"John H" wrote in message
...
On 23 Mar 2005 10:54:06 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 09:44:18 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 05:01:54 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
But, I thought that you had to get an interest only loan?????


The bank was offering me either loan...conventional, or
interest-only.

I chose the interest only loan over the conventional 30-year
fixed,
because
it gives me the option to pay principal on the loan (but only
if
*I
*decide
to do so). Right now, it makes more sense for me to put
$25-30k
per
year
away in a qualified pension plan than to pay principal on a
home
mortgage.
In 4 1/2 years, I'll only be 38...and I'll have an extra
$6000/mo
(before
taxes) to put towards principal and/or retirement savings. At
that
time, I
can get a 20 year conventional fixed mortgage, and pay the home
off
before
I'm 60.


Yeah, sure, whatever.......

basskisser, is that the best you can do when you see a good idea
put
in place?
--
John H

No, but you know how NOYB is, no sense in trying to make him think
anything other than what he does, says, where he lives, his
occupation,
his thoughts, and on and on, are anything less than superior to
anyone
else in the universe. Just ask him! Now, as far as a "good idea",
he's
admitted himself that he is financially stretched tight.

My daughter has commented to me about having a negative balance, on
occasion, in
my checkbook. To her, who has bounced a check to me, this was really
something
to 'catch her dad' with.

There are times when it is beneficial to one's longer term interests
to be
somewhat 'stretched tight'. That is not, necessarily, a sign of bad
financial
management. I financed my house for 15 years instead of 30. The
additional
payment amount stretched me a little more than I had been, but I
think that the
long term benefits will be worth the stretch.

I don't know NYOB's situation, other than what I've read. I *do* know
that he
has given thought to his situation. That, in itself, is more than a
lot of folks
do.

His plan makes sense.

There may be those in the universe who have a better occupation,
better place to
live, and are better able to express their point of view. From my
perspective,
you haven't shown that you are one of them. Of course, that's just my
opinion.
--
John H


So, if you pay someone to use their money, ie, a loan, it's superior to
using your OWN money, and not having to pay interest rates? The bottom
line is, if someone is taking money from you month after month, you are
losing money.

I just bought a new car, financed at 3.9%. I could have paid cash for the
car,
but instead chose to put the money in a five year CD paying 5%. In this
case I'm
paying someone (the credit union) to use its money while it's paying me
*more*
to use my money.

Yes, depending on the circumstances, it may be 'superior' to pay for the
use of
someone else's money.
--
John H


And in the case of those of us that are in the higher tier tax brackets,
the tax deduction for the interest on your primary residence make the
borrowed money even cheaper.

A mortgage at 5% has a net cost of 3% in the top bracket.......a point that
constantly goes over asslicker's head.


Another good reason for borrowing.........
I have clients that own many commercial properties.........they are
constantly refinancing the properties (each is an L.L.C.) pulling as much
equity as they can out of them, and distributing it to the partners. In
that way, the L.L.C. has little to no assests in the event of a lawsuit.




"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."