Do I pay a zero % loan before another to clear both loans faster?
By paying the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan you will save $23.30 in interest every month. By paying the $11,000 into the 3.625% loan you will save $33.20 in interest every month. If your objective is to get rid of one loan quicker so repayments can go to the other loan to pay off sooner, I would put the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan and pay that off as quick as possible, then put any extra payments into the mortgage at 3.625%. Pay only the minimum amounts into the 0% car loan as this is not costing you anything. See many past answers: you will usually save the most money by paying off the highest-intetest-rate loan first. (Remember to allow for tax effects, if any, when comparing real interest rates.) Some folks are more motivated to simplify their finances than to save money; in that case you might pay off the smallest loan first. This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage.  So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage.   These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan.   Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t.  Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first.  Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker.    This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose.   (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.) "This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things.  Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay ""the interest first"" when making a early payment.  Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the ""full price"" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway.  Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early.  Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term).   Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home.  Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready ""paid for"" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early." "Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (""the most expensive money""). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally ""free money"" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans.  Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same.  In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called ""snowballing"", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week.  Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress.  It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target.  Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt.  Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments.  You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance.  Paying off your car... so your car's paid off.  If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan.  But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency.  This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan.   Many modern banks actually use ""mortgage offsetting"" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted ""as if"" you'd paid it off your mortgage.  So you get the benefit without the commitment.  The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement.  And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars.  But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing." Your goal of wanting to eliminate your debts early is great. Generally, you can save more money by paying off loans with higher interest rates first. However, it sounds like you are excited about the idea of eliminating one of your car loans in two months.  There is nothing wrong with that; it is good to be excited about eliminating debt.  I like your plan. Pay off the $14.6k loan first, then apply the $635 monthly payment to the $19.4k loan.  You'll have that loan paid off almost 3 years early.  Perhaps you'll find some additional money to apply to it and get rid of it even earlier. After you've eliminated both car loans, save up that $1000/month for your next car.  That will allow you to pay cash for it, which will allow you to negotiate the best price and save interest.  0% loans are not free money. Other answers will tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your 0% loan, but I think there can be good reasons to eliminate smaller loans first, regardless of interest. This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%.  So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue.  I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work.  So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month.  If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year.  If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck! "Allen, welcome to Money.SE. You've stumbled into the issue of Debt Snowball, which is the ""low balance"" method of paying off debt. The other being ""high interest."" I absolutely agree that when one has a pile of cards, say a dozen, there is a psychological benefit to paying off the low balances and knocking off card after card. I am not dismissive of that motivation. Personal Finance has that first word, personal, and one size rarely fits all. For those who are numbers-oriented, it's worth doing the math, a simple spreadsheet showing the cost of the DS vs paying by rate.  If that cost is even a couple hundred dollars, I'll still concede that one less payment, envelope, stamp, etc, favors the DS method. On the other hand, there's the debt so large that the best payoff is 2 or 3 years away. During that time, $10000 paid toward the 24% card is saving you $2400/yr vs the $500 if paid toward 5% debt. Hard core DSers don't even want to discuss the numbers, strangely enough.  In your case, you don't have a pile of anything. The mortgage isn't even up for discussion. You have just 2 car loans. Send the $11,000 to the $19K loan carrying the 2.5%. This will save you $500 over the next 2 years vs paying the zero loan down. Once you've done that, the remaining $8000 will become your lowest balance, and you should flip to the Debt Snowball method, which will keep you paying that debt off.  DS is a tool that should be pulled out for the masses, the radio audience that The David (Dave Ramsey, radio show host) appeals to. They may comprise the majority of those with high credit card debt, and have greatest success using this method. But, you exhibit none of their symptoms, and are best served by the math. By bringing up the topic here, you've found yourself in the same situation as the guy who happens to order a white wine at a wedding, and finds his Mormon cousin offering to take him to an AA meeting the next day.  In past articles on this decision, I've referenced a spreadsheet one can download. It offers an easy way to see your choice without writing your own excel doc. For the situation described here, the low balance total interest is $546 vs $192 for the higher interest. Not quite the $500 difference I estimated. The $350 difference is low due to the small rate difference and relatively short payoffs. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and you can decide either way. What's important is that if you pay off the zero interest first, you can say ""I knew it was a $350 difference, but I'd rather have just one outstanding loan for the remain time."" My issue with DS is when it's preached like a religion, and followers are told to not even run the numbers. I wrote an article, Thinking about Dave Ramsey a number of years back, but the topic never gets old." Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance. "Aside from the calculations of ""how much you save through reducing interest"", you have two different types of loan here.  The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in ""houses"", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of ""paying by installments"" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to ""get the $11,000 back"" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover ""normal emergencies"" without having to take this sort of action, but ""abnormal emergencies"" do sometimes happen!" While, from a money-saving standpoint, the obviously-right course of action is to make only the minimum payment on the 0% loan, there are potentially legal reasons to try to pay off a car loan early. With a mortgage, you are the legal owner of the property and any action by the lender beyond imposing fees (e.g. foreclosure) requires going through the proper legal channels. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, you are not the legal owner of a car purchased on a loan, and a missed or even lost payment can result in repossession without the lender even having to go to court. So from a risk-aversion standpoint, there's something to be said for getting rid of car loans as soon as you can. At the moment, you are paying about $1,300 interest each month (£431k @ 3.625% / 12) on your mortgage and repaying capital at about $1,500 per month. Paying $11,000 off your mortgage would save you about $9,000 as it is reduces your balance by about seven monthly capital repayments: but you will only see this benefit at the end of the mortgage because you will pay it off seven months earlier. There is only about $1,000 interest remaining on your car loans. Paying the $11,000 off your interest free loan then paying extra agianst the interest bearing loan brings that down to $500 and paying it off your interest bearing loan brings it down to $200. Either way, both car loans would be finished by early 2018. In summary, if you use the $11,000 against your car loans, you will save $8,500-$8,800 less than paying it off the mortage, but you will have no car loans in one year rather than three. Google spreadsheet for calculations here. Keep in mind that by fully paying off one of your loans, you will reduce your minimum repayments. This will make you feel richer than you actually are. This will make you buy stuff that it seems like you can afford, probably putting some of it on credit. As you can't actually afford this, this will leave you, in a years time, with the same amount of debt you have now or more, but with a slightly bigger tv. Assuming your home loan has no penalties for paying off extra, then put all 11k into there to keep your monthly repayments as high as possible.
If you want to pay them off as quickly as possible, pay the minimum payment on the larger two and dump as much as you can into the one with the 8.75% interest.  Then, even though it has a slightly lower interest rate, I would attack the one with the next smallest balance after that, while continuing to make the minimum payment on the one with the largest balance. I think everyone else answered before you added the info about your car loan in your comment. While it makes sense to pay off loans with the highest interest rate first, keep in mind that in most cases you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income. So the after-tax rate of interest that you're paying on your 8.6% second mortgage will be less than your 7% car loan, assuming that your tax bracket is more than 18% (federal and state combined). If you plan to use your funds to pay down debt, definitely attack the car loan first. In my opinion, it generally makes sense to focus all of your debt-reduction energy and funds on one loan at a time. There are two reasons for this: It will allow you to more quickly move from 4 loans to 3 loans, and then 2, and then 1, providing you with a sense of progress and motivation. As you reduce the number of loans that you have, your monthly minimum payment obligations will be reduced.  Then, if you have a month with an emergency expense, you will have more income available to you for your emergency without getting behind on your loans. There is debate about whether to pay loans in order of the loan balance or in order of interest rate (you can read about this here and here), but in your case, your highest interest loans also have the lowest balance, so either method would have you picking the same loans first.   You have already chosen, wisely, to start with the $1500, 6.8% loans.  Send all of your $1000 to one of these loans, and continue to work aggressively to knock out all four as quickly as possible. "There are several ways you can get out of paying your student loans back in the USA: You become disabled and the loan is dismissed once verified by treating doctor or the Social Security Administration. You become a peace officer. You become a teacher; generally K-12, but I have heard from the DOE that teachers at state schools qualify as well. So the ""malicious"" friend B is prescribing to the theory that if one of those conditions becomes true, friend A will not have to pay back the loan. The longer you drag it out, the more chance you have to fulfill a condition. Given that 2 of these methods require a commitment, my guess is that they are thinking more along the lines of the first one, which is horrible. Financially, it makes no sense to delay paying back your loans because deferred loans are only interest-free until you graduate and are past your grace period, after which they will begin accruing interest. Unsubsidized loans accrue interest from the day you get them, only their payback is deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period. Anytime you ask for forbearance, you are still accruing interest and it is capitalizing into your principal — you are just given a chance to delay payback due to financial hardship, bad health, or loss of job. Therefore, at no point are you benefiting beyond the time you are in school and getting an education, still looking for a job, or dealing with health issues. In the current market, no CD, no savings account, and no investment will give you substantially more return that will offset the loss of the interest you are accruing. Even those of us in the old days getting 4.X % rates would not do this. There was a conditional consolidation offer the DOE allowed which could bring all your loans under one roof for a competitive 5.x-6.x % rate allowing you a single payment, but even then you would benefit if you had rates that were substantially higher. From a credit worthiness aspect, you are hurt by the outstanding obligation and any default along the way, so you really want to avoid that — paying off or down your loans are a good way to ensure you don't shoot yourself in the foot." I would just create a single liability account to represent the loan, starting with a $0 balance. Then, create a transaction in which the amount of the loan moves from the liability account into your savings account. As you pay the loan off, you'll create new transactions that move money from whichever account you're using to pay it off into your liability account. "This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise.  With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually.   The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan.  In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their ""fair share"".   I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process.   Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings." Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next.  This will result in the lowest interest paid each year.  The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years. "With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in ""default"" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. ""One big loan"" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa.  I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009.  Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer ""payment plans"" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense." It does make sense to combine debts and pay off the worst (highest interest rate). However, if you can't get any loan, you should focus on the worst debt and pay that off. Then take the same amount of money you were paying to the next worse debt, and so on until you're clean. Let's look at an example. Debt A is at 5%, Debt B is at 10% and Debt C is at 15%. You are paying AB and C. On a monthly basis, you save 100€ to pay off C. Once C is payed off, you keep on saving 100€ and add whatever you were paying to Debt C to those savings. This way, you can pay off Debt B at an increased rate. When B is cleared, you save 100€ + whatever you were paying to Debt B and Debt C to clear Debt A. That's the theory. "If you take a loan, you make a contract with your lender, let's call them ""bank"" (even if it might not be a real bank).  This loan contract contains an agreed-upon way of paying back the loan.  Both sides agreed upon these conditions.  Any change of it (like paying back early) needs the consent of both sides.  So, in general, no, you cannot just pay back everything earlier unless the other side accepts this change of the contract. Consider it from the bank's point of view:  They want to earn money by getting the interest you have to pay when you pay back everything nice and slowly.  It is their business.  They plan on these expected revenues etc. So if, for whatever reason, you have to pay back the whole remaining loan at once, you create a revenue loss for the bank and are liable for this financial damage.  In German the term for this is ""Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung"" which translates to ""prepayment penalty"" or ""acceleration fee"".  You just have to pay it, so in the end you come out like if you were paying back the loan in the agreed-upon fashion. However, many loan contracts contain the option to pay back early at specific points in time in specific amounts and under specific conditions." "I think so.  I am doing this with our furniture.  It doesn't cost me any more money to pay right now than it will to pay over the course of 3 years, and I can earn interest on the money I didn't spend. But know this: they aren't offering 0%, they are deferring interest for 3 years.  If you pay it off before then great, if you don't you will owe all the accumulated interest. The key with these is that you always pay it, and on time.  Miss a payment and you get hosed.  If you don't pay on time you will owe the interest that is being deferred.  They will also be financing this through a third party (like a major bank) and that company is now ""doing business with you"" which means in the US they can call you and solicit new services.  I am willing to deal with those trade offs though, plus, as you say, you can always pay it off. WHY THEY DO IT (what is in it for them...) A friend of mine works for a major bank that often finances these deals here is how they work. Basically, banks do this to generate leads for their divisions that do cold calls.  If you are a high credit, high income customer you go to a classic bank and request cash, if you are building credit or have bad credit, you go to a ""financial services"" branch.  If you tend to finance things like cars and furniture, you get more cold calls." "There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US.  Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees.  Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest.  The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates.  Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate?  You'll have to call your lender.  While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below.   When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not ""principal or interest"" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule.  If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due.  When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150.  When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future.  You need to talk to your lender about ""unscheduled"" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender.  You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you.  There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card.  Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first.  You'll need to call your bank and ask them." First of all, congratulations on paying off $40k in debt in one year. Mathematically, you'd be better off making the standard car loan payments and putting your extra money toward the student loan. However, there are a few other things that you might want to consider. Over the last year, you've knocked out a whole bunch of different debts.  Feels pretty good, doesn't it?  At your current rate, you could knock out your new car loan in 6 months.  Then you'd only have one debt left.  If it sounds to you like it would be nice to only have one debt left, then it might be worth the mathematical disadvantage you would get by paying off the car early instead of putting the money toward the last student loan. The car loan is 0%, but if you are late on a single payment, they will take that opportunity to raise your interest rate to something probably higher than the interest rate of your student loan.  For this reason, you may decide it is not worth the hassle, and you'd rather just eliminate the car loan as quickly as possible. Either choice is fine, in my opinion, as long as you have a purpose behind the choice and you are committed to eliminating both debts as quickly as possible. As an aside, it is important to remember that even a 0% loan is not really free money, and needs to be paid back.  You know this, of course, but sometimes you see a 0% loan advertized and it feels like free money.  It's not.  You have probably already paid for the loan by forfeiting a rebate.  So although, at this point having already taken this loan and paying for it, you will come out ahead by dragging out your car loan for the full term, in the future do not think that you can make money by buying something at 0% interest. To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate.  Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible.  Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate.  Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan.  The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments.  This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method. "From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity   stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company   that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims   such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be   withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental   to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders,   usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a   profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called   retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a   dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash   (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a   dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of   further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer   to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the   holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to   pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a   later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable   at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often   the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be   transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer   agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on   the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under ""Employee Stock Purchase Plans"" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt   (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10   years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified   number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of   equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like   features.  It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by   early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter   market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by   companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential."