Snowball debt or pay off a large amount?
There are some calculators that you can use to figure out the best approach, such as this one by CNN. But in general the rule of thumb tends to be the following: For the purposes of the Best Buy card, I would put it up there at number one so you don't get hit with the deferred interest. No point in giving them more money if you can pay them before the end of the cycle.  Next, I would look at what you have for emergency savings, if you have an account established and that is at a comfortable number than putting the money towards the Citi card might be good, otherwise, split part of the money between savings and the credit cards. If an emergency pops up you don't want to dig a deeper hole because you can't pay for something with cash. "Pay the Best Buy first.  Most of these ""Do not pay until..."" deals require you to retire the entire debt by the deadline, or they will charge you deferred interest for the entire period. So, if this was a six-month deal, they're going to hit you for an extra $300 in December." I want to know if I cut the citi card in half for example, how much would the min payment go down? If you goal is to become debt-free, the minimum payment shouldn't matter. Even if the minimum payment goes down, continue your current payment amount (or more, if you can afford it) until the balance is paid off. Paying the minimum will just keep you in debt longer. Pay the highest rate debt first, it's as simple as that. When that debt is paid (the 24% card in this case) pay off the next one.  As far as having an emergency fund is concerned, I consider it a second priority. If one owes 24% money, that $2000 emergency fund is costing $480/yr. Ouch. Avoid the behaviors that got you into debt in the first place, and pay the cards off as fast as you can. When you have no balance, start to save, first into the emergency account, then toward retirement. "My advice: IMO, all things being somewhat equal, you should always try to retire debts as quickly as possible in most cases, so start with the small cases. The method of calculating credit card interest is written on the statement. Usually it is ""average daily balance method"". Don't sweat the details. Just pay the things off." "Basically, your CC is (if normal) compounded monthly, based on a yearly APR. To calculate the amount of interest you'd pay on each of these accounts in a year, pull up a spreadsheet like Office Excel. Put in your current balance, then multiply it by the annual interest rate divided by 12, and add that quantity to the balance. Subtract any payment you make, and the result is your new balance. You can project this out for several months to get a good estimate of what you'll pay; in accounting or finance terms, what you're creating is an ""amortization table"". So, with a $10,000 balance, at 13.99% interest and making payments of $200/mo, the amortization table for one year's payments might look like: As you can see, $200 isn't paying down this card very quickly. In one year, you will have paid $2,400, of which $1,332.25 went straight into the bank's pockets in interest charges, reducing your balance by only $1,067.75. Up the payments to $300/mo, and in 1 year you will have paid $3,600, and only been charged $1,252.24 in interest, so you'll have reduced your balance by $2,347.76 to only $7,652.24, which further reduces interest charges down the line. You can track the differences in the Excel sheet and play ""what-ifs"" very easily to see the ramifications of spending your $5,000 in various ways. Understand that although, for instance, 13.99% may be your base interest rate, if the account has become delinquent, or you made any cash advances or balance transfers, higher or lower interest rates may be charged on a portion of the balance or the entire balance, depending on what's going on with your account; a balance transfer may get 0% interest for a year, then 19.99% interest after that if not paid off. Cash advances are ALWAYS charged at exorbitantly high rates, up to 40% APR.  Most credit card bills will include what may be called an ""effective APR"", which is a weighted average APR of all the various sub-balances of your account and the interest rates they currently have. Understand that your payment first pays off interest accrued during the past cycle, then pays down the principal on the highest-interest portion of the balance first, so if you have made a balance transfer to another card and are using that card for purchases, the only way to avoid interest on the transfer at the post-incentive rates is to pay off the ENTIRE balance in a year. The minimum payment on a credit card USED to be just the amount of accrued interest or sometimes even less; if you paid only the minimum payment, the balance would never decrease (and may increase). In the wake of the 2008 credit crisis, most banks now enforce a higher minimum payment such that you would pay off the balance in between 3 and 5 years by making only minimum payments. This isn't strictly required AFAIK, but because banks ARE required by the CARD Act to disclose the payoff period at the minimum payment (which would be ""never"" under most previous policies), the higher minimum payments give cardholders hope that as long as they make the minimum payments and don't charge any more to the card, they will get back to zero." You've already received good advice here, pay off the highest rate card first, in this case the Best Buy card. I completely agree. To answer your question about the minimum payment, I can't guarantee that this is how Citi does it on your particular card, but several online calculators seem to use the following formula. Minimum Payment = Fees + (APR / 12) x Balance + 1% x Balance. I plugged in your numbers and got really close to the minimum payment you mentioned. I ran calculations for balances of 8,500 and 6,500 and got payments of $184 and $141. You can use this calculator to plug in some numbers for yourself. I found the formula on this page along with a reference stating that Citi uses the formula. Edited to Add: As Bruce Alderman mentioned in his answer, it's probably not a good idea to just pay the minimum. That calculator I linked to shows the difference between paying the minimum and even a small amount ($50 or so) more than the minimum every month. Something like the difference between 3 and 10 years. "Dave Ramsey would tell you to pay the smallest debt off first, regardless of interest rate, to build momentum for your debt snowball.  Doing so also gives you some ""wins"" sooner than later in the goal of becoming debt free." First, make sure you have some money in a savings account that you can use instead of credit cards for making future purchases that go beyond what you have in your checking account. $1000 is a good amount to start with, so just take that out of the $5000. Then pay off the Best Buy card. You shouldn't be worried about the minimum payment. Determine what you can pay per month (say, $400), and take the minimum payments out of that. Then choose one card to get the rest of your $400, plus the remaining $1500 of your $5000. This should be the highest-interest card, mathematically, but it may or may not be your best choice; it depends on your personality. Some people get a psychological lift out of seeing debts disappear, and it gives them more motivation to keep going. Those people may be better served by paying off the smallest debts first, to get them out of the way. I'm an INTP, so it bothers me more to think that I'll be paying a little more in interest over the long term by taking that route. I agree with the Dave Ramsey method as well. If you don't have $1k in the bank already, do that.  Total up the smaller debts and the best buy card.  if they are $4k all together, then pay them off.  Don't get caught up in keeping the smaller one around because they are at zero percent.  If they exceed $4k, then payoff the interest bomb best buy card, then pay off the smaller ones, starting with the smaller balance.  That is the only tweak I will make here.  Dropping any amount into the Citi balance is pointless because it only reduces the amount, not the total number of hands reaching into your bank account.
Remember that balance transfers are rarely fee free. As you state, there is a fee associated with the balance transfer. If your 0% rate is for 18 months and the fee is 3%, you are really paying 2% per year on the amount you transferred. The advantage is that you can redirect the debt you transferred is interest free and you can attack other debt with high interest on it. This can save you in interest fees and allow you to direct more of your money towards debt. The disadvantage is that your 0% interest will expire and become a much higher interest rate. Unless you pay off the transfer before the expiration, you will have to pay off the debt at the higher interest. How you decide to attack your debt reduction may need to factor in how long you expect to have debt and what other debt you have. Often times though, the savings in interest is less important than simplifying the number of debt accounts you have. The inspiration you receive from reducing your debt accounts is much more powerful. You realize reducing debt accounts allows you to actually see an end in sight and provides the recurring positive feedback that you are making progressing. This is why the advice to pay off your lowest balance credit cards first. "Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (""the most expensive money""). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally ""free money"" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans.  Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same.  In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called ""snowballing"", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week.  Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress.  It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target.  Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt.  Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments.  You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance.  Paying off your car... so your car's paid off.  If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan.  But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency.  This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan.   Many modern banks actually use ""mortgage offsetting"" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted ""as if"" you'd paid it off your mortgage.  So you get the benefit without the commitment.  The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement.  And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars.  But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing." "If you make $10 in salary, $5 in interest on savings, and $10 in dividends, your income is $25, not $10. If you have a billion dollars in well-invested assets, you can take a loan against those assets and the interest payment on the loan will be smaller than the interest you earn on the assets. That means your investment will grow faster than your debt and you have a net positive gain. It makes no sense to do this if the value of your asset is static. In that case, you would be better off just to withdraw from the asset and spend it directly, since a loan against that static asset will result in you spending your asset plus interest charges. If you have a good enough rate of return on your investment, you may actually be able to do this in perpetuity, taking out loan after loan, making the loan payments from the loan proceeds, while the value of your