A 50 year mortgage would substantially lower mortgage payments and help more people get into a home.
That doesn't mean you have to take 50 years to do it, but wouldn't it be nicer to have a lower payment when you were just getting started in life?
Most people end up refinancing several times throughout their lives anyways
Maybe at some point you can refinance into a 30 or a 15 year loan but this would help more people get started .
No - this is a terrible idea
This is a kick-the-can-down-the-road solution, and we've seen it before in Japan, and it was CRAZY.
In the 80s real estate prices in Tokyo were high, so they started offering 50-year mortgages to make things "more affordable..." if you stretch the loan, the monthly payment looks easier. But it's just extra leverage and we know what happens with leverage...
Prices went insane. At the peak, a single 0.44 square mile parcel in central Tokyo was valued more than all real estate in the entire state of California. The total land value of Japan exceeded that of the entire United States many-fold.
Then the bubble burst, and it was BRUTAL. Prices in Tokyo fell 60 to 80%. Tokyo real estate today is still > 50 percent cheaper than it was in 1989. Many buyers from that era never recovered their equity. Banks spent years holding bad loans, and the broader economy stagnated.
Longer mortgages did not make housing affordable. They made prices higher, slowed down equity accumulation, and left households more exposed when prices fell. The crash was deeper and the recovery was longer because everyone had borrowed too much.
For most people in the US, the house is the retirement plan. At retirement ~75% of the median Americans net worth is their primary residence. The 30 year mortgage aligns with people's lives - it pays down fast enough that they own their home by the time they stop working.
A 50 year mortgage changes that. Equity builds slowly. Leverage stays high. People remain exposed for longer. I like that we are thinking outside the box but this doesn't solve affordability, it hollows out the main wealth-building mechanism for the majority of the population and will have other bad implications IMO
The only solution is to build more! We need supply-side solutions not induced demand, c'mon.
A 50 year mortgage versus a 30 year mortgage would lower a mortgage payment by almost $500 a month on a $500,000 house.
That would really help young people get their own home .
The goal would be to refinance into a shorter term when you are more financially established, but this gives them a chance of not being stuck in an apartment their whole lives.
It's a good idea considering there aren't very many good options out there
🚨 For those of you saying 50-year mortgages are just a get-rich scheme for the banks… you’re right if nothing changes.
🧵 50-Year Mortgages: How to Help Buyers …..Not Just Banks
Trump & FHFA want 50-yr loans to lower payments.
…….But at 6.575%, buyers pay 2× the interest 😱
Here’s how to fix it 👇
(Example: $400,000 loan)
✅ 50-yr term → lowers monthly payment to $1,822/mo (vs $2,038)
✅ Cap the rate at 5% → cuts total interest to $518k (vs $693k)
✅ Stop charging interest after 30 yrs → saves $174k
✅ Make years 31–50 principal-only (~$1,111/mo, 0% interest)
✅ No prepay penalty → refi anytime, total freedom
💥 Result:
•Same low payment
•~$518k total interest (like a 30-yr!)
•Banks still profit
•Buyers finally win
Policy Fix:
1️⃣ FHFA → make 50-yr loans QM w/ 5% rate cap
2️⃣ Fannie/Freddie → 30-yr interest / 50-yr term
3️⃣ CFPB → ban prepay penalties
💥 Won’t banks just say no?
They still earn 5% for 30 years on a $400k loan ….about $260k in interest, roughly the same net they make on a 30-yr at 6.575% after early prepayments.
💥And if rates drop to 3%?
Borrowers can refinance out, penalty-free, into a new 30-yr at 3%. The 50-yr becomes an option…not a trap.
🏡 This is how we make housing actually affordable….. @POTUS , please consider 👆🏻
A 50 year mortgage is not progress. It's a step back.
It's what other failing countries offer.
There is a massive increase in total interest paid.
You’ll pay far more interest over the life of the loan.
Example: On a $400,000 loan at 6% interest:
• 30-year total interest: ≈ $463,000
• 50-year total interest: ≈ $773,000
That’s over $300,000 extra, just for stretching the term.
Slower Equity Buildup
Early payments mostly cover interest, not principal.
It takes decades longer to own a meaningful portion of your home, leaving you vulnerable if housing prices drop or you need to sell.
Higher Long-Term Risk
Because you owe more for longer, you’re:
• More exposed to market downturns.
• More likely to owe more than your home’s value in early years.
• Slower to build financial security through home equity.
This tweet is unavailable
It’s not a mortgage if the average life expectancy in the USA is less than the loan term. That’s a hereditary debt obligation bro.
How can you build build build AND propose 50 year mortgages. What you’re actually delivering is a 20 year delay on true home ownership.
So who really wins the most here? Banks and real estate developers. Just say it the way it is. You know better.
You should be working on establishing stabilized mortgage rates with @SecScottBessent.
If you could stabilize rates at 3-4% for primary residences (1 mortgage at a time per family), you’d end much of the fluctuation in home-buying caused by rates.
