Should I finance rental property or own outright?
To answer some parts of the question which are answerable as-is: Yes, mortgage interest is deductible. So is depreciation. See this question and others. It would be a good idea to put some money away for tax season, just as you should save some money to cover unexpected property expenses. But as @JoeTaxpayer says, this is a good problem to have, assuming you own the property, it's low-maintenance, your tenant is good, and your rent is at market levels. In general you do not want to show a taxable gain on rental properties if you can avoid it.  One of the more beneficial advantages of owning cash flowing rental properties, is that the income is tax deferred because of the depreciation.  I say deferred, because depreciation affects the cost basis of your property.   Also since you are considering financing, it sounds like you don't need the cash flow currently.  You usually can get better returns by financing and buying more rental properties, especially with investment mortgages at historical lows (Win via inflation over time)
With student loans at 2%, I wouldn't pay a dime over minimum on that, and I certainly wouldn't sell an investment property to pay them off, you can get CD's that beat 2% interest. With the rentals, you could sell the one that isn't performing as well and pay no capital gains tax if you lived in it 2 of the last 5 years (counting 5 years back from sale date). That'd be a nice chunk of money for your down-payment. The risk of using proceeds to buy a different rental property is that you may find you don't like being a distance landlord, and then you'd lose money selling or be stuck doing something you don't enjoy for a while until you can sell without a loss. Like you mentioned, the risk of selling either/both rental properties is that if the Arizona housing/rental markets do well you'd have given up your position and missed out. Ultimately, I think it's about your desired timeline, if you are content to wait a while to buy in San Diego, you could have a handsome down payment, will know whether or not you like being a distance landlord, and can sell/keep the rentals accordingly. Alternatively, if you want to get a house in San Diego sooner, then selling one or both rentals gets you there faster. If I was in your position, I'd probably sell the rental that I lived in and put that toward a down-payment on a primary residence, keeping the other rental for now and trying my hand at being a distance landlord. I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant.  In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out.  In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling.  Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price.  Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit.  No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan. "I'd probably say ""buy"" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me." "Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to ""restock"" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on.  I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely." "I think the real answer to your question here is diversification.  You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment.  However, the same logic works in your rental property.  If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a ""break even"" investment very quickly.  In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk.  Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc.  Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt.  While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest.   To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -" "A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the ""renter"" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the ""landlord,"" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a ""lot"" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your ""rent"" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have ""portable equity"" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will ""get lucky"" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because ""sky rockets"" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house." Diversification is one aspect to this question, and Dr Fred touches on its relationship to risk.  Another aspect is leverage: So it again comes down to your appetite for risk.  A further factor is that if you are successfully renting out your property, someone else is effectively buying that asset for you, or at least paying the interest on the mortgage. Just bear in mind that if you get into a situation where you have 10 properties and the rent on them all falls at the same time as the property market crashes (sound familiar?) then you can be left on the hook for a lot of interest payments and your assets may not cover your liabilities. I'd suggest taking all the money you have saved up and putting in a mutual fund and hold off on buying a rental property until you can buy it outright.  I know it seems like this will take forever, but it has a HUGE advantage: I know it seems like it will take forever to save up the money to buy a property for cash, but in the long run, its the best option by far. "I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as ""investments"" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting.  Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria:  IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters.  D - Depreciation; tax savings.  E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much ""principle"" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil.  A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time.  L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA.  When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it.  Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL." Pay down the lower balance on the rental property. Generally speaking, you are more likely to need/want to sell the rental house as business conditions change or if you need the money for some other purpose. If you pay down your primary residence first, you are building equity, but that equity isn't as liquid as equity in the rental. Also, in the US, you cannot deduct the interest on a rental property, so the net interest after taxes that you're paying on the rental narrows the gap between the 4.35% loan and the 5% loan. "When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as ""buy-to-let"" mortgages often have higher interest rates." Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take.  The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%.  Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar.  There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price?  In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way.  So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses.  There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord.  Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation.  Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds. In most cases my preference would be to buy. However, if you intend to sell after just one year I would maybe lean towards renting. You haven't included buying and selling cost into your equation nor any property taxes, and as John Bensin suggests, maintenance costs. If you were looking to hold the property for at least 5 years, 10 years or more, then if the numbers stood up, I would defiantly go with the buy option. You can rent it out after you move out and if the rent is higher than your total expenses in holding the property, you could rely on some extra passive income. The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different. I wondered about this problem too, so I looked into the maths and made this app :- http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ (It uses the free Wolfram computable-document format (CDF) Player.) If you try it out you can see what conditions favour renting vs buying.  My own conclusion was to aim to buy a property outright upon reaching retirement age, if not sooner. Example This example compares buying a £400,000 house with renting for £1,000 a month while depositing equivalent amounts (in savings) to total the same monthly outgoings as the buyer.  Mortgage rate, deposit rate, property appreciation and rent inflation can be variously specified.  The example mortgage term is 20 years.  As you can see the buyer and renter come out about even after the mortgage term, but the buyer comes off better after that, (having no more mortgage to pay).  Of course, the rent to live in a £400,000 house would probably be more than £1,000 but this case shows an equivalence point.