Mortgage or not?
"I often say ""don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog."" I need to change that phrase a bit to ""don't let the tax tail wag the mortgage dog."" Getting a tax deduction on a 4% mortgage basically results (assuming you already itemize) in an effective 3% rate mortgage. The best way to avoid tax is save pretax in a 401(k), IRA, or both.  You are 57, and been through a tough time. You're helping your daughter through college, which is an expense, and admirable kindness to her. But all this means you won't start saving $10K/yr until age 59. The last thing I'd do is buy a bigger home and take on a mortgage. Unless you told me the house you want has an in-law apartment that will bring in a high rent, or can be used to rent rooms and be a money maker, I'd not do this.  No matter how small the mortgage, your property tax bill will go up, and there would be a mortgage to pay. Even a tiny mortgage payment, $400, is nearly half that $10K potential annual savings plan.  Your income is now excellent. Can your wife do anything to get hers to a higher level? In your situation, I'd save every cent I can." Better in terms of what? less taxes paid? or more money to save for retirement? In terms of retirement, it would be better for you to keep the condo you currently have for at least two reasons: You wouldn't incur the penalties and fees from buying and selling a home. Selling and buying a home comes with a multitude of fees and expenses that aren't included in your estimation. You aren't saddled with a mortgage payment again. You aren't paying a mortgage payment right now. If you set aside the amount you would be paying towards that, it more than covers your taxes, with plenty left over to put towards retirement. "Short answer:  No. Longer answer:  The only reason to move would be to get out of the condo and into a SFR of equal cost because condos can be quite difficult to sell and you don't really want that potential burden later on.  Moving is expensive though and you can't afford to spend more when you are already living on the financial edge. Speaking of living on the edge, that's a recipe for disaster.  I make, ratio-wise, a similar sort of income.  Even accounting for the generous college tuition, you should be able to save at least $20K per year...at a bare minimum.  And if you were careful, I figure you should be able to save $40K/year.  You need to figure out where you are dumping all of your money and cut WAY back on spending and focus entirely on saving money. 1)  Stop eating out.  Make your own meals.  I average about $2 per meal per person - no junk food.  Eating out is 6 to 30 times as expensive as making meals at home.  Do the math:  $10 * 2 people * number of times you eat out per week * 52 ($1,040 per year for each time/week!) vs $2 * 2 people * 21 (3 meals per day) * 52 ($4,368 per year for both of you...maximum).  Now I know some meals are more expensive to prepare, but the math is not unrealistic - I spend about $140 per month on groceries and make the bulk of my own food.  Eating out is sticker shock for me.  The food I prepare is nutritionally balanced and complete.  Now I'm not a complete health-nut.  I love the occasional deep-fried treat or hamburger, but those are ""once every couple of months"" sort of things, which makes them special. 2)  Stop going to Starbucks or wherever you habitually go.  It takes fuel to get there.  It's also expensive when you get there.  Bring your own drink if you are hanging out with friends. 3)  Drop golf.  Or whatever expensive sport you are sinking money into.  Invest in some cheap running clothes and focus on cardio-based workouts.  Heart health is more important than anything else.  If you can't live without your sport, then find an alternate sport that is ""equal""-ish in challenge but a ton cheaper to play.  For example, if you like playing golf, play discgolf instead (most cities have courses) - there's no cost beyond a couple of discs and the challenge is still there. 4)  Drop entertainment.  Movies at the theater are expensive.  Drop your cable subscription (you are getting financially raped for $1,500/year).  Get a Netflix subscription and find shows via free online streaming services.  Buy some dominoes, card games, and a couple of classic board games.  Keep entertainment simple and cheap. 5)  Drop your cell phone's data plan.  Republic Wireless is the only decent cellular provider and even their $12/month plan is living a luxury lifestyle.  If you spend more than $10/month/person for phone service, you are spending too much. 6)  Stop driving everywhere.  Gas is expensive.  Cars are expensive.  If you have more than two cars, sell the extras.  If your car is worth more than $20,000, sell it and get something cheaper. 7)  Stop drinking alcohol.  Alcohol impairs mental functions, is addictive, smells terrible, and is ridiculously expensive.  There's no actual need to consume it either. By the way, don't go and make major financial changes without the wife's sign-off.  Finances are the #1 reason for divorce.  So get her ""OK"" on this stuff.  Hopefully you already knew that.  The above are just some common financial pitfalls where people sink thousands and thousand of dollars and gain nothing.  You can still have a full and complete life with just a minimum of the above. There is no excuse for living on the edge financially.  Your story is one I'm going to share with those who give me the same excuse because they are ""poor"".  You are ""I want to punch you in the face"" wealthy and you spend every last penny because you think that's how money works.  You are wrong. One final piece of advice:  Find a financial adviser.  It is clear to me that you've been managing money wrong your whole life.  A financial adviser will look at your situation and help you far more than someone on the Internet ever can.  If you attend a church, many churches have the excellent Crown Financial Ministries program available which teaches sound financial management principles.  The education system doesn't show people how to manage money, but that's not an excuse either.  Once you dig yourself out of the financial hole you've dug for yourself, you can pass the knowledge on how to correctly manage money onto other people." In addition to the other answers, I think you would also need to account for the increased utility and maintenance costs on the more expensive house. Typically it is recommended to budget 1% to 4% the cost of the home per year for routine maintenance. While it likely won't cost that much every year, you will have those expensive items come up (e.g. roof, HVAC) that come up periodically. The larger house will also cost more to heat/cool. Depending on where you live could also have increased property taxes. Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income.  If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the  next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.) "A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these.  A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient.  It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to ""diversify"" a primary residence.  You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes.  The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts?  Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac?  A big hurricane hits your county?  Ha-ha, now you're screwed.  As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to ""enjoy"" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not.  Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27.  When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to." "If you do as you propose you are going to get burned. You need to sell, then start to rent. amongst other things. Since 2008, the economy never ""recovered,"" but was sort of stabilized temporarily like a fighter on the ropes. The economy is beginning to collapse again, and that collapse will accelerate around the Fall. The dollar too will also begin its delayed downward fall come Autumn. Just one example of what I speak: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART I would be happy to tell you more if you like, but I am already going to get pilloried for what I have already said. I do not sell anything, or push anything, but since you asked, and I follow this day in and day out, I thought that I would give you my very well informed answer. Take it for what it's worth. So let me know if you want more." Buy a rental property instead. You get tax benefits as well as passive income. And it pays for itself
It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages. As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house.  You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach. Generally, paying down your mortgage is a bad idea. Mortgages have very low interest rates and the interest is tax deductable. If you have a high interest mortgage, or PMI, you might consider it, but otherwise, your money is better off in some sort of index fund. On the other hand, if your choices are paying down a mortgage or blowing your money on hookers and booze, by all means do the mortgage. Typical priorities are: Dave Ramsey has a more detailed plan. Normally interest only mortgages are taken incase one planning to sell off the property after a few years and purchase of the property is for investment. In such a case instead of burdening oneself with a huge EMI, one opts for an interest only mortgage, and towards the end of the term, sell off the house at profit and repay back the entire principal.  I am not to sure if interest only mortgages are encouraged for properties you plan to live in. Although I do not know about the ING scheme, normally there is no prepayment option on interest only mortgages, its Bank way of earning a fixed income for the contracted period and thats the reason why the interest rates are lower than a regular mortgage. If you do the math, you may be paying more in total interest than on a regular mortgage. "Based on your information...  The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case)  Your payment term is 30 years.  Your interest rate is about 7.35%.  Your payments are about $895.66  Your total payments will total $322,438.95  That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors).  Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you.  The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over *thirty years.* That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank *can't* invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc.  A good rule to keep in mind is the ""rule of 72."" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling.   In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years.   Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time." You are getting totally hosed mate. Assume you live in the house for ten years, can get a normal 30 year mortgage and house prices average at 3% annually You could get a mortgage at 3.8% so your monthly payment would be $560 a month.  $60 a month difference over 10 year is $7200 Because you are paying down on a  conventional mortgage you would owe 93500 after 10 years.  On top of that the house would have appreciated by $47000.  You would have to give you parents $35500 of that.  So by avoiding a normal loan it's costing you an extra $49000. "Mortgage is a (secured) debt, a combination of a promissory note, and a security interest providing the mortage holder a secured interest in the property. Yes, you are ""in debt"". But that depends upon whether you define the term ""in debt"" as a debt appearing on the balance sheet, or the net of assets - liabilities is less than zero, whether you have a ""debt"" expense on the income statement (budget), or whether the net of income - expenses is less than zero. One person might look at their budget, find the (monthly) mortgage payment listed, and judge that they have a debt payment, and thus are ""in debt"". Or they might look at their expenses, find they exceed their income, and judge that they are ""in debt"". Another person might look at their balance sheet, compare assets to liabilities, and only say they were ""in debt"" when their liabilities exceeded their assets. Some people view mortgage debt as ""good debt"", as they view certain debts as ""good"" and others as ""bad"". Trust me, having a high mortgage payment (higher 30% of your net income) is hard, and over 40% is bad. Consider you balance sheet and your income statement.  On your balance sheet, the house appears on the ""asset"" side with an (estimated) value, while the ""mortgage"" (really, the promissory note part of the mortgage) appears on the ""liability"" side. On your income statement, your house does not appear on the income side, but the mortgage (promissory note) payment appears on the expense side. So, you clearly have both a ""liability"" with a clearly-defined value and an ""expense"" with a clearly-defined payment. But do you have an ""asset""? According to an accountant, you have an ""asset"" and a ""liability"". But you do not have a business asset that is producing revenue (income), nor do you have a business asset that can be amortized and expensed to reduce taxable income. When we think about an asset, does the word have the connotation of some thing with value, something that produces income?  Well, by that measure, a house only provides income when we rent it out, and only has value when we consider selling it. As millions of families discovered during the housing (price) collapse, when the market price of your ""asset"" falls substantially, your personal financial status can fall negative and you can be ""broke""." This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness.  It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.