Should I refi a rental property to reduce income tax from positive cash flow and use the equity pulled out to fund an annuity?
"You need to do a bit more research and as @littleadv often wisely advises, consult a professional, in this case a tax layer or CPA. You are not allowed to just pull money out of a property and write off the interest.  From Deducting Mortgage Interest FAQs If you own rental property and borrow against it to buy a home, the   interest does not qualify as mortgage interest because the loan is not   secured by the home itself. Interest paid on that loan can't be   deducted as a rental expense either, because the funds were not used   for the rental property. The interest expense is actually considered   personal interest, which is no longer deductible. This is not exactly your situation of course, but it illustrates the restriction that will apply to you.  Elsewhere in the article, it references how, if used for a business, the interest deduction still will not apply to the rental, but to the business via schedule C.  In your case, it's worse, you can never deduct interest used to fund a tax free bond, or to invest in such a tax favored product.  Putting the facts aside, I often use the line ""don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog."" Borrowing in order to reduce taxes is rarely a wise move. If you look at the interest on the 90K vs 290K, you'll see you are paying, in effect, 5.12% on the extra 200K, due the higher rate on the entire sum. Elsewhere on this board, there are members who would say that given the choice to invest or pay off a 4% mortgage, paying it off is guaranteed, and the wiser thing to do. I think there's a fine line and might not be so quick to pay that loan off, an after-tax 3% cost of borrowing is barely higher than inflation. But to borrow at over 5% to invest in an annuity product whose terms you didn't disclose, does seem right to me. Borrow to invest in the next property? That's another story."
This might vary from other answers but I generally prefer to use debt before touching an emergency fund.  But one of the reasons I have an emergency fund is to that I can make sure I can cover any debt payments.  Essentially, this give you leverage.  You might start off with a small emergency such as needing a new refrigerator.  If you pull the cash out of the fund to pay this off immediately, you've depleted your account and if something major comes along, you might be short.  By using debt, you can often cover the costs with cash-flow and leave your risk buffer in place. Often, retailers will offer really sweet financing deals.  0% for 12 months or whatever.  Often, though, if you don't pay it off in time, they can be costly.  I'm not sure if this is legal (in the US) anymore but if it wasn't fully paid off in time, you'd be retroactively charged interest on the whole amount.  But if you have an emergency fund, you pretty much guarantee that won't happen.  The only time it will is if something else happens that requires the emergency fund to be cashed in.  But if things are that dire, the debt is unsecured.  You're credit may suffer but they can't come after your assets. It's not an either-or situation.  You give yourself options by having the cash available.  It allows you to take advantage of opportunities that might be too risky otherwise.  Ultimately what you want to be able to weather the storm in a situation where you have, say, a mortgage on a house that is underwater, the stock market is down, and you have no income.  In that situation, you don't want to liquidate your stock when it's down and you (probably) don't want to lose your home equity in a foreclosure. To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk. how much taxes would I pay on my income from the rent they would pay me? The same as on any other income. California doesn't have any special taxes for rental/passive income. Bothe CA and the Federal tax laws do have special treatment, but it is for losses from rental. Income is considered unearned regular income and is taxed at regular brackets. Would I be able to deduct the cost of the mortgage from the rental income? The cost of mortgage, yes. I.e.: the interest you pay. Similarly you can deduct any other expense needed to maintain the property. This is assuming you're renting it out at FMV. If not, would I pay the ordinary income tax on that income? In particular, would I pay CA income tax on it, even though the property would be in WA? Yes. Don't know how WA taxes rental income, but since you are a California tax resident - you will definitely be taxed by California on this, as part of your worldwide income. but the flat would be occupied all the time. Famous last words. Are you prepared to have a tenant move in, and stop paying rent? In the US, it can take 6 months to get a tenant out of the apartment and little chance of collecting back rent. I don't know how your laws work, but here, they do not favor the landlord.  The tiny sub 1% profit you make while funding principal payments is a risky proposition. It seems to me that even normal repairs (heater, appliances, etc) will put you to the negative.  On the other hand, if this property has bottomed in terms of price and it rises in value, you may have a nice profit. But if you are just renting it out, it feels like it's too close to call.  By the way, if you can go with a 30yr fixed, I'd suggest that. This would get you to a better cash flow sooner. A shorter mortgage simply means more money to principal each month.  EDIT - as far as equity goes, at the beginning it seems the equity build up is really from your pocket, definitely so by switching from the 30 to the 15. What is your goal? The assumption I may have made is you wish to be a real estate investor with multiple properties. Doing so means saving up for the next down payment. Given the payoff time even if the property ran a high profit, I imagine you'd want to focus on cash flow, minimize the monthly expense, maximize what you can take each month to save for the next down payment. It's your choice, years from now to have one paid property, or 3 properties each with that 30% down payment, and let time be your friend. "There is nothing legal you can do in the United States to avoid the tax burden of income earned as an employee other than offsetting it with pre-tax contributions (which it sounds like you're already doing), making charitable contributions, or incurring investment losses (which is cutting off your nose to spite your face).  So that $660K can't be helped. As for the $80K in stock dividends, you could move those investments into ""growth"" companies rather than ""value"" companies.  Growth companies are those that pay less in dividends, where the primary increase in wealth occurs only in share price increase.  This puts off your tax bill until you finally sell your shares, and (depending on how the tax laws are at that time) your tax bill will be lower on those capital gains than they are currently on these dividends. Regarding rental income I know nothing, but I think you're entitled to depreciate your property's value over time and count that against the taxes you owe on the rents.  And you can deduct all the upkeep expenses.  As with employment income, intentionally incurring rental losses to lower your tax bill is not logical:  for every dollar you earn, you only have to give about 50 cents to the government, whereas for every dollar you lose, you've lost a dollar." If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math.  See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow.  The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses. I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business.  As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too!  Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring  you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable.  You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill.  Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it.  Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate.