vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower.
This is because short term debt needs to be rolled over to finance the long term project and so, when interest rates rise they will be refinanced at a higher interest rate. This means that it will end up costing more than if the company had taken out a long term loan at the lower rate. A long term project implies that the beneficial (incoming) cashflows will be long term but with short term financing the debt will come payable sooner which is why it needs rolling over; any beneficial cashflows are not  enough to cover the debt.
"... interest rates will go up.  When that happens prices will be kept down.   (if you can only afford $1,500/month payments and the interest portion of the mortgage goes up then you have less to spend on the house)  There are also millions of houses that are foreclosed or in some process of foreclosure that are being kept off the market.  That ""shadow inventory"" being kept off the market is keeping supply artificially low.  At some point the shadow inventory will be brought to market and as supply increases it will hold prices down.  ... [housing prices could drop another 20% or more](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577348083297932466.html)...  and it could take a decde or more before the housing market works through the effects of the great recession.  btw, I just refinanced again.  It was easier this time than any of the other times I've refinanced.  This time I got 2.875% for 10 years...  I'll save over 20 grand of interest over the next 10 years.   The banks are loaning money out, and at incredibly low interest rates."
"&gt;Well put and, honestly, seemingly unavoidable. Yes, there is an aspect of it that I think is the equivalent to ""ocean tides"" -- there are ""winds and waves"" of fortune (which are often mistaken as entirely due to ""merit"", when in fact the ""merit"" may have been only a minor factor). &gt;As I see it, RE is a crap investment for the foreseeable future as oversupply and oversize are not absorbed. People have to live, so rentals will be key; but, they have already bloomed quite a bit. I'd agree. I've looked into (and decided to ""pass"") on the whole ""buy up a bunch of homes &amp; rent them out"" line. There was definitely an ""opportunity"" with REO/foreclosure/distressed sale properties in the area, but after conferring and seeking advice from several *experienced* landlords, I have concluded that it is NOT the ""risk free/passive income"" mechanism that a lot of neophytes think it is; and there is substantial risk/effort involved, both in the form of capital investment (repairs, maintenance -- requiring both time &amp; money) as well as the unpredictability/probability of an interrupted revenue steam (bad renters are deuced difficult/expensive to deal with) as well as other costs (significantly increased property taxes, especially on rentals, etc.) The truly ""big"" gains (to my understanding anyway) of being a landlord are the windfall ""cash out"" phase (where, having had renters paying the mortgage/interest, you get the benefit of the capital gain on the sale of the property) -- but due to what I *think* (and sincerely believe based on the dempgraphics of Boomer die-off), I am fairly certain that said ""payoff"" will not be anywhere NEAR as large in the coming decades as it has been in the past (if the payoff even exists at all, and isn't a net ""loss"", especially in light of the work/effort/investment involved).
The only fair thing to do is to let each of you pay their own loans. That way, your brother will probably get out of debt faster and starts saving or investing (assuming equal down payments), while you'll be stuck with your loan for a while longer. If you want to minimize the interests you have to pay, you could simply borrow money from your brother. That way, he'll contribute towards your loans, and you will know exactly how much you owe him. Your brother may lend you money interest-free, or you could agree on an interest rate which is lower than what you pay on your loans, which will somewhat compensate your brother and still be beneficial to you. It still won't be fair though, because your brother might be able to invest his extra money with better interest rate, and lending money to you would prevent that.
"Doing what you suggest may actually be helpful. Today, you have wealth of 145k and debt of 140k, for net wealth of 5k. Your interest incurred is $671/month and your interest earned is $211, for a total loss of $460/month, just below the 491 $/month you are saving, so your total saving is $31/month currently. However, even though in total, you have more money each month than the month before, you are getting more debt and thus more interest to pay each month. Your interest earned is increasing much slower. That $31/month you are currently able to save? By the time you hit 51, that has become $0/month and is still dropping. By 60? Your debt has overtaken your retirement savings - that $5 net worth you have now is gone. If you were to withdraw money from your retirement to pay off your debt (with the $32k penalties) you would have wealth of 70k and debt of 97k, for a net wealth of -27k (i.e. net debt). Obviously, the above is not good. However, you reduce your monthly interest paid to $465, while also reducing your interest earned to $102. This is a total loss of $365/month, so you are saving $126/month. Note that in this case, your $491 monthly repayment is higher than the interest you have to pay on the account, this means that each month, your interest payment becomes lower, thus you pay off more and more each month. Your balance would be getting better each month (and at a faster rate each month. Your net wealth would be back in positives and above your wealth on your current trajectory before you hit 62. By 65, you will have $9000 of net wealth if you use your retirement savings now, as opposed to $9000 net debt if you don't. And just adding a few things on to the end 1) This is just the maths of it, and does not take into account your behaviour. If having that debt accruing is helping to motivate you to give up on luxuries, then this analysis does not apply.
