저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프의 관세 수입 기반 2,000달러 스티뮬러스 체크와 50년 모기지 방안을 소개하며, 두 정책 모두 인플레이션 및 소비자 부담을 악화시킬 수 있다고 비판한다. 관세 위법 판결 전 지급 가능성, 중간선거 연계 가능성을 언급한다. 50년 모기지는 월 상환액을 낮추지만 총이자를 크게 늘리고 부유층에 유리하다고 본다. 금리는 2032년쯤 더 낮아질 수 있다는 장기 견해를 밝힌다.
다듬은 글
Donald Trump just announced $2,000 stimulus checks to be paid from tariff revenues. He's also in the last 48 hours had his housing director talk about introducing the 50-year mortgage. We're going to talk about both of these as they're both a form of sort of support for the American consumer in this video.
So, let's get into it. First things first, the Donald Trump takes the truth social. We've seen him do this before. He's done this one or two times before where he says, "Wow, we're going to make or we are making so much revenue from tariffs that we're going to provide some form of dividend to the American consumer." Now, we haven't heard how much yet.
We know this has been on Donald Trump's radar, but we've never actually seen a number from him or a time frame. And right now, that number, Donald Trump said, is $2,000 to Americans except for highincome earners. So, let's assume if we've got uh if we don't include children here, um we just look at adults for a moment.
That's about 150 million American workers. Take out higher income workers. And hey, we're going to have somewhere around 140ish 130ish million people qualifying for these. So, we're going to be looking at close to 260 to $300 billion of an expense if we send those $2,000 checks out uh to everyone. Now, when would how does that sort of reconcile with tariff revenue now?
Great. So far, we've only collected about $90 billion. So, we're not close to that yet. We'd actually have to uh spend a little bit more uh or or collect a little bit more or wait a little longer. But, I don't think Donald Trump has the luxury of waiting. The problem with waiting is Donald Trump is now up against the Supreme Court evaluating whether or not his tariffs are are even reasonably legal uh in the United States.
And the risk there is that if those tariffs Oh, hello. Uh if those tariffs, the AIPA tariffs are declared illegal, then obviously you're not going to have this annualized potentially $250 to $3300 billion of revenue, which you could then use to spend on either American dividend checks, like stimulus checks, or investing in the American Dome or whatever other projects Donald Trump wants to invest in.
you could really not pick so many different things without the country going into debt, especially since tariff revenue was always pitched as something that Trump would use to pay down the national debt. This would instead just distribute essentially tariff revenue, which in part is coming from higher prices that we're paying anyway.
And that sort of creates a little bit of a challenge with what Donald Trump says in his post because he says, "Oh, we're so rich there's no inflation." But we all know the cost of living over the last 5 years has skyrocketed. The problem is that increasing has not stopped, right? We're still on a trajectory of increasing and above 2% inflation.
And I hate to say it, but tariffs are probably contributing another probably between.5 to a full 1% towards inflation. Uh, and so it's not helping, in other words, that Donald Trump's tariffs are uh inflationary. Now, one thing to know uh is that Donald Trump's tariffs right now are are being disputed as potentially illegal.
The AIPA tariffs are a big deal be not because Donald Trump doesn't have another potential section that he could use. In fact, Donald Trump has plenty of other potential sections that he could use. If I look at uh a little list I wrote here, if Donald Trump's AIPA tariffs are ruled illegal, then Donald Trump's other options might be to use section 338 for retaliatory tariffs.
He could use section 232 for quotas on national security, section 122 for temporary tariffs, section 2011 for protectionary tariffs, so you know protectionist measures, section 301 for unfair trade practices. uh and there are other clauses he could utilize such as um anti-dumping clauses to uh basically tariff or fine countries like China.
The issue with all of this is the Supreme Court is already aware of the potential that Donald Trump might want to use one of these other categories. And if you use one of these other categories, the the Supreme Court might decide, you know what, we're just going to rule all of these potential tariffs illegal without an act of Congress, not just AIPA tariffs.
So, there is this potential that Trump wants to rush ter these these stimulus checks out before the Supreme Court rules because the Supreme Court might rug pull him and then he could say, "Oh, but I already spent the money. Please don't make me pay it back." So, how would that function? All right. First of all, the uh ruling on the AIPA tariffs I is not expected soon.
The way the Supreme Court operates uh is that you're going to get uh a hearing usually around November, which is what we're seeing now. And then it'll take about 4 to 6 months for the Supreme Court to actually deliberate on all the different cases, put together their opinions, minority and majority opinions, uh and then actually reveal that.
Usually the reveal of these decisions is somewhere between February and May which means there is a potential Donald Trump pushes for some form of stimulus dividend if you will or stimulus check before that February to May period when the Supreme Court rules. That way he could say I already spent the money.
I I can't just like get that money back from the American people. Supreme Court are you telling me I should tell all Americans that they now have to send their stimulus check back because of you? It's kind of a, you know, he's trying to play for 4D chess here. We know exactly what he's doing, but it makes sense what he's doing.
I don't know that he'll be able to pull it off. And so, what will actually end up happening is the country will just go into more debt rather than actually paying off debt, which is pretty typical for a politician. I mean, frankly, we have seen stimulus checks weaponized in almost every election before.
Gavin Newsome had stimulus relief checks or sorry inflation relief stimulus checks uh back when he was in not only his recall election but in his reelection we have seen uh Biden promised checks in order to win against Donald Trump which Donald Trump of course issued $600 checks. Biden said he was going to top him off to uh $2,000 which he did with then a $1,400 stimulus check.
Uh, in fact, after Donald Trump lost, he was so frustrated that at one point he actually threatened holding up those $600 stimulus checks, and that made for a pretty dramatic uh, holiday season. Uh, but anyway, typically when we look at it in, you know, stimulus checks, I I think we're all relatively convinced that they are inflationary at this point, but people have been suffering so much that Americans would just absolutely love a little bit of extra relief and a little bit of help.
Right now, unfortunately, it's politicians policies that tend to just make things worse and not better. And that's true on both sides. They all promise to pay down debt and cut spending and then they increase spending and increase the debt. We always get the opposite. That's always how it is. Uh but whatever, you know, they got they do whatever they do to to win elections.
And so, we're just going to look at it and go, listen, this is what's being said. Uh and I think there is a strategic opportunity for Donald Trump to do this uh before the Supreme Court makes a ruling which would be before that February to May range. So maybe it's like a January uh you know dividend or something.
Uh there is also a possibility though that he chooses to wait until midterms. If he chooses to wait until midterms that's a strategic opportunity for him to you know try to win the elections uh and and take remain retain control of Congress. The issue with this is it might be too little too late. And if there's too much frustration and Democrats end up sweeping, then they've just never happened.
So, I think you don't really want to see these checks uh conditioned upon, certainly not conditioned upon the election because then they're definitely not going to happen if Democrats uh win too many seats. I could see Trump doing that. Like, I'll do $2,000 if you vote for Republicans. I could see him doing that.
Sort of like buying it uh the election, which again, politicians on both sides have done before. could see him doing that. That would push the checks probably closer to September uh to make sure there's time for them to release. But in 2026, there's actually a good shot of Donald Trump doing this here because a he wants to remain popular.
Every time we get dips in popularity or voter approval, we see these sort of ideas come out. Oh, the stock market's at record high. Great. That helps people who already have wealth, but what about the people who don't? Okay, how about the 50-year mortgage? Or how about, you know, a stimulus check? Okay.
So, a lot of people are saying, Kevin, you know, what do you think about the 50-year mortgage? Like, you know, this this like on one hand, it's an opportunity for for people to get into the door, you know, which now the Trump administration is saying that they're actively considering the 50-year mortgage.
Look, the 50-year mortgage reduces your monthly payment upfront, obviously. So, on a monthly basis, you're paying less, and that's because you're paying more interest over the life of the loan. Uh, and on every one of those initial checks, you're paying way less principal down. It's almost initially like an interestonly loan.
It's not great. Now, when it comes to are they good or bad? Well, it's a choice, right? You don't have to choose a 50-year mortgage, but what will happen is a lot of people will use a 50-year mortgage to get their foot in the door of owning real estate. Uh, and that's where as a real estate professional, I always say what you buy matters more than how you buy it.
So, for example, if let's say you buy this hut over here and that hut is worth $600,000 and you buy it for $500,000, I don't really care if you buy it with a 100-year mortgage or a 15-year mortgage because your equity might shoot up by $100,000. Let's say maybe it needs $10,000 of painting carpet, right?
Right? You're up $90,000. That difference, that's buying a wedge deal. That's what I preach on the channel, right? Like it doesn't matter really how you finance it. It matters that you're getting a good deal. The risk is that a lot of people will utilize this for new construction homes, which are typically slightly above market value.
One of the reasons I always say new construction homes sell for slightly above market value is because in new construction neighborhoods, builders are incentivized to never let the price go down. The reason they're incentivized to never let the price go down is because if price goes down, it makes it impossible for them to sell the next building basically or or you know the next same floor plan in a further phase.
So think about this. If you've got you know homes selling for $400,000 in phase one and in phase two they're selling for $390,000, people are going to go, "Oh, damn. Well, I'll just not buy. I'll just wait until phase 5 cuz then they'll be 350." You know, so builders are incentivized to go, "No, no, no.
We need the price to keep going up." So what do they do? Well, then they do interest rate buy downs. They'll do permanent buy downs to 3%. A 50-year mortgage. They'll do an intro teaser rate as low as 0.95, which is 1%. Very similar to the stuff we saw in 2008, except now you have to actually qualify for the full payment rather than just the teaser rate.
In 2008, you only had or 2005 and 6, which led to it, you only had to qualify for the teaser portion, which was just insane. This is how unqualified people were getting into massive, massive debt. Now I personally right now I'm I'm very grateful because I'm debtree uh you know zero personal debt margin lines, credit lines, mortgages, nothing.
Uh which is a very big shift from where I usually stand. And the reason I bring it up is because one of the big issues I think exists today is you could find a really good deal on a property, but if you saddle yourself with too much debt or high interest rate debt, like some of these 7% loans we're seeing, well, and now you're creating a really big hurdle for you to try to go make more money somewhere else.
And I think at some of these high rates, it's still too risky to take on debt. So, I'm not the biggest fan of rates at these levels. So, that is a risk and it does put more pain on really finding a great deal. So, this is where a 50-year mortgage will be nice as inflation eventually cools. I I still think by 2032, rates will be even lower than they've ever been in the past.
Uh and and then the 50-year mortgage will be great, but guess who's really going to benefit? You know, if rates start coming down, there's a potential we've gone through a jobless recession. And the people who benefit, once again, are wealthier people who then say, "Oh, well, I have these properties here that I'm renting out to, you know, families who have been stuck renting." Uh, and then you go to those families, you're like, "Hey, you want to go buy a place with a 50-year mortgage?" And what do they say?
No. You know what? I'm going to stick to renting because I don't even have any down payment money saved up. So, you know, does it really help affordability? I mean, it helps a little bit with the monthly payment. the lifetime interest that you're going to pay is going to be massively more, but hey, it's going to help some people get in the door.
Is it going to be a good form of debt? Well, again, depends on how good the deal was. So, uh, you know, this gives us a little bit of a breakdown, not just on some of this, like some of the policies that we're seeing here from Trump, not only on a $2,000 stimulus dividend, but then also this potential of a 50-year mortgage, which is really again just a form of trying to appeal to people are frustrated with their ability to afford things like a house today.
These policies though tend to have the opposite effect, right? So to relieve inflation by issuing a stimulus check, we're probably increasing inflation. To relieve uh trade practices, we're making trade practices more unfair and more unilateral rather than diplomatically negotiated. And then what happens?
We end up with not only a higher cost of living, uh companies that have to pay higher prices and they try to feed that through to us in the form of higher restaurant bills or, you know, goods bills or shipping service bills or whatever, right? we end up paying it. Uh so Goldman Sachs believes that about 88% of all tariffs are paid for by Americans in one way or another.
So we're really just getting sort of like a refund on the very things that we've been paying more money for, which is frustrating, but you know, whatever. Uh and and then of course with a 50-year mortgage, the goal is to try to help people have access to more affordable, you know, houses. But unless they have the money for a down payment and the fix up because they're trying to get a good deal, then once again, the 50-year mortgage will just end up benefiting wealthier people.
All of this obviously happens that air traffic control uh is is, you know, freaking out to the point where we had to cut 10% of flights. It was about 4% of flights. I guess it's 10% of certain airports. So certain major hubs had about 10% of their flights canled like Chicago or LAX which I think translated down to about 4% of total flights.
We expect this to increase by another 10% this upcoming Friday. International flights are supposedly not going to be affected, but it's just a giant mess is what it is. I think they'll get the government reopened before Thanksgiving mostly because that is such an important and critical consumer uh week.
Black Friday, Cyber Monday, uh you know, pe people traveling. Uh and so there are going to be substantial disruptions here if the government isn't reopen by Thanksgiving. But we'll see. That's politics for you. Good luck out there.
Comments 0