Not paying cash for a house
The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix.  My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions. You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income. Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.
"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that ""regular"" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes." One additional reason to pay with cash rather than financing is that you will be able to completely shut down the dealership from haggling over finance terms and get right to the point of haggling over the cost of the car (which you should always do). "The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will ""grow"" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the ""lucky"" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands.  The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about." All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost. Of course you don't need to take a mortgage - if you happen to have enough cash (or other assets) to pay your sister her share, or if she is willing to take it in installments over the next years. Mortgages are not needed to buy houses, but to pay for them - subtle difference. If you can pay - in whichever agreed way - without a mortgage, you won't need one. "In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house.   Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay ""eigendoms belasting"" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house,  keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house." "That ain't nothing.  It's really easy to get ""whipped up"" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have.  If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere?  Realistically.  Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better?  What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors?  It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money.  If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck.  Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash.  Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism.  In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own.  In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell.  That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke.  Keep the property forever, keep it working for you.  If he doesn't know how, learn.  To ""get bootstrapped"" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do ""housemate shares"".  When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition.  Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get.  People like honesty in the social sharing economy.  And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB?  Can he carve out an ""in-law unit"" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright.  This is what the new sharing economy is all about.  Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house.  Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't!  She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it!  And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that.  Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him.   ""Owning it on paper"" doesn't mean you own it.  There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it.  The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed.   This is called your equity.   Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements,  MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable.   But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs.  This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth.  This is a dangerous situation.  If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale.  If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell.  And that is leverage he has over her.  I imagine a ""Winter's bone"" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died.  That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale.   The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt." use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption. "To buy a house, you need: At least 2 years tax returns (shows a steady income history; even if you're making 50k right now, you probably weren't when you were 16, and you might not be when you're 20; as they say, easy come, easy go). A 20% down payment.  These days, that easily means writing a $50k check.  You make $50k a year, great, but try this math: how long will it take you to save 100% of your annual salary?  If you're saving 15% of your income (which puts you above many Americans), it'll still take 7 years.  So no house for you for 7 years. While your attitude of ""I've got the money, so why not"" is certainly acceptable, the reality is that you don't have a lot of financial experience yet.  There could easily be lean times ahead when you aren't making much (many people since 2008 have gone 18 months or more without any income at all). Save as much money as possible.  Once you get $10k in a liquid savings account, speak to a CPA or an investment advisor at your local bank to set up tax deferred accounts such as an IRA.  And don't wait to start investing; starting now versus waiting until you're 25 could mean a 100% difference in your net worth at any given time (that's not just a random number, either; an additional 7 years compounding time could literally mean another doubling of your worth)." "They don't have to take cash if they reasonably told you in advance they don't take cash, because they made fair effort to prevent you from incurring a debt.  They don't have to take cash if the transaction hasn't yet happened (not a debt) or if it can be easily undone at no cost to either party - such as a newspaper subscription they can just stop delivering.  Both of these reasons are limited by the rules against discrimination, see below.  They don't have to take cash if it's impracticable. For instance a transit bus when fares first went to $1.00, it took years to fund new fareboxes able to take paper money.  You don't have to take a mortgage payment in pennies.  Liquor stores don't have to take $100 bills. (it requires them to keep too much change in the till, which makes them a robbery target).  Trouble arises when it appears there's an ulterior motive for the rule.   Suppose a Landlord Jim requires rent to be paid with EFT.  Rent-controlled Marcie tells the judge ""It's a scheme to oust me, he knows I'm unbanked"".  Jim counters ""No. I got mugged last month because criminals know when I collect cash rents.""  It will turn on whether Jim can show good-faith effort to work with his unbanked tenants to find other ways to pay. If Jim does a particularly bad job of this, he could find himself paying Marcie's legal bills! Even worse if the ulterior motive is discrimination. Chet the plumber hates Muslims. Alice the feed supplier hates the Amish.  So they decide to take credit cards only, knowing those people's religions don't allow them.  Their goose is cooked once they can't show any other reasonable reason to refuse cash." "Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need.  A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off.  We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars.  We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for.  Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door.   Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs.  Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs.  It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated.  I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it.  Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster.  Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult.  Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter.  Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things.  Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one.  The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time.  If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can.   It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot.  During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card.  I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month.  Every 4 months they increased my limit.   After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about ""Credit Repair"" companies.  Anything they can do, you can too.  It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills.  If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan.  If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route.  BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle." Ok but if there's no money and nobody willing to lend, how are those payments made?   It's fine and dandy to have the theoretical obligation and willingness, but I'm wondering what happens when there's simply no more capability to borrow more.  Edit: Funny you say that, I'm moving in! Your friends are overlooking a couple of problems with house prices and salaries being out of whack: Home 'equity' is a paper gain unless you realize it by selling the house. If you don't, but use the 'home ATM', all you're doing is piling up more debt that's secured on an asset that has downside risk. Ask anybody who's refinanced their house to buy a new boat or SUV in 2006/2007. In other words you're remortgaging the chickens before the eggs hatched. Of course they're also forgetting that all this debt will have to be paid back at some point, and that usually takes income, not equity. In a certain sense the housing market is a pyramid scheme that requires an influx of new buyers to maintain prices. Very simply, if you can't sell your house to buy a bigger one because the first time buyer you're trying to sell it to can't afford the down payment or the payment on the mortgage, then you can't sell your house to buy a bigger/better/nicer one and the next person in the chain can't sell his/hers. Cue the domino effect. House prices are only sustainable if people actually can afford to buy houses and if there's a massive disconnect between house prices and salaries, then house prices will fall eventually. It might just take a little longer depending on the amount of creative financing options that will eventually dry up. I don't know any clever way to do what you're describing.  And, in a sense, you can see why there might not be one.  A mortgage isn't just a magical way to reduce your housing expenses; it's a tradeoff in which you agree to a long-term commitment in exchange for fixed costs (or at least costs with a prearranged structure) over that long term.  If you're unwilling to accept the obligation of paying for and maintaining the property over a long period, you can't really expect to reap the benefits of lowered costs.  Part of the reason people say buying is better is because people often do live in the same place for a long time, in which case, if they rent, they might miss out on savings they could have had if they bought instead.  If you're not going to live in the same place for a long time, buying may not actually be better for you. It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though.