Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The underlying problem is that we have not built enough new housing stock for years. Assuming overall affordability is the goal, this mortgage hack is not going to fix that.
Also its not going to make as big a difference in monthly affordability as the PP's calculations assume. Just like the 30 year mortage rate is > a 15 year, a 50 year rate will be even higher than the 30.
And, even assuming banks and consumers adopt this at scale (a big assumption, imo), that would juice demand without increasing supply, resulting in even higher home prices.
I'd focus on reducing barriers/increasing incentives to build affordable housing stock.
--signed, an economist
Converting the mortgage interest deduction to a refundable tax credit (with an income cap) would go a long way to helping affordability and benefit first-time homebuyers.
Not without increasing supply. Address that first, then play games with payment affordability (if you still need them).
We don’t need to increase supply that much us population will start to decline within 30 years with the current immigration restrictions and deportations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You don’t build any equity. If you’re cool with an interest-only mortgage then good for you.
And home ownership had been a way for people with middle class incomes to build wealth. Can't have that.
It will mean that the government is on the hook for paying more in Medicaid for nursing home care because nobody has their house as a piggy bank anymore. The average net worth of a person will fall dramatically. But yes, banks will win big.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The underlying problem is that we have not built enough new housing stock for years. Assuming overall affordability is the goal, this mortgage hack is not going to fix that.
Also its not going to make as big a difference in monthly affordability as the PP's calculations assume. Just like the 30 year mortage rate is > a 15 year, a 50 year rate will be even higher than the 30.
And, even assuming banks and consumers adopt this at scale (a big assumption, imo), that would juice demand without increasing supply, resulting in even higher home prices.
I'd focus on reducing barriers/increasing incentives to build affordable housing stock.
--signed, an economist
Converting the mortgage interest deduction to a refundable tax credit (with an income cap) would go a long way to helping affordability and benefit first-time homebuyers.
Not without increasing supply. Address that first, then play games with payment affordability (if you still need them).
Anonymous wrote:It's fine when values are rising. Not so much if property values decline. Then you're F'd, the bank if F'd, and the nation who has to bail out the loan is F'd.
Anonymous wrote:Why not a 100-year loan? Or how about a 1000-year loan?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The underlying problem is that we have not built enough new housing stock for years. Assuming overall affordability is the goal, this mortgage hack is not going to fix that.
Also its not going to make as big a difference in monthly affordability as the PP's calculations assume. Just like the 30 year mortage rate is > a 15 year, a 50 year rate will be even higher than the 30.
And, even assuming banks and consumers adopt this at scale (a big assumption, imo), that would juice demand without increasing supply, resulting in even higher home prices.
I'd focus on reducing barriers/increasing incentives to build affordable housing stock.
--signed, an economist
Converting the mortgage interest deduction to a refundable tax credit (with an income cap) would go a long way to helping affordability and benefit first-time homebuyers.
Anonymous wrote:The underlying problem is that we have not built enough new housing stock for years. Assuming overall affordability is the goal, this mortgage hack is not going to fix that.
Also its not going to make as big a difference in monthly affordability as the PP's calculations assume. Just like the 30 year mortage rate is > a 15 year, a 50 year rate will be even higher than the 30.
And, even assuming banks and consumers adopt this at scale (a big assumption, imo), that would juice demand without increasing supply, resulting in even higher home prices.
I'd focus on reducing barriers/increasing incentives to build affordable housing stock.
--signed, an economist