Should 40 year mortgages be banned?

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

Reading and hearing more and more of this.

IMO, extending mortgages and making almost a norm re 40 years for many, and it was 25 years when we got our first and second mortgages - 40 years IMO is just fueling the price rises in property

AIBU seeking a ban on 40 year mortgages??

IMO, 30 yrs is more than enough and there must always be a minimum 10/15% deposit and a 2 year record of saving money. This IMO, will gradually settle property prices.

FYI, we paid off on our own property and a couple of rentals about 14 years ago possibly a bit more

NB: Of course, no government will agree to that as it will hold back national growth and ledners will definitely fight it as it hits their profits. But 40 years mortgage is more than a life sentence into

Our 25 year mortgages we paid off with 15 and 14 years respectively

40 yr metages benefits the lenders bigger profits and feuls property prices

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/hsbc-40-year-mortgage-deal-interest-rates-bank-of-england-marathon-prices-lender-bank-big-six-b1103513.html

The OP pushed up property prices by buying more homes than she needed to live in, and tenants got stuck paying her mortgages for her, making it much harder to save for a deposit for their own mortgages. Let's not pretend landlording is a neutral act. The OP is either clueless or deliberately trying to shift the blame for the social and economic damage her actions have caused.

Various things contribute to increased property prices, including multiple home ownership. Why not sell your rental properties at a reasonable price so that people can buy their own home without a 40 year mortgage? Just a thought.

I couldn't have bought my house without a 33 year mortgage, which isn't much different. My rent went from 1500 (2 bed flat) to 1900 4 years ago.

My mortgage is 1500, small 3 bed house in south west. Yes, it's a lot and we will repay loads but the rent on my old flat is now 2300. And we moved 40 miles away to be able to afford to buy. YABU.

What nis? No one forced them to rent, and you’ve no idea that they’d have been able to buy if she’d not bought them.

I think the more mortgages choices that can be offered the better surely? People's circumstances change and they can pick a product that best fits them and change accordingly

Of course we cannot speak to the circumstances of those particular tenants, but generally speaking BTL has been a significant driver in pushing up house prices so there are unaffordable for normal people.

Ah yes, I'm sure it was very tough for them to choose between renting and sleeping on the floor in the woods.

@ItsSerious* Various things contribute to increased property prices, including multiple home ownership. Why not sell your rental properties at a reasonable price so that people can buy their own home without a 40 year mortgage? Just a thought.*

Of course the OP won't sell up! It's soo much easier for the op to ask us peasants to stop taking out mortgages so they can then increase their rental portfolio and get wealthier

Op- The price of food has also increased , shall we also stop buying food to help curb the rise ? People are taking out such length mortgages as it's the only option for them - it's not by choice I very much doubt! Banning such length will certainly send the housing market in turmoil - actually on the flip side - it's people like you would vastly benefit!!

But that does not mean it’s the ops fault. Pretending every renter can buy if there is no landlords is batshit.

I’d like ban on banning stuff.

Leave people alone.

A house doesn't guarantee elderly care, there are many threads on here (and even IRL) where people are annoyed at being in the same care home as council-funded people.
Similarly, while there's no pension housing benefit etc is payable to an elderly person, same as a single person.

The key issue here isn't really 'how' to pay for houses, it's their availability in the first place. If they were plentiful, rents wouldn't be so high, and neither would prices. BTL is neither here nor there because the government outsourced their responsibility to provide social housing to the private rental market. If there was BTL but ALSO a load of social housing then there'd be no problem clearly.

Of course the population has increased naturally but many areas have seen an increase in demand from temporary residents such as students and second home owners. We're a multicultural, densely populated country. The Swedes are mostly homogenous (although I hear that it's changing), and a population density that's a tenth of the UK's. Long-term migration is a much bigger driver of UK population growth than Sweden. Similar challenges are faces in countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

OP, just because you did it one way, doesn't mean others don't want to do another. There is no need for you to interfere. 40 year terms allow more people to get started. And a mortgage is a loan on an appreciating asset so why would you restrict access?

Anyone who takes out a mortgage is a grown adult and understands what 40 years means. They are capable of reading the terms and any mortgage advisor would be foolish indeed to try to missell.

In most cases, if people start on a 40 year term, they adjust that when they remortgage, or make over payments.

So the only thing you seek to restrict is access. Which is pretty selfish no matter how you look at it.