original asset pool continues to grow. At any given time, though, a severe downturn in the market could potentially leave you with large debts and insufficient value in your assets to back the debt. If that happens, you won't be getting another loan and the merry-go-round will stop spinning. It's a bit of a Ponzi scheme, in a way. The U.S. government has done exactly this for a long time and has gotten away with it because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency. You could always get a loan against the value of the U.S. currency in the past. Those days may be dwindling, with more countries choosing alternative currencies to conduct business with and the dollar becoming comparatively weaker into the foreseeable future. If you have savings, you can spend more than you make, which will put you into debt, then you can draw down your savings to pay that debt, and at the end of the month you will be out of debt, but have less in savings. You cannot do this forever. Eventually, you run out of savings. If you have no savings, you immediately go into debt and stay there when you spend more than you make. This is simple arithmetic. If you have no savings, but you own assets (real estate, securities, a collection of never-opened Beatles vinyl records, a bicycle), then you could spend more than you make, and be in debt, but have the potential to liquidate assets to pay off all or part of the debt. This depends on finding a buyer and negotiating a price that helps you enough to make a real difference. If you have a car, and you owe $10 on it, but you can only find a buyer willing to pay $8 for the car, that doesn't help you unless you can refinance the $2 and your new payment amount is lower than the old payment amount. But then you're still $2 in debt on the car even though you no longer possess it, and you've still increased your debt by spending more than you made. If you stay on this path, sooner or later you will not have any assets left and you will be in debt, plain and simple. As a wrinkle in the concrete example, let's say you have stock options with your employer. This is a form of a ""call."" You could also purchase a call through a broker in the stock market, or for a commodity in the futures market. That means you pay up front for the right to buy a specific amount of an asset at a fixed price (usually with an expiration date). You don't own the stock, you just have the right to buy it at the call price, regardless of the current market value when you buy it. In the case of employee stock options, your upfront cost is in the form of a vesting schedule. You have to remain employed for a set time before a specific number of stocks become eligible for you to purchase at your option price (the stocks ""vest"" on a certain date). Remain employed longer, and more stocks may vest, depending on your contract. If you quit or are terminated before that date, you forfeit your options. If you stick around through your vesting schedule, you pay real money to buy the stock at your option price. It only makes sense to do this if the market value of the stock is higher than your option price. If the current market value is lower than your option price, you're better off just buying the asset at the current market value, or waiting and  hoping that the value increases before your contract expires. You could drive yourself into debt by spending more than you make, but still have a chance to eliminate your debt by exercising your call/option and then re-selling the asset if it is worth more than what you pay for it. But you may have to wait for a vesting period to elapse before you can exercise your option (depending on the nature of your contract). During this waiting period, you are in debt, and if you can't service your debt (i.e. make payments acceptable to your creditors) your things could get repossessed. Oh, don't forget that you'll also pay a brokerage fee to sell the asset after you exercise your option. Further, if you have exhausted your savings and nobody will give you a loan to exercise your stock (or futures) options, then in the end you would be even further in debt because you already paid for the call, but you are unable to capitalize it and you'll lose what you already paid. If you can get a loan to exercise your option, but you're a bad credit risk, chances are good that the lender will draft a contract requiring you to immediately pay back the loan proceeds plus a fee out of the proceeds of re-selling the stock or other asset. In fact the lender might even draft a contract assigning ownership of your options to them, and stipulating that they'll pay you what's left after they subtract their fee. Even if you can get a traditional loan, you will pay interest over time. The end result is that your debt has still cost you very real money beyond the face value of the debt. Finally, if the asset for which you have a call has decreased in value lower than the current market value, you would be better off buying it directly in the market instead of exercising your option. But you'll pay transaction fees to do that, and the entire action would be pure speculation (or ""investment""), but not an immediate means to pay off your debt. Unless you have reliable insider trading information. But then you risk running afoul of the law. Frankly it might be better to get a loan to pay off your debt than to buy an ""investment"" hoping the value will increase, unless you could guarantee that the return on your investment would be bigger than the cumulative interest and late fees on your debt (or the risk of repossession of your belongings). Remember that nothing you owe a debt on is actually yours, not your house, not your car, not your bicycle, not your smartphone. Most of the time, your best course of action is to make minimum payments on your lowest-interest debts and make extra payments on your highest interest debt, up to the highest total payment you can tolerate (set something aside in a rainy day fund just in case). As you pay off the highest-interest debt, shift the amount you were paying on that debt to make extra payments on your next highest-interest debt until that one is paid off, and repeat on down the line until you're out of debt, then live within your means so that you don't find yourself working at McDonald's because you don't have a choice when you're in your 80's." You're lending the money to your business by paying for it directly.  