vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The largest problem and source of anxiety / ruin for homeowners during the housing market collapse was caused by the inability to refinance. Many people had bought homes which they were stretched to afford, by using variable-rate mortgages.  These would typically offer a very attractive initial rate, with an annual cap on the potential increase of rate.  Many of these people intended to refinance their variable-rate to a fixed rate once terms were more favorable.  If their house won't appraise for the value needed to obtain a new loan, they are stuck in their current contract with potentially unfavorable rates in the later years (9.9% above prime was not unheard of.) Also, many people, especially those in areas of high inflation in the housing market, used a financial device known as a Balloon Mortgage, which essentially forced you to get a new loan after some number of years (2, 5, 10) when the entire note became due.  Some of those loans offered payments less than Principal + Interest! So, say you move near Los Angeles and can't afford the $1.2M for the 3-bedroom ranch in which you wish to live.  You might work out a deal with your mortgage broker/banker in which you agree contractually to only pay $500/month, with a balloon payment of $1.4M due in 5 years, which seemed like a good deal since you (and everyone else,) actually expect the house to be 'worth' $1.5M in 5 years. This type of thing was done all the time back in the day.  Now, imagine the housing bubble bursts and your $1.2M home is suddenly only valued at, perhaps, $750k.  You still owe $1.4M sometime in the next several years (maybe very soon, depending on timing,) and can only get approved financing for the current $750k value -- so you're basically anticipating becoming homeless and bankrupt within the same year. That is a source of much anxiety about being upside-down on a loan. See this question for an unfortunate example.
"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the ""priorities"" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase."
No it is not safe to take out a new mortgage - loan or anything credit related or any investment - in greece. Growing political risk, bonds have junk credit rating.  You will be underwater on your mortgage the day you apply for it. And you better believe that the buyers will be dry once you realize that it doesn't make sense to keep paying the mortgage. If you want to have some assets, there are more liquid things you can own, in your case: paper gold. Just rent.
It's great that vets have loans available to the that offer additional protections, but in a seller's market, which we are completely in, buyers should realize they need to make their offers as attractive as possible with as few barriers as possible. I recently put in an offer on a house, but was outbid by another offer to only have the seller come back a week later willing to accept my offer for 5K less because the other offer was a VA loan and they didn't want to deal with the hassle.  That being said, affordability aside, vets can get non-VA loans, so it's not like they have no options to make themselves more appealing to sellers.
A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max.  The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly.  If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership.
Are you going to need a new roof before you move? New driveway or landscape improvements? Having enough cash to make a down-payment on your next home can be a huge advantage because you can make a non-contingent offer which will often be accepted at a lower value than a contingent offer. By putting this money into your home equity, you essentially make it inaccessible and there's an opportunity cost to that. You will also earn exact 0% on that equity. The only benefit you get is to reduce a loan which is charging you a tiny rate that you are unlikely to get again any time soon. I would take that extra cash and build more cushion. I would also put as much money into any tax sheltered investments as you can. You should expect to earn more than 2.89% on your long-term investments. You really aren't in debt as far as the house goes as long as you are not underwater on the loan: the net value of that asset is positive on your balance sheet. Yes you need to keep making payments but a big account balance covers that. In fact if you hit on hard times and you've put all your extra cash into equity, you might ironically not being able to make your payments and lose the home. One thing I just realized is that since you are in Canada, you probably don't have a fixed-rate on your mortgage. A variable-rate loan does make the calculation different. If you are concerned that rates may spike significantly, I think you still want to increase your cushion but whether you want to increase long-term investments depends on your risk tolerance."
It's not usually a good idea to buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you want the house, not for an investment. Your money will make more money invested somewhere other than a house. Additionally, based on talking about renting rooms to pay the mortgage and the GI bill, I assume you are planning on going to school and not working? I am not that familiar with VA loans, but I imagine they will require you show some form of income before they are willing to give you a loan. 14% returns over the long run are very good, but last year the market was up almost 30%, if you were only at 14% for last year you left quite a bit on the table. I would advise against  individual stocks for investments except as a hobby. Put the majority of your investments into ETF's/low fee mutual funds and keep a smaller amount that you can afford to lose in stocks.
"Jack ""The Mortgage Professor"" Guttentag provides a thorough analysis of a similar-sounding system: In addition, I had the feeling that customers of Mortgage Relief should have gotten a spreadsheet for their $45, and wondered why they hadn’t? So I set out to develop a spreadsheet of my own that could quantify the benefits – if there were any. The major question I wanted the spreadsheet to answer was, how large is the benefit of using the Mortgage Relief scheme if you don’t have any surplus income but only just enough to make the scheduled payment? This is the critical question because we know that if you use surplus income to make extra payments to principal, you pay down the mortgage more quickly. This is so whether you apply the income directly to the mortgage, as most borrowers do, or whether you follow the Mortgage Relief procedure where you use a credit line to pay down the mortgage and current income to pay down the credit line. I spent much of my air time between Philadelphia and San Francisco on this project, and finally gave it up. Once I removed surplus income from the equation, I could not find a way to make the Mortgage Relief scheme work. You may also want to read related articles by Guttentag:"
You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money.
Certainly there are people who do pay off their homes.  Others do not.  It's a question of risk tolerance and preference.  Some considerations relevant to this question: Taxes - Interest on a mortgage is tax deductible.  Particularly for high earners, this is a significant incentive to maintain a mortgage balance and place extra money in the market instead. Liquidity - If you lose your job, you can sell stocks to pay the mortgage.  But if you have made principle payments on your mortgage but still owe some outstanding balance, you are still required to make monthly payments without any source of income. Rates - In recent years it is been common to get a mortgage for 3.2% to 3.5%.  The difference between those rates and 9% rate of return for the market is substantial.   There are other considerations but the answer in the end is that for many people the risk / reward calculus says the ~5% difference in rate of return is worth the potential risks.
