I see the collapse like in 2008.

Also, banks are NOT in the business of extending unnecessarily risky loans - as evidenced by the fact that folks can and do routinely get rejected for loans that exceed their ability to repay them.

Using your own example of a young person/couple making $75,000 a year attempting to buy a $1.3 million home with a 50 year mortgage, I ran the numbers. I applied a $100,000 down payment, a 6% interest rate, an annual property tax of 1% ($13,000), an annual home insurance premium of $2,000 and no HOA. The monthly payment, with PMI, came out to $8,066.86. Care to explain to all of us how any lender would extend a mortgage carrying such a monthly payment to a person/couple making $75,000 a year ($6,250 per month)?

Most loans are quickly flipped to third parties, often rolled into a pool; in any case, the original lender doesn't have to care about the quality of the credit, because the original lender will be long out of the loop by the time any default occurs.

We've already sitting on the biggest credit bubble in history without adding even more and lower-quality debt to the situation.

What's needed is to restore labor law to what it was before Reagan, so that workers can organize to demand pay commensurate with the doubling in productivity that's taken place since then,
AND also to roll back all the income tax changes and financial deregulation that have taken place since Reagan (i.e., re- regulate, including restoring Glass-Steagall, regulating credit derivatives much more stringently, outlawing LBO's and naked shorts, etc. etc.), which have also contributed to the enormous concentration of wealth – which in turn has driven up housing prices as the obscenely rich snap up hard assets in which to park their gains.

for a 30 yr note (same apr, same insurance, etc)

i have a feeling there isn’t as big a difference in monthly payments between the two as some might think.

And, considering that we appear to be heading into a climate of decreasing interest rates, the difference in monthly payment between the two loans will be collapsing. That said, for some folks on the margin of affordability, the longer term loan will remain the only option for home ownership.

It’s a problem that Donald Trump suddenly endorsed misguided 50-year mortgages. How he was convinced to support the idea makes it even worse.

It's a problem that Trump suddenly endorsed misguided 50-year mortgages.

The fact that an unqualified loyalist quietly persuaded him to support the idea during a brief chat at a golf club makes the problem significantly worse. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-11T18:04:44.510Z

. . .and saw it when checking my emails just a few moments before.

who have very low financial IQs, that you get a lower payment. Just like buying a car, the dealership wants to talk payment, not the cost of the car.

that consumers would pay 40% more in interest than they would pay on a 30-year mortgage. And everybody knows that the earliest payments made on a loan goes toward interest rather than the principal. So if the holder of a 50-year mortgage needed to sell the home due to a job transfer or something, they wouldn't recoup much of the cost.

(1) "Consumers would pay 40% more in interest than they would pay on a 30-year mortgage." - Absent any reference to an interest rate, this cannot be stated as absolute fact. In reality, the lower the interest rate, the lower the difference in total interest paid over the course of a 30 vs. a 50 year loan.

(2) "Everybody knows that the earliest payments made on a loan goes toward interest rather than the principal." - Again, not actually true. All payments made towards a traditional (non-reverse amortizing loan) contain some component that goes towards interest and some component that goes towards principal. The component going towards principal increases over the course of the loan. Thus...

(3) "If the holder of a 50-year mortgage needed to sell the home due to a job transfer or something, they wouldn't recoup much of the cost." - While the homeowner under a 50 year mortgage would walk away with less principal paid into equity than under a 30 year mortgage, they would still have seen their equity stake increase from the time they purchased the home. And - this is of utmost importance - the homeowner's increase in equity due to the increase in market value of the home - would be exactly the same under both mortgages.