One big factor that no one has mentioned yet is whether you believe in a deflationary or inflationary future. Right now, we are leaning towards a deflationary environment so it makes sense to pay off more of the debt. (If you make just one extra payment a year, you will have paid off your house 7 years early). However, should this change (depending on government and central bank policy) you may be better off putting down the very minimum.  In a year or three from now, you should have a clearer picture. In the meanwhile, here is a recent Business Week article discussing both sides of the argument. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186004424615.htm
Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour.
1) Make sure I have 4-6 months of living expenses as a Rainy Day Fund. Insulate myself from fluctuations in my financial situation. 2) Put away 15% of annual gross income towards ""future saving"". ISAs first, pension second. 3) Overpay the mortgage and look to remortgage as LTV drops. When LTV nears 60%, look to lock in to a longer-term fix. eg. 2 year fixes at 90% LTV, 5 year fixes at 60%. 4) Reassess steps 2 & 3 as life happens, circumstances change, work fluctuates, etc. 5) Once the mortgage is paid off, build as much wealth as possible - ISAs first, then non-tax efficient savings products. Aim for keeping expenses down and raising my savings % rate as much as possible. [Your analysis was thorough and shows you are thinking through consequences. Never forget to factor in the risk of carrying debt. Having no/low debt as you get older means there's more income left to build wealth. Ignore the American view of carrying debt for life and trusting investments to outperform the debt. You have to pay monthly to keep that debt around - and it ain't a pet!]"
Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%]. Let's assume you each can pay up to 20k against the principal of your loans each year. Finally assume for simplicity that you also have enough to pay off interest as it gets charged [so no compounding], and you pay in even instalments each year. Mathematically that means your interest each year is equal to your interest rate * your average annual balance. If you each go alone, then you will accrue 10% on an average balance of [(40k+20k)/2] = 30k per year, which equals 3,000 in interest in year 1, then [(20k+0)/2] = 10k * .10 = 1,000 interest in year 2. Total interest for you = 4,000. Your brother will accrue [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 = 500 in interest in total. Total interest for both of you combined would be 4,500. If you pool your debt snowball, then you will clear your debt first. So the interest on your debt would be [(40k+0k)/2] = 20k * .1 = 2,000. Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250.
no way to consolidate the various outlets (other than money)...  The best idea that the establishment has is to meter bandwidth which is patent laughable.  Could you have predicted something like zerohedge or infowars getting as much attention as it does today 5 years ago?  As much as you would like to write off the fringe, I think it's undeniable the force non-traditional, non-mainstream outlets have had over the past 5 to 10 years.... and it's going to get much, much worse for the mainstream mediocrity.
"It's not like Google did it out of the goodness of their hearts, though. Google did it so many people would consolidate their services with Google, casually forcing their users to use Google's very profitable search engine, which was and is arguably the best search engine on the internet anyway. This same idea is also what's making Google lose the social networking war to Facebook. They are trying to force fit a service that people do not want, as they did before with other Google products.  It was really a win-win for everybody at that time. But that same thought process might make Google go through some ""tough"" times in the next couple of years. But they are a cash rich company who can bring in literally the best talent in the world. I'm sure they'll make management changes and adapt accordingly."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/04/britain-addicted-debt-crash-2007-sub-prime-mortgages-personal-credit) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; This is, of course, what determined the depth of the last crash, the wheeze of the collateralised debt obligation, which left no one able to distinguish between a good debt and a bad one.  &gt; Alex Brazier, executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England, warned last month that consumer loans had gone up by 10% in the past year, with average household debt having already eclipsed 2008 levels.  &gt; Student loan debt is counted separately from consumer loans, and stands at &amp;pound;13bn a year.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6y43cq/we_are_addicted_to_debt_and_headed_for_a_crash_it/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~204396 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **know**^#2 **year**^#3 **much**^#4 **loan**^#5"
Quite honestly, with the current interest rates, you're better off getting a loan, putting the cash into some top performing equity funds and paying down on the loan. If for some reason you're in need of the capital, the stocks are going to be much more liquid.  Being debt free is a good thing, but there is also a right way to leverage yourself. At the end of the day though, and despite what anyone on this site tells you, you need to run the numbers, make the long term projections to determine what's the best route to take.
Idk if equating fiscal policy to direct changes in debt is the greatest idea. Yes if you buy one more F-35 your debt will increase by $160 million. However it's more complicated when discussing decreased debt, as for the direct cause.
Because idiots like you voted for Hillary, and Trump is much much better than Hillary. **Actually, Hillary and the Democrats (like you!) are so envious at how well Trump is doing.**  Anyway, to the point, Trump is reducing the debt like no other president, including Obama. Yes or no?
