But what’s the alternative? Houses are going to be expensive no matter what. I only paid 100k for mine which is relatively cheap for a house but I still couldn’t have afforded to buy it without taking a loan. My friends are now paying higher rent than I pay off my mortage every month. After 15 years or so I no longer need to pay the mortage AND I have a house I can sell but my friends are still paying rent and have nothing to show for it.
This is unfortunately a fallacy. Those paying rent don’t have nothing to show for it — they pay for a roof over their head. So do you with your mortgage. At the end of your mortgage term, yes, you have an asset that those paying rent don’t, but you also had to drop a large sum of money upfront that they didn’t. Theoretically they were able to invest that money you paid into other assets that may or may not have appreciated more over that same period of time. Additionally, renters are often much more able to move should their living circumstances change.
At the end, you both pay for shelter for a period of time. And yes the argument is largely theoretical and vastly dependent on external factors, but it’s not true that owning is always better than renting.
The alternative would’ve been where banks don’t own half of everything, but here we are. Next best thing would be that government would’ve kept prices in check, but instead are incentivized for prices to go up because even after it’s paid off the owner is still responsible to pay property taxes. If those taxes went toward preventing homelessness, I think would make more sense.
A mortgage where, for instance, 90% of each payment goes to repaying the capital of the mortgage, and 10% to the interest. There’s no way it’s fair that you should need to pay 2x the value of your house over 25 years.
But if I’m a lender and I have spare money to invest I can always just put it into the stock market where I’m on average getting a 7% yearly return. It only makes sense to lend that money to an individual if I’m getting a better rate. Otherwise I’m just losing money.
Then someone else will take that lender’s place. Mortgage lending will, at whatever percentage, produce a stable rate of return. If anything, preventing exorbitant interest rates mitigates much of the risk involved in lending.
Why would anyone do that when they get better return for their money elsewhere? You’re basically expecting people to do charity or simply just be incompetent and make bad financial decisions thus effectively making you the scammer.
That’s merely a desire for a more “fair” system or frankly just something that benefits you rather than someone else. The discussion here is about scams and my argument is that mortage is not one.
But what’s the alternative? Houses are going to be expensive no matter what. I only paid 100k for mine which is relatively cheap for a house but I still couldn’t have afforded to buy it without taking a loan. My friends are now paying higher rent than I pay off my mortage every month. After 15 years or so I no longer need to pay the mortage AND I have a house I can sell but my friends are still paying rent and have nothing to show for it.
This is unfortunately a fallacy. Those paying rent don’t have nothing to show for it — they pay for a roof over their head. So do you with your mortgage. At the end of your mortgage term, yes, you have an asset that those paying rent don’t, but you also had to drop a large sum of money upfront that they didn’t. Theoretically they were able to invest that money you paid into other assets that may or may not have appreciated more over that same period of time. Additionally, renters are often much more able to move should their living circumstances change.
At the end, you both pay for shelter for a period of time. And yes the argument is largely theoretical and vastly dependent on external factors, but it’s not true that owning is always better than renting.
(I say this all as a homeowner as well, FWIW).
The alternative would’ve been where banks don’t own half of everything, but here we are. Next best thing would be that government would’ve kept prices in check, but instead are incentivized for prices to go up because even after it’s paid off the owner is still responsible to pay property taxes. If those taxes went toward preventing homelessness, I think would make more sense.
A mortgage where, for instance, 90% of each payment goes to repaying the capital of the mortgage, and 10% to the interest. There’s no way it’s fair that you should need to pay 2x the value of your house over 25 years.
But why would anyone lend you money for free? What’s in it for them?
That’s not free. That’s just a less predatory rate of return.
I would further suggest that there is a hard cap on the interest which can be charged on any borrowing.
But if I’m a lender and I have spare money to invest I can always just put it into the stock market where I’m on average getting a 7% yearly return. It only makes sense to lend that money to an individual if I’m getting a better rate. Otherwise I’m just losing money.
Then someone else will take that lender’s place. Mortgage lending will, at whatever percentage, produce a stable rate of return. If anything, preventing exorbitant interest rates mitigates much of the risk involved in lending.
Why would anyone do that when they get better return for their money elsewhere? You’re basically expecting people to do charity or simply just be incompetent and make bad financial decisions thus effectively making you the scammer.
Hardly. The market still exists, and lenders can still make a profit, just maybe not as much. It’s not rocket science.
That’s merely a desire for a more “fair” system or frankly just something that benefits you rather than someone else. The discussion here is about scams and my argument is that mortage is not one.