query: To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month?

positive: As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else.  I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan.  If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article.  The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation.  Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you.

positive: If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193.  The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51.  On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving.  In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first.  Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available.

positive: If you pay extra now you will pay less in interest over the life of the loan. Unless your savings account has a higher interest rate than the loan's rate you are not saving anything. That being said, you may have a greater need for savings due to other things (e.g. you might need a emergency fund). But if you are only saving for the loan: compare the rates to see if it is worth it.

positive: There are a few ways you can go about paying this off quickly (and safely): You could start paying $386 monthly (ie, double what you're paying now). You'll pay less interest in the long run because they can only charge you for the amount outstanding. Remember, 6.8% of $12k is more than 6.8% of $6k. However, your plan sounds more sensible. Say you get to $6k paid off and $6k saved, you're able to pay off what's left and that's almost $200 a month you'll have extra. Although what I like about this is - if you become ill, lose your job, or whatever, then you're still able make the $193 payments, PLUS you'll have money saved for day-to-day expenses (food, water, gas, electricity, etc.) long enough to see yourself through. PS. They may charge you a settlement fee because if you pay early then they miss out on money... but check your contract with them first. Hope this helps!

positive: As someone in the very same position as you here is what I suggest: Have $1,000 for each possible large expense you currently have. For example, house, car, pregnant wife, etc. As someone who only has a car (living at home still) I only have $1,000 in my eFund (emergency fund). The ABSOLUTE rest of my money goes to paying off the loans as soon as possible. I mean ever single dollar. There is no point for investing unless you have a really good return on investment. I am not too sure how common returns of 6.8% are, but that seems above average. If in fact you're just stashing it in a bank account at ~1%, you're doing it wrong.  Getting out of debt is not only just about the financial benefits but the emotional benefits too. It feels really nice to not owe anybody anything.  Good luck man!    P.S. Try using a tracker like ReadytoZero to show how much you're losing a day by remaining in debt. This will better help you understand if your investments are making you money or losing your money.

positive: The interest accrues daily based on the amount you owe.  The less you owe the less the daily interest accrual.  The faster you pay it off the less you pay in the lifetime of the loan.  You are losing money if you bank money rather than applying it to the loan immediately.  Since student loans cannot be declared in bankruptcy and interest rates cannot be refinanced, or are nonnegotiable, then you should consider your student loan a priority in case your employment/income runs into problems.

positive: Just one more thing to consider: a friend of mine had some student loan debt left over from graduate school. Years later, through his employer, he was able to apply for and receive a grant that paid off the remainder of his student loan. It was literally free money, and a significant amount, too. The windfall was a little bittersweet for him because he had been making extra payments over the years. The cap on the grant was something like $50k and he wasn't able to use all of it because he had been aggressive in paying it down. (Still, free money is free money.) Sure, this is a unique situation, but grants happen.

positive: Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6.  The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.

negative: You are expecting, that if you pay off a 30 mortgage after 16 years, you should be charged the same amount of interest as someone who had a 16 year mortgage for the same amount and with the same interest rate. This isn't correct, and here's why: the person with the 16 year mortgage paid it off faster than you. They paid more each month and the size of their loan shrunk faster than yours. After 15 years they had paid off a LOT more than you. You paid a lump sum after 16 years, but at this point, the extra money which they had paid had been in the banks hands for a long time. You caught up with them then, but you had been behind them for all of the previous years. On the other hand, you owed the same amount in each of those years as the person who took out a 30 year mortgage and didn't prepay. Therefore you paid the same amount of interest as this person, not the first person. If you could arrange in advance a loan where you made the same payment as you did for 16 years, then paid the balance in a lump sum, then you would have paid exactly what you did.

negative: "We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum.  Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward.  I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this...  - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due  - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me.  It was usually off by a little.   My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check.   I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required.  I would guess it is against federal (US) law.  Lets think about that for a moment...  out of ""interest"", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest.  That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due...  - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time.  I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won.  (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that)  - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter?  When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000.  If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k.  It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally.  I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest."

negative: Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction.

negative: "There are two issues here: arithmetic and psychology. Scenario 1: You are presently paying an extra $500 per month on your student loan, above the minimum payments. Your credit card company offers a $4000 cash advance at 0% for 8 months. So you take the cash advance, pay it toward the student loan, and then instead of paying the extra $500 per month toward the student loan you use that $500 for 8 months to repay the cash advance. Net result: You pay 0% interest on the loan, and save roughly 8 months times $4000 times the interest on the student loan divided by two. (I say ""divided by two"" because it's not the difference between $4000 and zero, but between $4000 and the $500 you would have been paying off each month.) Clearly you are better off. If you are NOT presently paying an extra $500 on the student loan -- or even if you are but it is a struggle to come up with the money -- then the question becomes, can you reasonably expect to be able to pay off the credit card before the grace period runs out? Interest rates on credit cards are normally much higher than interest rates on student loans. If you get the cash advance and then can't repay it, after 8 months you are paying a very steep interest rate, and anything you saved on the student loan will quickly be lost. What I mean by ""psychological"" is that you have to have the discipline to really repay the credit card within the grace period. If you're not very confidant that you can do that, this plan could go bad very quickly. Personally, I've thought about doing things like this many times -- cash advances against credit cards, home equity loans, etc, all give low-interest money that could be used to pay off a higher-interest debt. But it's easy to get into trouble doing things like this. It's easy to say to yourself, Well, I don't need to put ALL the money toward that other debt, I could keep a thousand or so to buy that big screen TV I really need. Or to fail to pay back the low-interest loan on schedule because other things keep coming up that you spend your money on instead, whether frivolous luxuries or true emergencies. And there's always the possibility that something will happen to mess up your finances, from a big car repair bill to losing your job. You don't want to paint yourself into a corner. Finally, maxing out your credit cards hurts your credit rating. The formulas are secret, but I understand that if you use more than half your available credit, that's a minus. How much it hurts you depends on lots of factors."

negative: Paying the minimum balance on a loan can be DEVASTATING and is highly UN-RECOMMENDED. It is important you understand your loan and the terms associated with it. Loans are given for a period of time but if you pay the minimum it does NOT mean you will pay it all off by the end. When paying a loan money is applied to the interest first and any extra amount is then applied to the principle. Here's an example: If I have a $12 loan for 1 year. The interest is 100%. My minimum payment each month is $1. If I pay that minimum only I will be stuck paying $12 at the end of the loan. Why you ask? because each month I'm being charged $1 interest and the payment I am making is only going towards that interest. However if I paid $2 instead now $1 goes to the principal (the original $12 I borrowed). This means that next month I will only be charged interest on $11 dollars instead of $12. You need to know how much is going towards the interest of your loan and how much is going towards the principle you can speak with your bank about this and they will help you understand. In many cases they actually provide you with the numbers on your statment with examples of how long it would take to payoff your loan with minimum only and how long it would take if you added an extra x amount each month. I recommend using the Snowball Method to pay of your debt. It's simple and effective. How much you should add to each monthly payment depends on how much you can afford to add. Here are some calculators you can play around with: CNN Money Bank Rate Calc Edit: So with the additional information you provided we can estimate that you have about 2200 free cash flow each month(that's your cash after you pay all your bills). We can put away 500 each month for a rainy day fund, just to be safe.(job loss, accidents, or anything we can't predict) So assuming that is all your expenses including the money you spend on entertainment. That leaves you with $1700 you can add on to your loan payments. So you can pay off your third loan in 1 month. Then add the remaining balance to the 2nd loan. With this income it should take you less then a year to pay off all your loans.

