I was talking to my dad about his finances and his retirement plan when he mentioned he still has about another 30 years left on their mortgage. At first I thought he was confused and thought he had 30 years left because that was the total length of the loan. I told him there was no way he had 30 years left because they have been living in the same house for almost 20 years. I then had him login me into his mortgage account and sure enough he somehow has a 52 year mortgage with 30 years left. My question is should I have him pay as much as he possibly can to pay it off quickly or should I continue to let him make the minimum payment? He has no other debt besides the mortgage. His reasoning for only making the minimum payments is that it's a 3% loan and that money is better off earning interest somewhere else. He will be 87 by the time he pays off the house if he continues to make the minimum payments.
Found it here/for the Twitterinos:
I am once again begging Redditors to stop posting Ls:
For some reason this becomes a /r/childfree struggle session:
Folks can't figure out if this is good or not? Idk didnt read:
OP is getting mogged by his dad and its worse when Redditors are saying it:
Edit:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well, this sort of thing is exactly why the 2008 crash happened. It's entirely the bank's fault for being r-slurred enough to issue that loan.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
why? if he dies they get the fricking house
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Only if he does not have a will, and a boomer smart enough to take this loan probably does. The debt will go to the recipient of the house.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
and how is that a fricking problem for the bank?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Because it means they still have to let the recipient pay 10 dollar mortgage payments.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that's not what were talking about
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was my reply to this question
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Over 40 years with that kind of payment the chance of default is extremely high, and simply taking the house doesn't really cover it.
Repossession is usually the last resort, and when that happens the house tends to be trashed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's no secret that home loans in the 2000s weren't being verified properly and the paper value of houses was inflated. The bank may take over and sell a defaulted house, but the cost of that process plus repairing the damage done by the previous owners usually exceeds the money made back.
Repossession is a last resort to recover at least some money, it's still a major loss.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context