Buying a house. I have the cash for the whole thing. Should I still get a mortgage to get the homeowner tax break?
Not for the tax break, no; as others have said that still costs you money. However, with rates being low right now and brought a bit lower by the tax break, this is an opportunity for the safest form of leveraged investing you will ever find. If you invest that money, the returns on investment will probably be better than the mortgage rate, and that leaves you with a net profit. There is some risk if the market collapses, but it's less risk than any other form of borrowing to invest. That also leave you with more flexibility if you need cash in a hurry; you can draw down the investments rather than taking another loan. If the risk bothers you, you can do what I did and split the difference. I put 50% down and financed the rest. I sometimes regret not having pushed it harder, since it has worked out well for me ... but that was the level of risk I was comfortable with. "Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the ""priorities"" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase." Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate.  That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it.  Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%.  Let's assume a 25% tax rate.  Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%?  If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.).  These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house.  I recently bought my house using 100% cash.  It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs.  I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved.  My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.
"Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service.  In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years.  The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an ""owner occupied"" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some ""too good to be true"" deals are still out there." The Homebuyers Tax Credit was unrelated to whether or not a mortgage was part of the purchase. You will have no issue with this credit if you refinance. It is normally a bad idea to cash in retirement accounts to buy a house, in your case it is a horrible idea because you are way behind on saving for retirement. Other fallacies in your reasoning:   My advice, increase the amount you are saving for retirement considerably, and also put some money aside to save for a down payment on a house. Buy the house when you have enough non-retirement money to afford the down payment. If you can't wait that long, buy a house you can afford. It may help to think of it this way: Visualize yourself as a 65 year old retired person with very little income, and living on your retirement account. Would you as a 39 year old ask that person to give you $175,966 (the amount you are talking about withdrawing compounded annually at 6% interest for 25 years with no additional contributions) so that you could put a down payment on a house? Because that is what you would be doing. When you hit retirement age would you kick yourself for making such a decision? Because unless you die young, that person is sitting out there in your future needing that money to live off of. Don't take this the wrong way, but the tone of your question seems like you are looking for support to make what you already know is a bad financial decision. "No one has addressed the fact that your loan interest and property taxes are ""deductible"" on  your taxes? So, for the first 2/3 years of your loan, you will should be able to deduct each year's mortgage payment off your gross income. This in turn reduces the income bracket for your tax calculation.... I have saved 1000's a year this way, while seeing my home value climb, and have never lost a down payment.  I would consider trying to use 1/2 your savings to buy a property that is desirable to live in and being able to take the yearly deduction off your taxes. As far as home insurance, most people I know have renter's insurance, and homeowner's insurance is not that steep.  Chances are a year from now if you change your mind and wish to sell, unless you're in a severely deflated area, you will reclaim at minimum your down payment." "If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is ""pay cash now.""  A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too.  At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy.  Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage.  I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises).  That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it.  A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder.  If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation." "First off, the ""mortgage interest is tax deductible"" argument is a red herring.  What ""tax deductible"" sounds like it means is ""if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes"".  If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means.  What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line ""income subject to taxation.""  Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something ""tax deductible"" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first.  It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan.  So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years.  The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that.  Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say ""5 years."" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose?  It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way." I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location. avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income.  Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable. Unless you have an actual hardship (bankruptcy or other emergency), you will be better off leaving that money alone. This excellent answer, gives more than enough reasons why a withdrawal or loan is not recommended.  I would love some advice because I need to know if I should contribute more into my 401k or less. If your priority to purchase is high enough, it may be worth considering stopping 401k contributions for a short time to help pile up a down payment.  I also encourage you to consider that if you cannot pool the money from non-retirement sources, then you cannot afford that much house at this time. This might mean looking for cheaper houses or delaying purchase for a number of years. First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false.  It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash.  This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor.  The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods. A $500K mortgage at 4.5% is $2533, right near the $2500 in your example. Interest the first year would be less than $22K, and your tax benefit (taking littleadv's answer into account, of course) would be $5500, max.  The tax benefit is the least of the reasons to get a mortgage. On your hypothetical $100K income, and too-high mortgage, a $5500 benefit is nothing. If one needs this tax benefit to make the numbers work, they are budgeted too tightly.  If you are considering trading a $1000 rent for a $500K mortgage with a $2500 payment, I'd look very carefully at the numbers. Search this board for the associated expenses of homeownership. My mortgage started out with an escrow, but it seemed like they were mismanaging it. They often over-collected it and locked up my money unnecessarily or under-collected and had to catch up later to pay the tax bill. Despite what Vitalik said, I told them I would pay my own taxes and insurance and to stop the escrow and they did without argument. Keep in mind, you should only do this if you are good about saving money. The banks know that many people aren't and will have trouble at the end of the year when a multi-thousand dollar tax or insurance bill comes due, hence the reason they try to get you to do the escrow.  In my case, I just had the estimated tax/escrow amount automatically deposited from my paycheck into a special interest bearing savings account that I manage. If you withdraw money, even under a hardship clause like for purchasing a house, you'll still own taxes and a penalty on it.  If you are talking about a 401K loan, a loan will have no taxes/penalty, but you'll repay the loan with after-tax reduction of your salary. Max is 50k or 50% of the balance. It maybe up to the 401K administrator whether all of the funds need to go to the down payment and closing costs or whether some can go towards renovations. The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks.  In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments. Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it.  Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes.  Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes.  How would it look in 30 years?  Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario.  Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself: