P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 23 Mar 2005 10:57:44 -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.

Ah, now, paying off a loan quickly is right the opposite of
an
interest
only loan! You are purposefully paying off the principal
quicker,
while
he isn't paying ANY of it off. I've got a 30 year fixed, and
it
will be
paid off in 17 years because of extra payments applied
directly
to
the
principal. I don't care what anybody says, I don't like
being in
debt.
I don't take out car loans, I save until I have cash to buy
a
car,
therefore I don't pay anybody to use their money. Same
principal.

Well, once you read my other post you'll see why your idea
isn't
necessarily the
best.

If he us using the money he saved on the principle of the
home
loan
to pay
off
the business loan (with perhaps a higher interest rate)
sooner,
then it
seems as
though he's doing a smart thing.

Wouldn't you think that he knows more about his finances
than
you
do?

A tree stump knows more about finances than the "King"

Paying off the house early is like buying a 2-1/2% bond.


Hmm, so, let's see, if I am debt free, ALL of my surplus money
can
be
earning for me.

But you won't be debt free for 17 years, and by that time you'll
be
just a
few short years from retirement. Even if you save 75% of your
salary
for
those few short years, you'll have missed out on 17 years of
compounding
interest.

Haven't you ever seen the example where two people contribute
$2000/year to
their simple IRA for equal number of years? The first guy starts
contributing at age 18, and the second guy waits until age 30 to
start his
contributions. They both contribute the same net amount (I think
the

example that I saw was $2000 per year for 16 years...meaning each
contributed $32000). By age 62, and despite equal amounts of
contributions,
the first guy has four times as much in his retirement fund than
the
second
guy.


If you are still in debt up to your ass, you don't have
near the surplus money, because you are paying someone else to
use
their money. Hell, it's simple, even for you. Also, I see that
you
still don't have the mental capacity to debate a subject
without
childish name calling. Pretty pathetic.

You mean like calling me stupid?
No, I said you were an idiot. I didn't call you Idiot.

OK...you stupid, pot-smoking, low-life, piece of ****.

(Is that name calling?)

No...it is an honest portrayal of the facts :-)

Do you have any evidence to back up your wild allegations?