Why would I choose a 40-Year depreciation instead of the standard 27.5-Year?
There are specific cases where you are required to use ADS: Required use of ADS.   You must use ADS for the following property. Listed property used 50% or less in a qualified business use. See chapter 5 for information on listed property. Any tangible property used predominantly outside the United States during the year. Any tax-exempt use property. Any tax-exempt bond-financed property. All property used predominantly in a farming business and placed in service in any tax year during which an election not to apply the   uniform capitalization rules to certain farming costs is in effect. Any property imported from a foreign country for which an Executive Order is in effect because the country maintains trade   restrictions or engages in other discriminatory acts. See publication 946. If none of those apply to your property - you may elect ADS. Why would you elect ADS when you're not required to use it? If you can't think of a reason, then don't elect it. For most people the shorter the depreciation period - the more they can deduct (or accumulate in passive losses) each year, and that is usually the desirable case. If you plan on selling in 10 years, keep in mind the depreciation recapture and consider whether the passive losses (offsetting regular income) are worth the extra tax in this case.
"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far.  Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed.  Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon?  If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place.  But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous ""smart"" gains with one mistimed trade.  Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't ""miss the top"" or ""miss the bottom"", since you're not doing any trading." Your math is not wrong. That's why banks want these points. They did the same math too. There may be some immediate tax advantages for points though, in that case you can get return of your tax rate for the year of the points (which may make it worth it, if you don't want to keep the mortgage for more than, say, 10 years). Check here for details. If you're looking for some formula, I don't think one exists. People talk about this all the time and give conflicting advice. If there was a proven-accurate formula, they wouldn't be debating it. There are basically 3 reasons to do a home improvement project: (a) Correct a problem so that you prevent on-going damage to your home. For example, have a leaking roof patched or replaced, or exterminate termites. Such a job is worthwhile if the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of future damage. In the case of my termite and leaking roof examples, this is almost always worth doing. Lesser maintenance problems might be more debatable. Similarly, some improvements may reduce expenses. Like replacing an old furnace with a newer model may cut your heating bills. Here the question is: how long does it take to repay the investment, compared to other things you might invest your money in. Just to make up numbers: Suppose you find that a new furnace will save you $500 per year. If the new furnace costs $2000, then it will take 4 years to pay for itself. I'd consider that a good investment. If that same $2000 furnace will only cut your heating bills by $100 per year, then it will take 20 years to pay for itself. You'd probably be better off putting the $2000 into the stock market and using the gains to help pay your heating bill. (b) Increase the resale value of your home. If you are paying someone else to do the work, the harsh reality here is: Almost no job will increase the resale value by more than the cost of getting the job done. I've seen many articles over the years citing studies on this. I think most conclude that kitchen remodeling comes closet to paying for itself, and bathrooms come next. New windows are also up there. I don't have studies to prove this, but my guesses would be: Replacing something that is basically nice with a different style will rarely pay for itself. Like, replacing oak cabinets with cherry cabinets. Replacing something that is in terrible shape with something decent is more likely to pay back than replacing something decent with something beautiful. Like if you have an old iron bathtub that's rusting and falling apart, replacing it may pay off. If you have a 5-year-old bathtub that's in good shape but is not premium, top of the line, replacing it with a premium bathtub will probably do very little for resale value. If you can do a lot of the work yourself, the story changes. Many home improvement jobs don't require a lot of materials, but do require a lot of work. If you do the labor, you can often get the job done very cheaply, and it's likely that the increase in resale value will be more than what you spend. For example, most of my house has hardwood floors. Lots of people like pretty hardwood floors. I just restained the floors in two rooms. It cost me, I don't know, maybe $20 or $30 for stain and some brushes. I'm sure if I tried to sell the house tomorrow I'd get my twenty bucks back in higher sale value. Realtors often advise sellers to paint. Again, if you do it yourself, the cost of paint may be a hundred dollars, and it can increase the sale price of the house by thousands. Of course if you do the work yourself, you have to consider the value of your time. (c) To make your home more pleasant to live in. This is totally subjective. You have to make the decision on the same basis that you decide whether anything that is not essential to survival is worth buying. To some people, a bottle of fancy imported wine is worth thousands, even millions, of dollars. Others can't tell the difference between a $10,000 wine and a $15 wine.  The thing to ask yourself is, How important is this home improvement to me, compared to other things I could do with the money? Like, suppose you're considering spending $20,000 remodeling your kitchen. What else could you do with $20,000? You could buy a car, go on an elaborate vacation, eat out several times a week for years, retire a little earlier, etc. No one can tell you how much something is worth to you. Any given home improvement may involve a combination of these factors. Like say you're considering that $20,000 kitchen remodeling. Say you somehow find out that this will increase the resale value by $15,000. If the only reason you were considering it was to increase resale value, then it's not worth it -- you'd lose $5,000. But if you also want the nicer kitchen, then it is fair to say, Okay, it will cost me $20,000, but ultimately I'll get $15,000 of that back. So in the long run it will only cost me $5,000. Is having a nicer kitchen worth $5,000 to me? Note, by the way, that resale value only matters if and when you sell the house. If you expect to stay in this house for 20 years, any improvements done are VERY long-term investments. If you live in it until you die, the resale value may matter to your heirs. You mentioned 15-20 years in your comment on mhoran_psprep's response. This is the most important factor to consider in the points vs. rate question. With a horizon that long it sounds like the points are probably a better option for you. There is a neat comparison tool at The Mortgage Professor's website that may help you build your spreadsheet or simply check the numbers you are getting. There is an opportunity cost of your future insurance needs, Here, the savings vs risks ratio is difficult to figure out. Hence it is always worth that extra cost to buy the larger and longer policy if you can afford it. Basically if you can afford it today, it will cost peanuts after 20 years. "A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these.  A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient.  It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to ""diversify"" a primary residence.  You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes.  The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts?  Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac?  A big hurricane hits your county?  Ha-ha, now you're screwed.  As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to ""enjoy"" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not.  Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27.  When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to." "Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice.  4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth.  In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of   $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The   tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But,   at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e.   the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%.  I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides.  The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore  that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax.  It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars." There's several different trade-offs wrapped up in your question. In general, refinancing a mortgage to a lower interest rate makes sense if you are certain you'll be living in the house for N years.  N depends on your closing costs and points.  Basically you need to calculate the break-even point for when the savings from the reduced interest rate exceeds the cost of the re-fi.  When I refinanced, the broker did the calculations for me for a range of options, maybe yours could as well. The trade off in selecting 30-year vs. 15-year is between monthly payment and total outlay.  A 15-year mortgage will have a higher monthly payment, but the total money that is paid out the bank (rather than to your equity) will be less. Using the Heloc to do the down payment seems sketchy; plus then you have two loan payments you're making each month.  Why not keep it simple and look for a $250k loan with 5% down?  Presumably with the current mortgage you already put in a good down payment, and have built some equity up. The first method is the correct one. You bought an asset worth of $1000 and you put it on your depreciation schedule. What it means is that you get to write off the $1000 over a certain period of time (and not at once, as you do with expenses). But the value you're writing off is the $1000 regardless of how much you've written off already. Assume you depreciate in straight line over 5 years (that's how you depreciate computers for Federal tax purposes, most states follow). For the simplicity of the calculation, assume you depreciate each year as a whole year (no mid-year/mid-quarter conventions). The calculation is like this: If you sell the computer - the proceeds above the adjusted basis amount are taxed as depreciation recapture up to the accumulated depreciation amount, and as capital gains above that. So in your case - book value is the adjusted basis at the end of the year (EOY), depreciation this year is the amount you depreciate in the year in question out of the total of the original cost, and the accumulated depreciation is the total depreciation including the current year. In Maryland they do not allow depreciating to $0, but rather down to 25% of the original cost, so if you bought a $1000 computer - you depreciate until your adjusted basis is $250. Depreciation rates are described here (page 5). For computers (except for large mainframes) you get 30% depreciation, with the last year probably a bit less due to the $250 adjusted basis limitation. The rev rec rule allows companies to fully restate transition years, but doesn't actually require it. It allows them to just do a one time adjustment to retained earning instead, which is what most companies are doing/will do.  Lots of huge companies have adopted earlier than they had to, so they clearly saw some benefit in doing so. I think some are absolutely considering the benefits of a superficial bump in the transition year.   Obviously not a huge shift in long term earnings though. The breakeven amount isn't at 8 years. You calculated how many years of paying $500 it would take to break even with one year of paying $4000. 8 x 10 years = 80 years. So by paying $500/year it will take you 80 years to have spent the same amount ($40000 total) as you did in 10 years. At this point it may seem obvious what the better choice is. Consider where you'll be after 10 years: In scenario #1 you've spent $5000 ($500*10) and have to continue spending $500/year indefinitely. In scenario #2 you've spent $40000 ($4000*10) and don't have to pay any more, but you currently have $35000 ($40000 - $5000) less than you did in scenario #1. If you had stayed with scenario #1 you could invest that $35000 at a measly 1.43% annual return and cover the $500 payments indefinitely without ever dipping into your remaining $35000. Most likely over the long term you'll do better than 1.43% per year and come out far ahead. Contributions are post-tax, so there's no direct tax benefit to choosing a year. I just made a 2010 contribution today, and the institution's form explicitly asks me if I want it on 2010 or 2011.  The primary advantage of backdating like this is being able to contribute 5k more over your lifetime than otherwise possible, under the timing constraints. While there may be a year in the future which you don't contribute the max, contributing now lets you build up earnings tax free. For '10 vs '11, you're probably holding cash so it's not a big deal, but over five years is a long time to hold cash or invest with tax penalty. "Buy term and invest the difference is certainly the standard recommendation, and for good reason. When you start looking at some sample numbers the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy starts to look very good. Here are the rates I found (27 yr old in Texas with good health, non-smoker, etc): $200k term life: $21/month $200k whole life: $177/month If you were to invest the difference in a retirement account for 40 years, assuming a 7% rate of return (many retirement planning estimates use 10%) you would have $411,859 at the end of that period. (If you use 10% that figure jumps to over $994k.) Needless to say, $400k in a retirement account is better than a $200k death benefit. Especially since you can't get the death benefit AND the cash value. Certainly one big difficulty is making sure you invest that difference. The best way to handle that is to set up a direct deposit that goes straight from your paycheck to the retirement account before it even touches your bank account. The next best thing would be an automatic transfer from your bank account. You may wonder 'What if I can no longer afford to invest that money?' First off, take a second and third look at your finances before you start eating into that. But if financial crisis comes and you truly can't afford to fund your own life insurance / retirement account then perhaps it will be a good thing you're not locked into a life insurance policy that forces you to pay those premiums. That extra freedom is another benefit of the ""buy term and invest the difference"" strategy. It is great that you are asking this question now while you are young. Because it is much easier to put this strategy into play now while you are young.  As far as using a cash value policy to help diversify your portfolio: I am no expert in how to allocate long term investments after maxing out my IRA and 401k. (My IRA maxes out at $5k/year, another $5k for my wife's, another $16.5k for my 401k.) Before I maxed that out I would have my house paid for and kid's education saved for. And by then it would make sense to pay a financial adviser to help you manage all those investments. They would be the one to ask about using a cash value policy similar to @lux lux's description.  I believe you should NEVER PUT YOUR MONEY INTO SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Cash value policies are complex and I don't fully understand them. I should add that of course my calculations are subject to the standard disclaimer that those investment returns aren't guaranteed. As with any financial decision you must be willing to accept some level of risk and the question is not whether to accept risk, but how much is acceptable. That's why I used 7% in my calculation instead of just 10%. I wanted to demonstrate that you could still beat out whole life if you wanted to reduce your risk and/or if the stock market performs poorly." That's pretty typical for introductory problems.  It's leading you into an NPV question.  They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's I realize this question is a few years old now, but I wanted to address one of the OP's questions that hadn't been answered yet (my answer is framed as though the question were recent): However, on the plus side, the monthly payment would likely be $200 less/mo with this house vs our current rent. On a 30 year mortgage it would be almost $3-400 less. This makes me think that I could use the difference to pay directly toward the principal each month. Is my logic sound? The way amortization works, if the interest rate between 30 and 15 were the same, then making principal-only prepayments on the 30 year to cover the difference in monthly payments would result in the exactly the same schedule as if you did minimum payments on the 15-year - i.e. the numbers would be practically indistinguishable.  Of course, in practice the interest rate is slightly better on the 15-year, which makes the 30-year with prepayments compare slightly less favorably. If you're confident that you'll be able to reliably keep up with the monthly payments, the 15-year would minimize the total amount of interest you pay, and help you get off of PMI slightly faster.  But the 30-year w/ prepayments gives you the option to skip a prepayment or two if you run into any financial difficulty, which is a nice option to have.  But you do have to be disciplined about making the prepayments every month.