Should 40 year mortgages be banned?

No they shouldn’t be banned, you’re speaking from a position of huge bias and comparing to an entirely different market and economy. In many cases I suspect what will happen anyway is people will take out a mortgage of that length to meet requirements now but before the term expires likely have different (smaller) housing needs and so can downsize, removing the issue.

That being said I assume to help alleviate the problem in your area you’ll be selling some or all of your properties for below market rates so people can take out a shorter mortgage on them?

Agree 100%. My late husband and I bought almost 30 years ago but I have eyes and ears, and I see what my younger colleagues at work are going through. None so blind and all that.

Ah I wondered who was being so vocal about something they clearly know fuck all about and then I saw the username 😂
This post is the property equivalent of no uterus no option - someone who bought 30 years ago has no idea what it's like buying now, to the point most would hopefully be embarrassed to voice their outdated views so loudly.
OP enjoy your property hoarding and pretending that doesn't make you the problem.

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator
So pleased you remember saying that now....however a shame you evidently still don't get it. And so now all those self-employed should move to the north...OK. And again, just because you could potentially get a job, not sure how you think everyone would be able to, and b) who would do those jobs in the areas the people gave moved from....

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator

and why not if you can get a job there, move your job there, self-employed etc
Perhaps because moving means - legal, moving and stamp duty costs; taking children from established social circles, changing schools; and a family support network developed from pregnancy?

My parents moved from north to south and we moved 20 miles from parents home in north London as property is a lot more expensive there
well, bully for your parents. My DH also moved from the midlands to the south, but he did so as a single 22 year old without university debts, children or other ties at a time when rents were low and beer was cheap.

people move, politicians recommend it - its historical - what is your problem with that??
See above and below

People move countries, FYI therefore moving a a few miles, 20 miles 100 miles etc is no big deal
actually it’s a bloody big deal, especially if you have young children or aging family for whom you may have to move back to the UK to supervise carers or face regular flight costs and upheaval in your personal and professional life multiple times a year. And of course, not all countries welcome you with open arms unless you have a nest egg and are of a profession that is needed. The US, Australia and Canada have very strict rules… unlike the UK.

Not everyone can afford a property or have the ability to manage it, hence council housing - the same housing where 2 million properties were given away at at 70% discounts in some cases
so you are aware that there has been a population explosion, an massive immigration influx and that waiting lists for council housing are years long (and if you get one your child may die of asthma due to mould and poor maintenance)? Waiting lists increased by 6.3% last year and currently stand at 1.29m households.

Even local authorities house people in different areas I'm sure of it -

The hundreds of thousands working from home - many have moved and many may - so whats the big deal in reminding people of that? Along with the self employed and the thousands working for NHS, post office, supermarkets, education etc etc

WFH is being phased out by most companies, the majority requiring you to follow a hybrid model; additionally what happens if you are made redundant? The job you’ve performed from Scotland or some remote rural area with few trains/motorways, because you’ve moved, happens to be in an industry based in the south? Or just a major city in another county? Well, the chances of getting another job are somewhat stymied aren’t they?

Ultimately, your lack of empathy or understanding of the complexity of modern family life is utterly astounding.

But your solution is for people to uproot themselves and their families to move to the opposite end of the country or to just save up massive deposits, which is nigh on impossible for many with wages stagnating and the CoL pushing prices up. You have to be under 30 to qualify for a 40-year-mortgage, so it's not like loads of 50somethings are getting them and expecting to live to 90 to pay them off. A longer mortgage term for younger people seems sensible.

Also, you mention paying off all your mortgages – did you have an inheritance that helped with that?

Totally agree re land banks. Imo councils should have the power to compulsorily purchase land if developers don't start building within a reasonable amount of time.

There's a brownfield site where I live that's had PP for 400 homes for the best part of 20 years. It's been sold from one housebuilder to another twice in that time, and there's still no sign of any work starting.

Not sure quite what you mean about "capping" private landlords, but if you mean capping the rents, I'm all for rent controls. And in principle, I wouldn't object to councils and HA's managing properties owned by BTL landlords, but I suspect those landlords would have apoplexy at the prospect.

I used to work in homelessness prevention and resettlement, and it was grim 10 years ago. I dread to think how hard it is to find places now.

Where is the cut off? 35? 30? When would be acceptable?

I personally think mortgages are good debt and am quite happy to have one for as long as possible.

Doesn’t make it a good idea though. If people need 40 year mortgages they likely can’t really afford the house. Prices will eventually drop if finance is curtailed anyway.

and why not if you can get a job there, move your job there, self-employed etc

My parents moved from north to south and we moved 20 miles from parents home in north London as property is a lot more expensive there

people move, politicians recommend it - its historical - what is your problem with that??

Why point blank deny saying it then?

I get your point op.

We have among the least affordable homes in the world, we really don't need any more things that make it easier for people to overstretch themselves to afford.

We need state managed increased supply of homes.

In our days - I do not recall having fixed rate mortgages

When was "our day" ?
I've had various fixed rate mortgages and we finished paying ours off 10 years ago.
I mean, obviously I didn't fix when we were paying 13 - 15% back in the early days, but once the century turned and people could breathe again, we had fixes.

Exactly.

Plus, once people are out of the 'paying for childcare years' then they are often able to make overpayments and reduce the term considerably.
Spreading it over 40 years, helps in the first few years, it doesn't mean you are going to keep it that long.

No point in moving up north if that isn't where your work is, though.

@DistinguishedSocialCommentator

Your entry at at 14:20 says "There are thousands of empty properties up north...people just need to move up there."

It sure was a lot of words though!

I'll try for one last time as I've posted this before at other MN's - IMO, the 40-year mortgages facilitate property price rises, fact.

Just because it's your opinion doesn't make it fact. Nor will posting repeatedly sway the vast majority of the thread into changing its mind and agreeing with you.

It's also a bit much to lecture the masses on buying property when private landlords like yourself are part of the reason why housing stock is low, pushing up prices.

It's OK....the op has solved it all by saying those who can't afford the mortgage should just move to "The North".....let's make sure all the teachers, nurses etc etc are aware of this as that wouldn't be a problem to lose all of them from elsewhere.....

So, a 40year mortgage simply means you can pay smaller monthly payments - which means you pay more interest over the period and less of the capital sum, but both buyer and mortgage provider are hedging this against the fact that when people sell on 5+ years time, their equity has increased significantly along with their salaries so that they can get a bigger mortgage next time.

The object of a longer mortgage is to offer a monthly payment that is equivalent to what buyers might pay in rent (ie affordable) where, although the debt itself doesn’t reduce that much in the short term, this is hedged against the increased asset value. It gets them on the property ladder and out of the rental market. At the moment 15% of mortgages are BTL - which means 15% of the affordable house market is out of reach of for first time buyers or people on low incomes who need to upsize.

These mortgages WILL make it easier for those people to break free of the rental trap and, obviously, will have an impact on house prices for 2-3 bed properties in certain/many areas. And likely mean that BLT landlords will a) not be as readily able to rent at current rates (if at all) and b) the value of their properties will come down as they are forced to sell OR they will have to lower rents.

On balance, I think this is a good thing.

So the only people I see actually losing out are people with a rental property portfolio. Well, tough. Over the life of the investment, owners will still have made a killing, they just won’t be able to continue doing so. Them’s the breaks in a capitalist market.