The company accounts must reflect a credit (the amount you lend to it) and a debit (what it then puts that loan towards).   It's fairly normal for a small(ish) owner-driven company to reflect a large loan-account for the owners.  For example, if you have a room at home dedicated for the business it is impractical to pay rent directly via the company.  The rental agreement is probably in your name, you pay the rent, and you reconcile it with the company later. You could even charge your company (taxable) interest on this loan. When you draw down the loan from the company you reverse this, debit your loan account and credit the company (paying off the debt). As far as tracking that expenditure, simply handle those third-party invoices in the normal way and file them for reference. Set up budget categories.  Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories.  Pay your bills and expenses.  For debts, pay the minimum on everything.  There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted.  That's the 'extra'.  Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level).   Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts.  (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed).  Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first.  When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest.  Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings.  Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types.  They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income.  They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts.   Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts.  At your age, this is a significant achievement.  Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want.  If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing.  You can/should do more than one at a time.  The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you.  Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early.  There are groups of folks striving for this.  They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies.  The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends.  Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages.  At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal.  But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality.  Not for me but it might be for you. Excellent question and it is a debate that is often raised.  Mathematically you are probably best off using option #1.  Any money that is above and beyond minimum payments earns a pretty high interest rate, about 6.82% in the form of saved interest payments. The problem is you are likely to get discouraged.  Personal finance is a lot about behavior, and after working at this for a year, and still having 5 loans, albeit a lower balance, might take a bit of fight out of you. Paying off such a large balance, in a reasonable time, will take a lot of fight. With the debt snowball, you pay the minimum to the student loan, save in an outside account, and when it is large enough, you execute option #2.  So a year from now you might only have three loans instead of five.  If you behaved exactly the same your balance would be higher after that year then using the previous method. However often one does not behave the same.  Because the goals are shorter and more attainable it is easier to delay some gratification.  The 8 dollars you are saving in your weekly gas budget, because of low prices, is meaningful when saving for a 4K goal, where it is meaningless when looking at it as a 74K goal.  With the 4K goal you are more apt to put that money in your savings, where the 74K goal you might spend it on a latte. For me, the debt snowball worked really well. With either option make sure that excess payments actually go to a reduction in principle not a prepayment of interest.  Given this you may be left with no option.  For example if method #1 you only prepay interest, you are forced to use option #2. An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is. "In addition to the two options in your question - pay off the entire loan, depleting your emergency fund; or continue as you are today - there is a third, middle-ground option that might be worth considering. Since you currently have an emergency fund, zero credit card debt, and you stated ""we can afford these expenses"", I think I'd be correct to assume that you're currently making regular contributions to either the emergency fund itself, or to another savings account, etc. Temporarily stop making those contributions, and divert those funds to make larger payments towards the upside-down loan. The additional amount will all be applied to the loan principal, reducing the interest you'll have to pay, but you'll avoid the risk of depleting the emergency fund. Additionally, the insurance premium may possibly be avoided, as in many places in the world it's possible to de-register the car (for example, in California, USA, you can submit an affidavit of Non-Use) then terminate the insurance on it. However, the car will likely have to be parked off-street (or in a location such as a private road governed by rules that do not include legal registration requirements)."