) aren’t investing in MBSes for insane growth, they’re investing in a relatively safe security to park some cash in as part of their diversification
No, they’re not. A lot of them don’t even have a degree in anything.
Your personal financial advisor is a person you should be able to trust with your important financial decisions. They guy at the bank handing you a contract to sign is an employee with a script on rails, a manager, and a commission structure.
In a better world it wouldn’t be like that but in a better world I don’t think I’d be going to a bank in the first place.
financial professionals that normal people should be able to trust
wew.
I’d like to differ. They are the ones selling you this slavery contract and probably don’t mention the impossible to deal with interest.
A bank worker who is not your enemy would suggest you to switch banks or give you a reasonable contract. Of course depending on bank they might lose their job over the last one.
No, it’s mean that the issue is not the workers, but the bankS. Or to be be even more concrete : the system that produce institutions with the function of bank. Opposing to those workers would not make a change; maybe you could make them fired, and others could take the place, but our choice wouldn’t make much difference compare to those of the employers in the bank industries. We could argue that opposing to one bank is the same; at most it could bankrupt (ironically), but other bank would take they function.
That why this is the whole industry we shall oppose to, to against one bank, but against all of then. This is why people in revolutionary union organize by industry, and not by firm or professions. Helping workers in the bank industries getting less hour/day, less harassement and better stability would make the situation where they could diminish or abolish the predation of their employers against others (that are not only customers). We couldn’t expect solidarity from people we are not solidaire to.
This is not about right or wrong, this is about effectiveness.
Oh of course go against the banks! Those two are not exclusive. You can hate the salesman and his company.
More comfortable working conditions for slave traders! It’s not their fault! Blame the slave industry… \s
That’s ironic, because enforcing your moral code on others was what allow slave trades.
But I will conform to you point of view for the sake of argument. Let say the problem of slave trade is “that’s unethical” If giving “more comfortable working conditions for slave traders” would abolish slave trades, that would unethical to not giving their more comfortable conditions
The Nürnberger defense.
Yeah every commissioned salesperson you don’t like is literally nazi ss. Go off, you galaxybrained god.
Generalizing and nazifying doesn’t actually make your bootlicking sound reasonable.
Being able to tell the difference between a fellow worker and a class traitor isn’t bootlicking!
I wasn’t even the person who generalized and nazified, the comment above me did. What in the actual heck, buddy?
At this point I’m just buying an RV.
That’s what I did.
The american dream of home ownership is rooted in settler colonialism, and used as a tool to keep workers in debt and afraid to take risks organising
Right that’s why no other country had dreams of home ownership.
American exceptionalism really did a number on you guys!
Pretty sure almost every other country also inflicted or was subjected to colonialism/imperialism.
For example, people in Belgium also have dreams of home ownership. That’s part of why they genocided people in Africa. This is ubiquitous.
The Pueblo, Iroquois, and other non-nomadic Native American groups might disagree about the colonialism part.
Why?
Because they built houses. It’s not like white people invented the idea of home ownership.
Did they own the houses, or were they the communities houses?
Depends on the group. Iroquois houses were communal but Pueblo were more like townhomes. Other groups, like the Mississippian culture built individual homes.
Ah yes… The famous Iroquois mortgages… jfc.
A 50 year mortgage will be a lot like renting. Because the bank will own your shit until you die.
deleted by creator
That’s what we get for saying “why can’t I get a mortgage when I pay more in rent just bc my credit is bad”, the banks figured out how to rent properties to you.
Average age of a first time homebuyer is now over 40. Even at a reasonable interest rate, most buyers would die before they actually own the house.
As intended
Can’t pass it on to your kids when the bank forecloses on it
I really thought medical bills would solve that problem.
Were not enough boomers taking them up in reverse mortgages?
Because that’s where all my “generational” wealth went. “We can’t take it with us Jimmy” though we did, in fact, take it from those who came before.
Late stage capitalism demands that you will own nothing.
For now… until they want you to have less. For fun this time.
The year I turned 40, was the year I moved into my first non-rental property.
I’m living proof that shit is fucked up
I’m a couple of years older and JUST escaped renting. It’s ridiculous!
Welcome to the club.
What percentage of your income now goes to your mortgage payment? For me, it’s like 110%… But I have help, so my share is only like 35%
It’ll actually work out better for me since I currently live by myself and pay all the rent and utilities, and I’m buying with my partner so I’ll finally be able to share the load 😀
I’m turning 40 in a few days. I finally moved into a crazy beat-up fixer-upper/possible crime scene about 3 weeks ago.
Welcome to the club. Were you able to afford the fixer upper on your own, or did you need to split the financial burden with another person?
I know someone living in the Netherlands (home of Lemmy.world!) that told me they had interest only mortgages that didn’t pay toward the principal and that this was common over there. It seems like these new 50 year mortgages in the USA are a step going that same way. Anyone from that area confirm this?
At that point, the bank is buying the house, they’re just renting it to you for a very cheap rate, with the stipulation that you’re responsible for all of the maintenance and etc. The “purchase” is just you entering into a long-term rental agreement.
Without the benefit of renting. Hell don’t forget home insurance.
It an overall bad deal in my mind, but there are some upsides (not enough for me to take it). Assuming you get a fixed rate, you lock in your payment and your “rent”/mortgage will decline over time just from inflation eating away at it. I think most folks would love to have their rent decline by 3% every year. This effectively does that.
Additionally, if you are the homeowner instead of the renter, if the real estate increases in value, when you sell, you pocket the increase. There’s nothing like that in renting.
There is still some optionality like maybe you get a windfall from a boomer dying and you can pay the principal. Or in 30 years your currency devalues to the point you can afford the principal.
Anyway it all feels like fool’s hope. Situation is fucked.
I’m Dutch, just bought a home, and I’ve never heard of that.
Edit: I think that is called an “aflossingsvrije” mortage, banks stopped providing those after 2008 for obvious reasons.
Eidt 2: Apparently it still exists, but can no longer be used to finance an entire house. From my research it is often still possible for up to 50% of a house’s value. It was also not an option in the way we bought our house.
In the UK they were popular for “buy-to-let” properties - so it didn’t really matter that you have barely any equity in your second home, so long as the rental income covers the interest payments.
Congratulations on your new home!
Thanks for providing that info on the “afloasingsvrije” mortgages. It was a few years before 2008 when she bought, so that tracks with what you’re reporting.
Here in the USA we have fixed rate mortgages, where you have a single fixed interest rate for the entire length of the mortgage, but I know that not all countries have that. From what I understand in Canada the rates fluctuate during the mortgage where you can get something like fixed for 5 years (maybe 10?) but then the rate can increase on the existing mortgage you’ve already got.
How does the Dutch system work? Fixed for life of mortgage? Continuously variable? Fixed for a time like Canada? Something else?
We have different types of mortages, but most (maybe all, at least the most common types) have a fixed rate over 30 years. Maybe variable rates exist, but they are at least very uncommon. Shorter mortages are also possible I think but are of course very expensive.
One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible. (Progressive parties are i.m.o. rightfully trying to abolish this subsidy for the owning class, but I digress.) for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.
One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible.
This matches the USA system for mortgages.
for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.
This sounds new to me. In the USA we do have amortized mortgages so a very high percentage of the monthly payment is interest with little going to principal. Over time that relationship flips where you’re paying more principal that interest. However, in our system the mortgage payment stays the same, only how much of that fixed payment goes to interest vs principal changes.
Oh yeah the gross mortage payment stays the same. But over tme less of it is tax deuctible. Sounds like that system is the same across the countries.
Dutchie here, nope. We are paying both principal and interest. Plus when i to it out, my mortgage was 102% of my home’s value. And as it stands, the bank owns my ass exactly until I retire 🤷♂️
At least someone wants to pay for your ass. I can’t give this thing away.
I hear ass is pretty easy to give away. Much harder to get ass, especially if you’re choosy about the gender of the ass owner.
Screw .world
you…realize thats not only where this Lemmy Community is…but also your user account, right?
Not sure if this is what they were talking about, but balloon mortgages are a thing here too. I can’t ever imagine considering one, but they exist.
Balloon mortgages would be good in only two situations:
- you’re not planning on living in the house very long, so you likely exit before the balloon payments hit.
- you believe interest rates will decline in the next few years and you can refinance to a fixed low rate
I don’t ever see myself using a Balloon mortgage. Worse, they are frequently sold via predetory lending methods. Unsavvy buyers are convinced to take a balloon mortgage not understanding the payments will rise dramatically in the years ahead. This can lead to eventual foreclosure when the owners can service the higher payments.
If you’re not planning to live there long, I don’t think you shouldn’t be buying; that’s one of the few times I’d choose to rent. I guess maybe if home prices are rising then you can accrue some equity, but then you risk buying at the top of the market. I genuinely how it would compare to a fixed rate mortgage though.
If you think interest rates are going to decline, you can easily refinance a fixed rate mortgage as well. I don’t see any benefit in that scenario, but there’s a downside in that if rates don’t go down you still have that balloon payment to worry about, and if you don’t qualify for a traditional mortgage, you’re really in a bind.
Maybe if you’re flipping a house it makes sense, especially if you want to minimize cash outflow. Otherwise, there are so many more downsides that are much more severe than the mild upsides that you might gain. Perhaps there’s a few niche applications that I haven’t considered though.
How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”
UK has even worse, buy to let. Interest only with the intent of renting it out. So you profit on the rents and profit on the house going up in value. Obviously you vote for governments that will lead to an increase in house prices too. Oh yeah most of government is made up of
parasiteslandlords too.Sorry, my brain is struggling. How is this different from the U.S., for example? Isn’t it the same? If you buy, the only way to make money is to improve or rent out to someone even more desperate…?
Normally you also make payments towards the principal and build equity. As I understand, most of these buy to let loans actually only have you pay interest so you’ll never own the property. If the value even after 20 or 30 years drops below the initial value, you’re in the negative and need to pay up the difference if you can’t make payments anymore. Whereas with a normal mortgage once you’ve paid it off, fluctuating values can’t put you in severe financial trouble.
How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”
Yes. The tradeoff is you have a property that is in your name (with a bank note attached), and if the property increases in value during the time you own it, when you sell, you pocket the difference. If you have a fixed interest rate, it also caps the growth of your payment for housing for the entire time you live there. There’s quite a bit of value in that.
And then their kids keep paying until they die and still haven’t paid it off, even though they’ll have paid twice the original amount by that point. Whoever came up with this bullshit is probably right now buying their third yacht from the bonus.
30 year mortgage means you pay for the house twice with interest. 50 year mortgage means paying for the house 3x.
So basically you won’t own shit.
Never did.