Trump said the filing was ""really just a technical thing"" as the best way to implement a restructuring plan. * Donald Trump personal bankruptcy (again) – Once again, Trump filed for personal bankruptcy protection and restructured his debt in 2004. * Taj Mahal bankruptcy – On November 22, 2006 Donald J. Trump’s casino empire filed for bankruptcy protection after months of negotiations with bondholders over restructuring a crushing debt. * GoTrump.com – Donald Trump's online travel search engine was launched in 2006. Just a year later it folded. * Trump 29 Casino – Now known as Spotlight 29 Casino because Donald Trump's ownership/management involvement ended in 2006). * Donald Trump Ocean Resort Baja – This Mexican resort was never built and investor's deposits (up to $500,000.00) have not been returned. Trump claims these buyers are “lucky” because they would have lost more money in a tanking market had the projects been actually built. * Trump Towers Tampa – Trump is being sued right now in Tampa, Florida for taking deposits on a 52-story condo tower that he never built. None of the buyers got their $45,000 deposits back. And in an ironic twist, initial sales of this condo were so successful that all deposits were returned to charge a higher price. * Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago – Trump built the second tallest building in Chicago… he also defaulted on a $40 million loan. Rather than having to pay the bank loan, Trump demanded the same bank should pay him $3 billion for ""undermining the project and damaging his reputation."" * Trump Magazine – Trump's private-labeled publication (which was aimed at affluent readers in major US markets) suffered from sagging ad sales. It folded on May 19, 2009. This was Trump's third failed attempt at offering a magazine bearing his name. * Trump International Hotel &amp; Tower New Orleans – If constructed, this Trump Tower would become the tallest building in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana at 70 stories high. But the project was put on hold in February of 2009.
Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.
What's the best strategy? Buy low and sell high. Now. A lot of people try to do this. A few are successful, but for the most part, people who try to time the market end up worse. A far more successful strategy is to save over your entire lifetime, put the money into a very low-cost market fund, and just let the average performance take you to retirement. Put another way, if you think that there is an obvious, no-fail, double-your-money-due-to-a-correction strategy, you're wrong. Otherwise everyone would do it. And someone who tells you that there is such a strategy almost surely will be trying to separate you from a good amount of your money.  In the end, $80K isn't a life-altering, never-have-to-work-again amount of money. What I think you ought to do with it is: pay off any credit card debts you may have, pay a significant chunk of student loan or other personal loan debts you may have, make sure you have a decent emergency fund set aside, and then put the rest into diversified low-cost mutual funds. Think of it as a nice leg-up towards your retirement.
"Yes I thought his flow charts did a nice job with a complex system.  Some thoughts:  * he makes the ""if your house ran a blah blah blah"".  That is a horrible analogy to make for an economy.  * He quotes the revenue to debt ratio as if it is static.  We are spending much more now then we traditionally do at the same times as revenues are lower than historic levels.  Ratios change over time.  * Either he chooses to ignore, or doesn't know, that a lot of the issues with the PIIGS comes from the aggressive use of derivative products to clean their books for the joining of the EU.  Like his ARM example, now the rates have changed and those trades have moved against the sovereigns.   * His lists the outcome of current monetary policy as binary.  Either we inflate to infinity, and the world explodes, or we default and the world explodes.  One outcome that comes to my mind is that we ease out of aggressive capital injection and move through this liquidity issue.  We then pay back our debt and live on.  I am sure there are many other outcomes  * Almost all the problems seemed to be supply side ideas.  ""banks just won't lend"".  I would argue banks and even corporations have cash, but lack demand for NPV positive projects and thus are sitting on it.  And or they are waiting for things to play out so they can invest with better certainty.  * I thought his discussion on Current accounts was very good.  We also need to remember in many of these countries you have weak and corrupt tax systems which make it hard to fund your way out of these issues.   I only point these things out for others who may watch the video and want some counter points to what the speaker says."
"Yeah, I mean it's natural economics that jobs go to low-wage countries, so I guess I can't be ""mad"" at that. But in addition, there's also a ""shift"" in debt from what was usually mortgages to student loan debt. It's not good because you're no longer ""paying yourself"" as you did with a mortgage, so money just gets burned...*and* you can't shed that debt...ever.   People frame it like a ""bubble"" but it's more like a long-term hamper on consumer spending. IMO, if the fed wants to help the economy, THIS would be the most effective bailout for lifting long-term growth. I don't have any student debt and I still think this is probably one of the better answers."
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2017/10/19/cfpb-student-loans-complaints/#7a5b4cfc6444) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Since 2011, the CFPB has received over 50,700 private and federal student loan complaints and 9,800 debt collection complaints, which have led to actions that have returned more than $750 million to student loan borrowers.  &gt; For federal student loans, 71% of complaints related to dealing with a student loan lender or servicer, while 28% related to student loan repayment and 2% to credit score or credit report.  &gt; Whether it&amp;#039;s Student Loan Refinancing, Federal Student Loan Consolidation, Income-Driven Repayment Plans or Student Loan Forgiveness, you must understand all your student loan options.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/784vwz/cfpb_has_helped_return_750_million_to_student/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~233271 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Loan**^#1 **student**^#2 **service**^#3 **borrower**^#4 **plan**^#5"
You stumbled on your second paragraph when you said gold is debt.  It's not. It is an asset you can hold in your hand that has zero counterparty risk.  Didn't read the rest because if you fell over so early, it's likely I'd be here all day correcting the rest of it.