vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The difference it makes is in the magnitude of risk difference people will need in order to overcome the amount they're paying to keep their money ""safe"".    For example, if someone charged me $100 to keep $10,000 of my money ""safe"", such that I felt very very confident in getting $9,900 back at the end of a year, I might go for that if the only alternatives are to move it somewhere where there's a good chance I get less than $9,900 back at the end of a year.  In short, I might feel I lose less by paying that -1% interest rate."
"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to ""buy"" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make ""capital"" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase.  Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view."
Yea, typically if you sign up for a payment plan you have to pay something extra, whether it be interest, a start up fee, or both. I signed up for a payment plan last year and had to pay 75 dollars as a start up fee. OP if you can pay it up front and it won't hurt you in the short run I'd definitely go for the full payment option
The interest rate will probably be better for your primary residency, however the risk is higher too. In the event you can't pay it off - you probably would rather lose the second home and not the primary home. Re the tax benefit - it will be attached to the rental you're buying, since that's what the loan is for. However, if you have a HELOC on your primary residency, you can deduct interest on up to $100K on your Schedule A regardless of what you're doing with the money. This can be useful if the rental is losing money and you don't want to accumulate the interest deduction as passive loss.
"I will add one thought on to this thread.  This is a financial concept called ""Net Present Value"".  In plain English, it means ""What's the best use for your money right now?"" So, let's say you have an extra €300/month which is not being spent on living expenses. If you leave that money under your pillow (or spend it on beer or fancy electronics!) instead of paying off your startersloan early, that is costing you 300*(0.04/12) per month, every month.  So €1/month, or €12/year.  This is cumulative for the life of your loan.  So not paying €300 this month will ultimately cost you €120 assuming you keep the loan open for 10 years.  If you're saying ""pay my debts or spend the money on a snappy smartphone?"" the answer is that you should pay your debts. Now, here's the important part.  Let's suppose you have a better use for the money than beer or electronics.  Let's suppose you have a mutual fund which will reliably provide you with a return of 10% a year. If you put that €300/month into a high-yield fund, and if the returns are consistent, you are STILL paying that €12/year (because you invested elsewhere and didn't pay your debts), but you are realizing profits of 300*(0.1/12)=€2.5/month on the invested money.  €2.5-1=€1.5/month, which is a net gain.  So, in some cases, paying off your debt may not be the best use of your money. There are a number of other questions involved which are related to your exposure to capital gains taxes, incentives or disincentives for holding debt, &c. &c.  These are generally country specific.  A poster above who seems to be familiar with Netherlands law did a good explanation of some of those incentives.  I'm in the US, and our incentive and disincentive system is different. TL;DR:  It depends."
You want the net expense of the surcharge minus the rewards to be no more than the interest that you would pay otherwise.   Where t is the compounding period for the rate D expressed as a fraction of the overall period for D.  So if D is an annual rate (not the APR, the simple rate), it would be expressed as something like 1/365 if compounded daily.  That is the number of years in the compounding period.  If a monthly rate or weekly compounding, that would change.   And p is the number of such time periods in the grace period.  So if the grace period were one month, this might be 30.   Other variables are as used in the question, all expressed as percentages (which is why I'm dividing by 100).  The D rate should be the simple rate, like 6% not the APR of 6.24% or whatever.   Note that I'm saying <=.  When equal, there is no financial advantage or disadvantage.  You could choose either method for the same cost.  Now, one method may be more annoying to implement, in which case you might add a fee for it on one side or the other of the equation.  Or simply change the less than or equal to be just less than.   I may be missing something that you should consider but I don't know.  The problem is generic enough that pertinent details might be hidden.  But hopefully this at least gives you a framework under which to consider it.
No, there isn't. There are a number of reasons that institutions buy these bonds but as an individual you're likely better off in a low-yield cash account. By contrast, there would be a reason to hold a low-yield (non-zero) bond rather than an alternative low-yield product.
You're eligible to do whatever you please, regardless of what you owe as long as you're in a payment plan approved by the IRS which you follow religiously.  That said, let me incorporate some of the comments, as they're important: ChrisInEdmonton said: Note that almost all such 'opportunities' are scams. In order to   provide a complete answer, you'll need to explain the terms of your   installment agreement with the IRS. Also, just curious. If you have   the money to start up a business, why aren't you using it to pay back   the money you owe John Bensin added: I strongly recommend you read through a few links on work-at-home   scams, e.g. fraud.org, forbes, Wikipedia, and the FTC   before joining something like this, to be safe
"From a quick look at sources on the web, it looks to me like Money Market Accounts and savings accounts are both paying about the same rate today: around 1%, give or take maybe 0.4%. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's not a whole lot better than nothing. (I saw several savings accounts advertising 0.1% interest. If they mailed you a check, the postage could be more than the returns.) Personally, I keep a modest amount of emergency cash in my checking account, and I put my ""savings"" in a very safe mutual fund. That generally gets somewhere from making maybe 3% a year to losing a small amount. Certainly nothing to sing about, but better than savings or money markets. Whether you are willing to tolerate the modest risk or the sales charges is a matter for your personal situation and feelings."
The advantage of interest only mortgages is that they can increase your cashflow as you are only paying the interest and not any part of the principle. We have most of our investment loans on interest only for 10 years. When we got the loans about 6 to 7 years ago our LVR was only 60% and the property prices have increased by about 40% in that time. We also place our excess cashflow into offset accounts linked to the investment loans, so there is extra cash available in case things go bad. The disadvantage of interest only mortgages is that you are not paying off any principal for the length of the interest only period. If you are over extended this could cause problems as you need to rely totally on the price of the property going up for your equity to increase. As you are currently paying mortgage insurance leads me to believe your LVR is above 80%, so you would not have much equity available in your home. With an interest only loan this could pose you some problems. You should never try to over extend yourself, the slightest thing that goes wrong could get you into financial troubles. Always try to have some buffer to help you stay on your feet if circumstances do change for the worst.
Scenarios 1 & 2 are really just two sides of the same coin. Using the Future Value formula in Excel = FV(0.5%, 12, -100), you get $1233.56. In scenario 1, you would have $1233.56 in your bank account. In scenario 2, your bank would have $1233.56 from you, and you would have $100 less debt per month. They are equivalent transactions. Scenario 3 is really just a variation on scenario 2, localized to the United States. Because the interest is tax deductible, however, the rate of 6% isn't really accurate. Assuming you had a 25% tax bracket, you'd actually be getting back one quarter of your interest. Put another way, 7.5% mortgage interest costs you as much as 6% credit card debt. This is how you compare apples and organges - just turn everything into an annuity or a lump sum, using Present Value calculations. Finally, quick rule of thumb - if you owe taxes in both Canada and the US, your Canadian taxes are probably higher than your American ones. As such, any tax incentives will be concomitantly higher. If you only can only use Canadian tax incentives, then look to those incentives, other things being equal."
"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 ""invested"" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule.
"As @BrenBarn points out, when people say ""they like having a mortgage because they get the benefit of writing off the interest"" they typically mean as opposed to renting. You can deduct interest and real estate (property) tax payments, as well as some closing costs in the year you purchase the home. You are also building equity (instead of helping your landlord build his or her equity).  Take for example a single person paying $1,000/month to rent an apartment. This is not deductible. He has $1,800 a year in other expenditures that would otherwise be deductible (charitable contributions, etc.), but he doesn't itemize because it isn't more than the $6,100 standard deduction, so it doesn't matter.  He takes out a mortgage for $150,000 at 6% over a 30-year term to buy a similarly-appointed home. His new mortgage payment is about $900/month, plus he puts $100/month into an escrow account for property taxes, roughly totaling his former rent payment. Over the first full year, he pays about $9,000 in deductible mortgage interest and $1,200 in deductible real estate taxes. And because he is now itemizing, he can also write off the aforementioned $1,800. At a top marginal tax rate of 25%, he shaved nearly $1,500 (.25 * (9000 + 1200 + 1800 - 6100)) off his federal income tax bill -- with the same living expenses! This is a simple example with some arbitrary numbers to prove the point, and there are a lot of other pros and cons to buying vs. renting. But again, this is probably what they mean when you hear this. Others have covered the overpaying angle, and there are a bunch of other Money.SE posts on the same or similar subjects."
Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120. You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans. This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth. Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes. Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too. Whole life/universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time. An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York. We're in our early 30's. I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo. My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65. If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage.
Yes, this will reduce your total interest. But not by much. Scenario 1: You run up bills for the month totaling $750, and then at the end of the month you get paid and pay $750. Scenario 2: You pay $750 at the beginning of the month. Then over the course of the month you run up bills totaling $750. Assume you have carryover debt of over $750 so you don't have a credit balance at any point. Either way, the net change in your balance for the month is zero. Assuming you spent about the same amount of money each day, the difference in your average daily balance will be $750. If you're paying 18% -- I think that's a fairly typical credit card rate -- that's 1 1/2% per month, so the difference in interest will be about $10. Note this is the most extreme case, the difference between paying on the first day of the billing period and paying on the last day of the billing period, and assuming that you pay all your bills by credit card. So in real life the difference in the interest will probably be less. You're talking about a technique to save maybe five bucks a month. I suppose every dollar helps. But the real solution is to get your credit cards paid off so you're not paying ANY interest.
In my mind its not the same.   If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be  $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.
"I gather from your mention of ""stamp duty"" that you're in Britain?  I'm only familiar with US cards, but for them I can't see that there is any reason (other than a lack of self-discipline) not to use a credit card wherever possible, especially these days. 1) There are plenty of cards with no annual fee. 2) You get anywhere from 1-5% discount/cash back on purchases. 3) Many will give you sign-up bonuses, and a year or more of zero interest.  (So you put that money in your investment account, and odds are you make a profit on it.) 4) Even after the introductory 0% interest period, you get on average about a month of 0% interest between purchase and due date, during which period the money can be earning interest for you. I've made a good many thousands of dollars over the years doing this.  Again, the only drawback I can see is that you may not have the self-discipline to pay off the accounts before they start charging interest."
"Note: this answer is true for the UK, other places may vary. There are a couple of uses for credit cards.  The first is to use them in a revolving manner, if you pay off the bill in full every time you get one then with the vast majority of cards you will pay no interest, effecitvely delay your expenses by a month, build your credit rating and with many credit cards you can also get rewards. Generally you should wait until the bill comes to pay it off. This ensures that your usage is reported to the credit ratings agencies. In general you should not draw out cash on credit cards as there is usually a fee and unlike purchases it will start acruing interest immediately. The second is longer term borrowing. This is where you have to be careful. Firstly the ""standard"" rate on most credit cards is arround 20% APR which is pretty high. Secondly on many cards once you are carrying a balance any purchases start acruing interest immediately. However many credit cards offer promotional rates. In contrast to the standard rates which are an expensive way to borrow the promotional rates often allow you to borrow at 0% APR for some period. Usually when it comes to promotional rates you get the best deal by opening a new credit card and using it immediately.  Ideally you should plan to pay off the card before the 0% period ends, if you can't do that then a balance transfer may be an option but be aware than in a few years the market for credit cards may (or may not) have changed. Whatever you do you should ALWAYS make sure to pay at least the minimum payment and do so on time. Not doing so may trigger steep fees, loss of promotional interest rates. There is a site called moneysavingexpert that tracks the best deals."
To have cash value in the first place, you must pay premiums that are more than the cost of insurance. The idea is: your cash value grows over time to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy, where the cost of insurance is typically higher. This is illustrated above in an overly simplified way. This is a permanent life insurance policy that is designed to cover the lifespan of the insured. There is cash value that is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company (typically 3-5%). The premium is fixed for the life of the policy. It was designed for insuring the entire lifespan of the insured. This is variation of Whole Life. There is cash value; it is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company, but it does fluctuate year to year depending on the economy (typically 3-6%). The premium is flexible; you can increase/decrease the premium. This is basically a universal life policy, but the cash value sits in an account that is invested in the market, normally mutual funds. Your interest that is being credited (to your account with your cash value from investments) is subjected to risk in the market, rise/fall with the market depending on the portfolio of your choosing, hence the word ""Variable"". You take on the risk instead of the insurance company. It can be a very good product if the owner knows how to manage it (just like any other investment products). This is a hybrid of the UL and the VUL. The interest rate depends on the performance of a market index or a set of market indices. The insurance company states a maximum interest rate (or cap) you can earn up to and a guaranteed minimum floor on your cash value interest that will be credited (typically 0% floor and 12% cap). It is purely a method to credit you interest rate. It takes the market risk out of the equation but still retains some of the growth potential of the market. Term policy is designed for temporary coverage. There is no cash value accumulation.
Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.
The eligibilty of the deduction is based on what the borrowed money is used to purchase and NOT what asset is used as collateral.  So at the beginning of your mortgage, 10% of the interest is deductible because the entire loan was used to purchase the condo.  But when you withdraw money from the account the additional interest is usually not deductible.  It can get confusing with all the withdrawals and payments that will be coming in and out of the account if you happen to use it a lot like a chequing account. An easy example would be if you only paid the interest on the loan...  Say you had a $100 000 loan at 5% APY (for simplicity's sake).  After one year, you would have paid $5000 interest.  $500 of the would be deductible given that your office is 10% of the condo.  Then you buy a $1000 couch and continue to only pay interest for the next year.  You would have paid $5100 interest...  $5000 on money borrowed to buy the condo, and $100 on money borrowed to buy the couch.  So you can still only deduct $500. What happens when you pay back $500 against the line of credit?  Could you designate that 100% of the money should be applied to the non-deductible interest?  Or does it have to applied proportionally?  I don't know. I think it'd would be wise to separate the loans somehow.  Manulife may even have some tools to facilitate that.  However, I wouldn't recommend the Manulife One product.  I looked into when I was buying my house two years ago, and at that time it was too expensive.  The rate was the same that other banks were charging for a home equity line of credit (which was prime at the time).  You can replicate the Manulife One in a cheaper way using a traditional mortgage and a home equity line of credit...  The majority of the loan will be the traditional mortgage at (hopefully) a cheap rate.  Then you can use your line of credit as the chequing account.
I'm not familiar with US tax law in particular, but the general principle around the world tends to be that interest-free or low-interest loans are taxed as gifts of the difference between a commercial interest charge and the actual interest charged. You could also forgive ($13,000 - waived interest) of the loan each year. Also, remember that there's a lifetime exemption (covering inheritance as well) of $1,000,000 which can be used for any amounts over the $13,000.
Based on your situation, I'm not sure it should be an either/or sort of choice.  The less debt you have the better, but because the HELOC is secured debt, the interest rate should be rather low.  If you're trying to build a cash cushion for emergencies, it may help to figure out a few things first: Once you know how much you want to save and how long it will take, you can figure out how much longer it would take of some of the savings were diverted to debt reduction. If your credit is good enough to get a HELOC in the first place, putting some of your cash-flow toward both goals is an option worth considering.