"If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is ""pay cash now."" A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it.
I used to think that paying off ahead of time made sense, but I no longer do, at least in most cases.  The upside is that you can get a return on your money equal to the mortgage interest rate (it's less than that in the US, where mortgage interest is deductible, so it's roughly the mortgage interest rate * 1 - your marginal income tax rate).  There are a few downsides. The biggest is that cash is the most liquid asset you can have; you can get at it with no restrictions. If you put that cash into your house, you are converting that into an asset with a lot of restrictions; you can't get at it without fees, nor can you get at it if you don't have a job, which is when you would need it most.  So, you are putting your money in a hard-to-get-at place for a small interest rate. I don't think it is worthwhile. (edit) One complication is PMI. If you are currently paying PMI, it may make sense to put money towards the mortgage until you get to 20% and can get rid of the PMI.
It would improve your debt/loan ratio enough that you might then qualify for a USDA loan. However, I think you'd still have issues if you haven't both been employed at this rate of income for at least a year, and have made regular payments on all your debts for at least a year. I'll echo what others have suggested, though, strengthen your credit, eliminate as much of your high interest debt as you can (car, credit cards), and keep your jobs for a year or two. Start a savings plan so you can contribute a small down payment - at least 3-5% of the desired home price - when you are in a better position to buy. During this time keep track of your paycheck stubs, you may need them to prove income over the time period your loan officer will request. Note that even with a USDA loan you still have to pay closing costs, and those can run several thousand dollars, so don't expect to be able to come to the table with no cash. Lastly, there's good reason to be very conservative regarding house cost and size. If you can, consider buying the house as if you only had the 46k per year. Move the debt to the person making the lower income, and if you buy the house in the name of the person only making 46k per year, then the debt/loan ratio looks very positive. Further it may be that the credit history of that person is better, and the employment history is better. If one of you has better history in these ways, then you might have a better chance if only one of you buys the house. Banks can't tell you about this, but it does work. Keep in mind, though, that if you two part ways it could be very unhappy since one would be left with all the debt and the house would be in the other's name. Not a great situation to be in, so make sure that you both carefully consider the risks associated with the decisions made.
"If this is an issue of opportunity cost then there is a benefit. Mortgage interest rates are extremely low, low enough that they can effectively be used to indirectly fund investments. If one stores equity in a house, ie ""pays it off"", then that wealth returns only the rate of growth of the house less expenditures. If one borrows against the house to fund investments, then the above stated returns which on average exceed the mortgage interest rate can be augmented by the investments, yielding a greater return. The tax benefit is more of a cherry on top. If one is using this as a justification to spend then it is frivolity."
"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away ""tinkering in the stock markets"" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really ""enforced"" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom.  Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway.  When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a ""crash"" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!"
It's the physiological impact it has. If you took a loan to buy a home for $500k and you recently had it appraised for $450k you are more inclined to skip out on any home remodeling projects.   Also as ShakeyBobWillis pointed out it can be to your financial benefit to just walk away from an underwater mortgage. This creates even more glut in the marketplace.
"A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws). As such, the bank isn't an ""investor"" in your house; it simply is lending you money with the property as collateral. So, it doesn't get any share of the profit. As long as you sell the house on your own, for more than you owe, most of the time in the US you will get about 92-94% of the sale price back, minus whatever you owe on the house. The 6-8% you don't get will go to the realtors as commission (unless you sell by owner and don't sell to someone with a buyer's agent), and to pay some of the costs of the sale (how much of those you pay depends on the deal you make with the buyer, but it's common to pay some of them in some areas). You also will owe taxes (potentially). You then pay the bank back from that amount. As such, in your example, let's say Bob owes $50k on his house, and sells it with a realtor for $150k. He gets $150k-0.06*150k = 141k after commission. He then hands the bank a check for the current payoff of the loan: that amount is usually slightly higher than the remaining principal, because you owe the interest that's accrued between [last payment you made] and [day of sale]. Let's say this is a 6% loan, which works out to around 0.5% per month, and it's been half a month since his last payment, so he owes another 0.25%, or another $125. Some mortgages also may have prepayment penalties (check your note). In this case there isn't a penalty, so the bank gets $50,125 from the sale. Usually, the bank would get that immediately at closing - ie, he doesn't get the full $141k or $150k and then write a check, instead the title/closing company gets that amount, and gives the $9k to the realtors, the $50,125 to the bank, and the remaining $90,875 to him.
Unless you think it's likely that you'll move back soon, this is probably not the best way to get experience as a landlord. You might want to talk to a property management company and look at the fees they would charge to do your job as landlord. You should also consider that your mortgage may require you to occupy the house for a certain amount of time. Mortgages for non-owner-occupied properties usually have a higher interest rate and vetting criteria are more strict.
First problem I see is you'd be getting that rent per month, so you get 12% a year before taxes and related expenses. Loans will allow you to leverage your capital, so you can cover the mortgage payments with rent and still have money left over. Do this a couple times, and you can make serious money.   Obviously, I don't know the specifics but this is just my viewpoint of RE in general. There could potentially be many downfalls.
"In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years. They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house. Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance. I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea. The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get. Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde). If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting. This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board. I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde). Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles. Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house.
"In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house.   Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay ""eigendoms belasting"" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house,  keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house."
You could walk away from your mortgage.  When you signed the mortgage you and the bank agreed that if you stopped making payments the bank would get the house.  Give them the house.  Of course this would be a huge hit to your credit score and you would probably not be able to obtain another mortgage at a decent rate for at least 7 years.  You may have trouble obtaining other financing as well (i.e. auto loans).  If you plan on moving to an apartment and don't need to finance car purchases this may be OK.