Buying a house. I have the cash for the whole thing. Should I still get a mortgage to get the homeowner tax break?
Not for the tax break, no; as others have said that still costs you money. However, with rates being low right now and brought a bit lower by the tax break, this is an opportunity for the safest form of leveraged investing you will ever find. If you invest that money, the returns on investment will probably be better than the mortgage rate, and that leaves you with a net profit. There is some risk if the market collapses, but it's less risk than any other form of borrowing to invest. That also leave you with more flexibility if you need cash in a hurry; you can draw down the investments rather than taking another loan. If the risk bothers you, you can do what I did and split the difference. I put 50% down and financed the rest. I sometimes regret not having pushed it harder, since it has worked out well for me ... but that was the level of risk I was comfortable with. "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." Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate.  That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it.  Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%.  Let's assume a 25% tax rate.  Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%?  If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.).  These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house.  I recently bought my house using 100% cash.  It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs.  I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved.  My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.
"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you ""accelerate"" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a ""job""), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a ""starter"", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment.  With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you ""break even"" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you." Investment is very uncertain, so I believe that unless you have loads of money, you should not play around with houses for the sole purpose of investing. Here are the questions which I would consider to judge the situation. Note that this is based on the current situation in The Netherlands Income: Your income is 1800 a month nett, which means your gross annual income should be somewhere below 28500. Allowed mortgage amount: Your maximum morgage amount is then roughly 135000 Is it expensive?: Given your maximum morgage, buying a 200k appartment would consume pretty much all your cash. There is some cost of buying the appartment, so basically if you buy it, you will not have much cash to decorate or deal with unforseen maintenance. If you are conservative, I would say that buying a 175k appartment is financially much more relaxing in your situation. What will be the monthly expense?: Monthly mortgage payments will be about 450~500. So your cashflow will suffer a bit.  The amount you actually 'burn' on interest in the early months is about 180 nett (assuming an interest rate just below 2% and tax deductions). There will be additional costs (more heating, long term maintenance etc.) so overall the amount of money you burn will be close to the amount of money you burn on rent. Of course over time there will be less interest, so this should go down. Value change: The value may go up or down, in the very long term I would bet on it going up, but on the short or medium term it is quite uncertain. If you may live there for less than a decade, value change is more of a risk than a benefit. Break even point: As you mention that you will buy a house for 200k, I will assume it is not in the heart of a major city, and that renting it out may not be very attractive. However, I will also assume that it is not the middle of nowhere, and that it will only take a reasonable amount of time to sell the house. So if you want to move out, you will probably sell it at a reasonable price. In this case a rule of thumb is that living in an affordable house is usually a good idea when you live there for more than 5 years. (Is it likely that you will find a partner in this period of time, and will you live at your place then, or somewhere else?) Buying a 200k appartment would leave you completely cashless after you move in, something I would not recommend unless you can depend on your parents for instance to 'bridge the gap' when your cashflow dries up. From a monthly expense point of view you are probably going to be OK, as long as you survive the short run. And financially it only makes sense if you are going to live there for a while, and are fairly confident in your position in the labour market. I would personally recommend you to think hard on your family situation, and only buy a house if it leaves you with some cash in your pocket. "You need to get the current tax software, the 2013 filing software is out already, even though it needs to update itself before filing, as the final forms aren't ready yet. Then you will look carefully at Schedule E to understand what gets written off. I see you are looking at the $2200 rent vs your own rent of $2100, but of course, the tax form doesn't care about your rent. You offset the expenses of that house against the income.  The expenses are the usual suspects, mortgage interest, property tax, repairs, etc. But there's one big thing new landlords are prone to forgetting. Depreciation. It's not optional. Say the house cost you $400K. This is your basis. You need to separate the value of land which is not depreciated. For a condo with no land it can be as little as 10%, when we bought our house, for insurance purposes, the land was nearly 40% of the full value. Say you do the research and decide 30% (for land), then 70% = $280K. Depreciation is taken each year over a 27.5 year period, or just over $10,000 per year. (Note, the forms will help you get your year 1 number, as you didn't have a full year.)  This depreciation helps with your cash flow during the year (as you should do the math, and if you keep the house, adjust your W4 withholdings for 2014, that lump sum you'll get in April won't pay the bills each month) but is 'recaptured' on sale.  At some point in the future, you may save enough to buy a house where you wish to live, but need to sell the rental. Consider a 1031 Exchange. It's a way to sell a rental and buy a new one without triggering a taxable event. What I don't know is how long the new house must be a rental before the IRS would then allow you to move in. The same way you turned your home into a rental, a rental can be turned back to a primary residence. I just doubt you can do it right after the purchase. As fellow member @littleadv would advise, ""get professional advice."" And he's right. I've just offered what you might consider. The first year tax return with that Schedule E is the toughest as it's brand new. The next year is simple in comparison.  The question of selling immediately is tough. Only you can decide whether the risk of keeping it is too great. You're saying you don't have the money to cover two month's vacancy. That scares me. I'd focus on beefing up the emergency account. And securing a credit line. You mentioned the tax savings. My opinion is that for any investment,the tax tail should never wag the investing dog. Buy or sell a stock based on the stock, not the potential tax bill for the sale. In your situation, the rent and expenses will cancel each other, and the depreciation is a short term loan, from a tax perspective. If you sold today, what do you net? If you analyzed the numbers now, what is your true income from the property each year? Is that return worth it? A good property will provide cash flow, principal reduction each year, and normal increase in value. This takes a bit of careful looking at the numbers. You might feel you're just breaking even, but if the principal is $12K less after a year, that's something you shouldn't ignore. On the other hand, an exact 'break-even' with little equity at stake offered you a leveraged property where any gains are a magnified percentage of what you have at risk.  Last - welcome to Money.SE - consider adding some more details to your profile." "I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you ""beat the market"", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent." "I put about that down on my place.  I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making ""leverage"" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money." The Homebuyers Tax Credit was unrelated to whether or not a mortgage was part of the purchase. You will have no issue with this credit if you refinance. The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it.  Leave the retirement savings alone.  Start saving for house down payment.  Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment.  Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs.  If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying.  Most likely it will not.  Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate.  Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food.  And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy.  It's a matter of when, not if.  Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm.  1000 for a new fridge.  500 for a new water heater.  1200 for washer and dryer.  ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to. "The Answer is yes according to multiple online sources and my local bank. This approach is a common technique to building your own home. You finance the land, build the simplest possible dwelling (say a garage with 1 bathroom/bedroom), refi into a mortgage and get cash back and then build your ""real house"" or add on, etc. This eliminates the banks demands that come with a ""construction loan"" and saves you 10s of thousands in the process (fees, contractors, scheduling, design, etc)"