How do I know what loan terms I can qualify for?
"You can find out the most money they will loan you for a car loan when you approach your current bank/credit union. They should be willing to layout options based on your income, and credit history. You then have to decide if those terms work for you. There are several dangers with getting loan estimates, they may be willing to lend you more than you can actually handle. They think you can afford it, but maybe you can't. They may also have a loan with a longer term, which does bring the monthly cost down, but exposes you to being upside down on the loan. You then use this a a data point when looking at other lenders. The last place you look is the auto dealer. They will be trying to pressure you on both the loan and the price, that is not the time to do doing complex mental calculations. The Suntrust web page was interesting, it included the quote: The lowest rate in each range is for LightStream's unsecured auto loan   product and requires that you have an excellent credit profile. It also induced the example the rate of 2.19% - 4.24%   for a 24 to 36 month loan of $10,000 to $24,999 for a used car purchased from a dealer. Also note that my local credit union has a new/used loan at 1.49%, but you have to be a member. Sunstrust seems to be in the minority. In general a loan for X$ and y months will have a lower rate if it is secured with collateral.  But Suntrust is offering unsecured loans (i.e. no collateral) at a low rate. The big benefit for their product is that you get the cash today. You can get the cash before you know what you want to buy. You get the cash before you have negotiated with the dealer. That makes that step easier. Now will they in the near future ask for proof you bought a car with the money? no idea. If you went to the same web page and wanted a debt consolidation loan the rate for the same $ range and the same months is: 5.49% - 11.24% the quote now changes to: The lowest rate in each range requires that you have an excellent   credit profile. I have no idea what rate they will actually approve you for. It is possible that if you don't have excellent credit the rate rises quickly, but 4.24% for the worst auto loan is better than 5.49% for the best debt consolidation. Excellent Credit Given the unique nature of each individual’s credit situation,   LightStream believes there is no single definition for ""excellent   credit"". However, we find individuals with excellent credit usually   share the following characteristics: Finally, it should be noted again that each individual situation is   different and that we make our credit judgment based on the specific   facts of that situation. Ultimately our determination of excellent   credit is based on whether we conclude that there is a very high   likelihood that our loan will be repaid in a full and timely manner. All the rates mentioned in this answer are from 15 July 2017."
Am I eligible for the tax exemption if yes then under which section.  Generally Personal loans are not eligible for tax exemption. Only housing loans from qualified institutions are eligible for tax deduction. As per the income tax act; The house should be in your name. The home loans taken from recognised institutions are fully qualified under section 24B and 80C. This means you can claim Interest exemption under 24B and Principal repayment under 80C. The Act also specifies that loan can be taken from friends/relatives for construction of property and will be eligible for Interest exemption under 24B only. The principal will not be eligible for exemption under 80C. Read the FAQ from Income Tax India. There has to be certificate showing how much interest was paid on the said loan. Further there should be records/receipts on how the money was spent. There is difference of opinion amongst CA. It is best you take a professional advise. Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though.  So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage.  You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on:  Good luck,  EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore,  Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years. "As a former consumer credit counselor, who worked with struggling homeowners and first time homebuyers I would argue that it is a mistake for lenders to rely on gross income and assumptions on what an applicant spends their income on. I think lenders do this because they believe it is efficient and may not understand the long term ramifications for the stakeholders, e.g. the borrower, the lender, the servicer, the investor, the broker, the taxpayer, the marshall, the foreclosure lawyers etc. Or lenders do know the impact of a superficial mortgage screening, and intentionally want to enrich themselves in the short term while harming other stakeholders in the long term. Developing a budget that reflects what a person can realistically spend on their mortgage takes much longer than signing up for a Rocket mortgage. I would say an hour minimum for the first appointment to get a baseline, and at least two follow up appointments to make adustments soon after or whenever a borrower's financial situation changes dramatically. Credit counselors factor in all of the factors mentioned above, i.e. take home pay, future pay vs current pay, the ability to adjust deductions, seasonal expenses, multiple sources of income and their frequency, debt load etc. Budgets are always fluctuating, but when it is done right by a qualified professional the result is a much more accurate financial picture.  The consequences for not doing this type of old-school due diligence, or for willfully choosing to skip it, are varied. First off, mortgages will be given to homeowners who should never have qualified in the first place, and likewise denied to homeowners who should qualify. This will result in market distortion and this distortion was a primary contributor to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the wave of foreclosures that came with it. Another consequence is the stripping of wealth from minority communities since they are often targeted by the most unscrupulous of lenders. Additionally, the securitization of mortgages based on poor diligence at the loan officer level means loan portfolio ratings are questionable, investors will lose money, and small banks who are heavily invested will fail as they did in the past. Depending on the federal enforcement of Dodd Frank Act, the taxpayers may or may not have to pick up the bill from a bailout of a big mortgage bank that was ""too big to fail,"" via higher taxes, lost jobs, lost homes, and other negative externalities that were not accounted for by the loan officer, or willfully ignored.  Lastly, borrowers also have a responsibility to provide accurate financial information, which they don't always do. Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society where property is commoditized instead of communal, there is always mistrust, competition, the fear that you will be left behind, or the desire to get ahead. This could incentivize cheating by either the, borrower, the broker/lender, or both in this example e.g. no-doc negative amatorizing loans. This is just one of many other negative externalities. So the only true fix would be a switch to communal land ownership. In the interim, I would push for universal borrower access to low cost consumer credit counselors and a change in loan officer training and incentive structure." "Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity.  It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later).  In your case it may or may not be a good idea.  Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea.  Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way.  Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference.  If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern.  If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea.  You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall.  If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon.  It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case.  There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%.  A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%).  Buying ""riskier"" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make.  I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals.  If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go.  And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more.  People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well.  Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one.  The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake.  No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%.  It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant.  Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average.  You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described.  If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas.  It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality.  If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud).  Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out.  A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here.  This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing.  Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans.  Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know.  If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea." You should also be aware that there are banks that do business in the US that do not deal with Fannie Mae, and thus are not subject to the rules about conforming loans.  Here is an example of a well-known bank that lists two sets of rates, with the second being for loans of $750,000 or more (meaning the first covers everything up to that) https://home.ingdirect.com/orange-mortgage/rates "Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: ""why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?"". Or perhaps ""if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k"". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat." To point #1: We are moving but I don't know If I can afford the rent as the family grows I would start by looking at your debt-to-income ratio. In the US, most banks look at this for mortgage purposes, but it also gives you a general idea of what monthly mortgage payments will be comfortable given your particular financial situation. Think of it this way, if a bank is unwilling to lend you money because of a high debt-to-income level, this indicates that you have very little leeway with regard to your budget. So a lower number indicates that you will have more flexibility and comfort with meeting your rent/mortgage obligations when unforeseen bills pop up. The article below indicates having < 43% DTI is ideal (in the US). Here's a link to a debt to income calculator and some extra info (I suggest finding one aimed at the UK market): WellsFargo debt to income calculator Why is the 43% debt to income ratio important? Point #2: How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Other answers have addressed how to make a budget, so I will not repeat that. However, here's another angle with regards to spending/saving. This article recommends 50/30/20: According to the popular 50/30/20 rule, you should reserve 50 percent of your budget for essentials like rent and food, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and at least 20 percent for savings. Read more at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-should-you-save-every-month-2 In the real world, these goals may not be realistic, and different people have different ideas about how aggressive to be with regards to savings. However, you can get a general idea and adapt for your particular needs. Point 3: I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save. You're looking for the amortization calculation. This calculation is essentially solving for the series of cash flows that will yield a zero balance after the specified term, at the given rate for a loan amount. Once you have solved for the payment amount, you can add additional principal amount to each payment period and see the interest payments and time to zero balance drop.