Why do people use mortgages, when they could just pay for the house in full?
Good question. If a person has a choice, it is probably better to pay cash. But not always. If your large pile of cash can earn more being invested than cost of the interest to borrow a similar large pile of cash, it is beneficial to get a mortgage. Otherwise pay cash. EXAMPLE: A house costs $100,000. I have $100,000 in extra money. I can invest that at 5% per year, and I can borrow an additional $100,000 at 2% per year. Since I can make more on my pile of cash than it costs to borrow another pile of cash, borrowing is better. Compound interest is the most powerful force on the planet according to Albert Einstein (maybe). That isn't likely for most people though. Here is the results from some online financial calculators. http://www.calcxml.com/do/hom03 Borrowing $100,000 with 2% interest for 30 years will cost a total of $148.662. You get $100,000, but it cost you $48,662 to do it. http://www.calcxml.com/do/sav07 Saving $100,000 in a bank account with an interest rate of %5 will be worth $432,194 in 30 years. By not spending the money you will earn $332,194 over the course of 30 years. So if you can invest at 5% and borrow at 2% you will end up with $283,532 more than if you didn't. It is a pretty extreme example, and financial advisers make a lot of money figuring out the complex nature of money to make situations like that possible. "The advantage of using a mortgage is that you pay for a house at TODAY's price, using TOMORROW's money. Your question suggests that you rightly observed that it was not a good idea around 2006 (the last peak in housing). That was when prices were at their maximum, and had nowhere to go but down. Some experts think that house prices STILL have further to go on the downside. Meanwhile, wages have been going nowhere during that time. This phenomenon seems to happen about every 40 years or so, the 1930s, the 1970s, and around 2010. At MOST other times, say the 1980s, houses are likely to go up for the ""foreseeable"" future. At those times, you want to buy the house at ""today's"" price, then pay for it in future dollars when you are earning more money. The irony is that what most people observe as teenagers is usually the wrong thing to do when they are, say, forty. In 2035, it will probably make sense to have a large mortgage in a bull housing market, which is the opposite of what you observed around 2010. So a better rule is to do at age 40 what made sense about the time you were born (in your case, perhaps the 1990s). Whereas the people born in the early 1970s that got ""caught"" recently, observed the bull market of the 1980s and 1990s in THEIR teens and twenties, rather than the bear market of the 1970s that took place about the time they were born." Besides all of the other answers, I will point out that many people simply don't have enough cash sitting around to buy a home outright.  It would take many years (or even decades) for the average family to accumulate the necessary cash. Also, while you are pinching your pennies for years in an attempt to save up for your dream house, remember that inflation is steadily driving up the cost of goods and services.  A house that costs $200K today could cost $230K in 5 years due to inflation. Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction.  This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower.  Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap.  That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate. A $100K house and $100K are not equivalent assets. Here's a hypothetical... You and I both work for the same company, and both get a $100K bonus (yes, I said it's hypothetical). You decide to use the $100K to pay off your house. I put the money in the bank. Six months later, our company lays both of us off. I have $100K in the bank. I can last for quite a while with that much money in the bank. You have a house, but you can't get a mortgage or home equity loan, because you don't have a job. The only way you can access the money is by selling the house, which requires you to pay money to a real estate agent and perhaps taxes, and leaves you looking for a place to live. That assumes there isn't something systemic going on - like the credit crash - and there is credit available for somebody else to buy your house. I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government. "Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become ""house- rich but cash-poor"". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire."
"Honestly, I think the best thing the government could do at this point is to stop with stimulus spending and let the market pick the winners and losers. The government is horrible at this because it just throws money where it makes sense politically, not economically (which is what got us into this mess in the first place).  Obama is repeating all of the same mistakes made by Bush, but to a larger degree. When the dot-com bubble burst, Bush &amp; Greenspan artificially lowered interest rates to 1% and printed money to ""stimulate"" the economy. The goal was not to create a housing bubble like what happened, but rather to get people to invest in stocks again. Instead, the people who had been bitten by stocks looked around and saw that housing had a history of increasing in value w/o nearly as much risk of loss, so they invested in housing instead. Clinton's and Bush's policies of guaranteeing loans to lower-income families for the purpose of buying homes also contributed to this, and the next thing you know - housing prices boomed because there was a massive demand... thus leading to the housing market crash of 2007/8.  But that's not all, you see, because as people started to believe that their homes would increase in value by huge amounts, they started spending more, risking more on the stock market, and generally going into massive debt because they felt wealthy.  So in 2008, when the housing bubble crashed, so did the stock bubble and the personal debt bubble, leaving many home owners broke, their retirement funds (401k's and IRA's) destroyed, and without any means of paying their mortgages, thus the rise in people losing their homes.  What has Obama's policy been? The same as Bush's policy, but he printed MORE (tripled our money supply in 3 years) and lowered interest rates even MORE (effectively to 0%).  What so many people don't seem to understand is that printing money effectively steals money from the middle class. It's a hidden tax on our savings accounts. If more people realized this, they'd be outraged. Luckily for the government, most people are mindless sheep willing to buy into the political propaganda being pushed by the media." To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank.  Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral.  Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose.  Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for.  Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime.  Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board.  Maybe interest rates have spiked.  Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property.  In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed.  Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up.  (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on.  This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value.  During this time, the bank is out $200,000.  That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure.  The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done.  There will be court filing fees and so on.  If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well.  If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees.  This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses.  You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you.  Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more.   That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed.  They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it.  If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick.  So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property.  80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot. "Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's   else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about ""paying someone else's mortgage"" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices." First, who is saying that it is a better option? In general it is best to pay cash for things when you can. I think the reality is that for most people owning a house would be very difficult without some sort of financing. That said, one argument for financing a house these days even if you could afford to pay cash is that the interest rates are very low. For a 30-year fixed loan you can borrow money under 4.5% APR with decent credit. If you are willing to accept even a little risk you could almost certainly invest that same money and get a return higher than 4.5%. With the US mortgage interest tax deduction the numbers are even more favorable for financing.  Those rates look even more attractive when you consider you are paying for the house with today's dollars and paying back the loan with dollars from up to 30 years in the future, which will be worth much less. It's easier to get approval for a smaller loan, and more down means less borrowed.  Also, more down means more they can recover if they have to foreclose. Besides the reason in @rhaskett's answer, it is important to consider that paying off a 30-year mortgage as if it was a 15-year is much more inconvenient than just paying the regular payments of a 15-year mortgage.  When you pay extra on your mortgage, some lenders do not know what to do with the extra payment, and need to be told explicitly that the extra needs to be applied toward the principal.  You might need to do this every month with every payment.  In addition, some lenders won't allow you to set up an automatic payment for more than the mortgage payment, so you might need to explicitly submit your payment with instructions for the lender each month, and then follow up each month to make sure that your payment was credited properly.  Some lenders are better about this type of thing than others, and you won't really know how much of a hassle it will be with your lender until you start making payments. If you intend to pay it off in 15 years, then just get the 15-year mortgage. It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration. "It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house ""all cash,"" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the ""renter."") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest."