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.

I really thought medical bills would solve that problem.

Without the benefit of renting. Hell don't forget home insurance.

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.

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.

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?

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.

At least someone wants to pay for your ass. I can't give this thing away.

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.

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.

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 parasites landlords too.

you....realize thats not only where this Lemmy Community is...but also your user account, right?

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?

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%

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.

No. Mortgage interest rates are in the 6's right now in the US

But we're not talking about getting money in the future. We're talking about getting full ownership of a house in the future, while being able to live in it for the full 50 years that it is being paid off.

The bank also isn't talking about getting money in the future, they're getting a steady revenue stream for 50 years.

So, I don't see how this really applies to 50 year mortgages.