I'm up for that as long as those they won the letter IE go up to 70% discounts on council property that they or their family or friends bought then sold on for possibly hundreds of thousands in profits return that money first. Then I will happily do what you are suggesting.

I'm not going to guess if you own a property, several or just rent as it is irrelevant but I have a good idea. HTH

True but you missed the fundamental point of my OP, IE, this type of lending only fuels property prices.

The governments are also guilty of fueling prices as you may recall the zero stamp duty etc, etc - what did that do, yes the property prices went up

FYI and as per my OP, We have a couple of rentals all bought for cash and would love to see prices rise and rise but we are also aware that rising prices are unsustainable at rates we have seen in the past.

Having said that, with our pound in our pocket worth a lot less thanks to Liz Truss and labour rate as well as materials having shot up - IMO, you won't see property price crashes like that of recent years and within the last 30 odd years

You are part of the reason house prices are astronomical OP, you ve taken far more than your share out of the housing market if you own additional properties.

I'm fortunate enough to be old enough to have bought before things went crazy recently but not old enough to benefit from the huge increases in the early 2000s as I was a college student then.

House prices where I am are crazy and I'm not even in the South. I have no idea how someone would afford to be a ftb today and I say that as someone who only bought my first house 10 years ago.

You missed the bit about almost 2 millions taxpayer properties given away at up to 70% discounts where owners sold up and moved back to rental in some cases. Yes, 70% discount is some properties even in London - it was like winning the lottery I guess for them

We've never wanted or been given a penny, what we have done is not just worked hard but spent, saved and invested prudently rather than living from hand to mouth via borrowing etc.

Yes, some people become ill and then go into debt - I'm talking about those that can work, do work but living hand to mouth by borrowing money to buy a car, pay for the new windows, extensions, holidays, nice goods etc - there is no need to that - why pay 600 quid for somehtung via loan when it only costs you 300 in cash?

I agree with @Meadowfinch, stopping 40 year mortgages just restricts access to a group who otherwise would be unable to afford to buy. There are many things affecting property prices, the biggest being supply, exacerbated by lack of development, BTL, Air B&B, and second property ownership. All far more than a few younger people getting a long mortgage term. All you would be doing is restricting the opportunity of home ownership more.

The only thing that fuels property prices (or any other prices) is demand.

As our population rises, competition for each home increases.

With 40 year mortgages, ownership is accessible by maybe 80% of the population.

With 25 year mortgages, ownership is accessible by maybe 40% of the population. The other 60% are forced into the hands of BTL landlords, private equity firms, the very wealthy and Rachman style sharks.

Which do you think is more desirable?

Totally disagree

The reason the "housing market is like that" my friends is that the gov has alfrwady sold, given away at up to 70% discount council homes that were built with the taxes I and you pay. The same people, many sold up and pocketed the profits and back into renting

I blame the gov for giving away 2 million taxpayer homes and those living from hand to mouth for lifestyle purposes. To be clear I'm not talking about the infirm/ill/etc

Disagree as it fuels prices!!

Why cant people save a larger deposit and live with parent like we did and our kids did before they put down large deposits

Sadly, too many people IMO want to run before they can walk.

40 year mortgages will fuel property prices and that is a fact as it impacts supply and demand

40 years of you are under 27 is fine. If over 27 then 1 year shorter for each year of age.

It's true, no one forced me to rent - I could have slept in my car for 15 years or moved back in to my parents' spare room in an area with no jobs.

There are a finite amount of houses. When landlords buy them, other people can't. This isn't complicated. We live in a society and our actions affect people we may never meet; this doesn't give us moral carte blanche.

You were lucky enough to buy your house years and years ago when the whole thing was far more affordable and achievable. You keep repeating in your OP how you have paid off this, paid off that, we’re able to get a 25 year mortgage. Yet you begrudge someone trying their hardest to own rather than rent. Right. Nice one.
It’s an impossible dream for so many people to afford their own home at the moment and that’s not because of 40 year mortgages! Completely tone deaf.

Again you miss the point I assume deliberately. We need landlords. For those who cannot afford to buy. Who don’t have a deposit. There is no way round this.

landords are selling up. And due to it rent is increasing due to shortage of supply . It is not the landlords fault you didn’t have a deposit

Your writing style is really odd. Like one of those chat bots