negative: What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495.  That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment.  In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires.  Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market.  Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated.   The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value.  I.e. with  ∴ by induction  So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found. Solving for r If you could obtain 9.64431% per month on the stock market the $x cash in hand required would be calculated by This is equal to the lump sum payment, so the calculated interest is comparable to the stock market rate of return.  If you could gain more than 9.64431% per month on the stock market it would be better to invest and take the loan. Recurrence Form Solving the recurrence form shows the calculation is equivalent to the loan formula, e.g. becomes v[m + 1] = (1 + y) v[m] - p where v[0] = pv where In the final month v[final] = 0, i.e. when m = 3 Compare with the earlier loan formula: s = (d - d (1 + r)^-n) / r They are exactly equivalent, which is quite interesting, (because it wasn't immediately obvious to me that what the lender charges is the mirror opposite of what you gain by investing). The present value can be now be calculated using the formula. Still assuming the 8% stock market return is per month. If the stock market yield is 8% per annum effective rate and if it is given as a nominal annual yield, 8% compounded monthly

negative: Scenario #2 is most likely will generate the best long-term financial outcome. If your friends emergency fund is truly excessive and can afford to be reduced by the amount required to payoff the vehicle loan then that will save a few dollars. Scenario #3 is not an approach I would recommend. However, if your friend has to choose between paying off the loan or maxing his Roth... Making a few assumptions regarding the loan, I figure it is probably a 4 year - $13.5k. Which means he is paying somewhere below $40 a month in interest.  As JAGnalyst speaks to people often over estimate the spread they can make with another investment compared to the interest rate on a loan. However, the effect of compounded, tax-free returns can not be ignored when you are discussing a 22 year old person contributing to a Roth IRA.  Doing some calculations, assuming the car is being paid off on the first payment your friend will save just under $1000. The total interest that would have been paid over the life of the loan. If your friend adds $3600, approximately one year of payments, to their Roth IRA contributions -- just once. Assuming a 3.5% avg return and a retirement age of 65, the $3600 will be worth just south of $16k; a $12,400 return. Using the same investment return and tax assumptions and simplifying the $1000 savings as if it was all realized as a lump sum at the time of paying off the loan. That $1000 invested in a non-tax-advantaged investment (because the whole discussion is based on if the friend had to pick and lose the opportunity for the one year to make the additional Roth IRA contribution) would return $3047.

negative: So my advice for your financial situation depends on your aims. Are you aiming to: -   Completely clear your debt -   Clear one card to free up more monthly income.  -   Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending -   Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. There are other things you may wish to do but you said to pay off some / all of 2 credit card bills. If you want to contact me I can plan this more precisely. Some seem the same but other factors can come into play as well. Differing rates of interest make the options clearer. My first advice would be to call the card companies and see if you can get better rates first. SCENARIO (some figures made up for visual) Credit Card Debts    8,000       8,000 Monthly payment       100           100 APR %                              10             10 Ignoring APR this will be 80 months to repay (otherwise 140 months using my example amounts above) £28,000 repaid over 11 years 8 months.  Your Suggestion As per your suggestion originally, paying off cards equally will allow smaller debt on both cards. Credit Card Debt      3,000      3,000 Monthly payment       100          100 APR %                              10            10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With the 10% APR this would take 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months) AIM: To clear debt completely. My advice here is to use the £10,000 lump sum to pay off one credit card, the remaining £2,000 can then come off the other card. This will free up your outgoings (was 2 x £100) by £100. But then use this £100 to pay off the card, this will result in the following: Credit Card Debt      6,000 Monthly payment       200 APR %                              10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 2 years 6 months. Cards are available to get free balance transfers, need to look into this. With 10% APR this would take roughly 3 years 1 month. £10,000 lump and £7,400 repaid over 3 years 1 month (saving £10,600 and 8 years 7 months).   This option is the same as above, but you have the options on the odd tight month to reduce payments to £100.   This also will allow the 2nd card to be used interest free for an emergency purchase (to be paid off without any interest charge)   If rates are different, pay of the one with the higher APR AIM: Clear one card to free up more monthly income.  AIM: Clear one card and focus on just using one, having 2nd as emergency. Same as above, but don’t increase to £200, leave monthly payment at £100. Credit Card Debt      6,000 Monthly payment       100 APR %                              10 With a 0% APR this would be paid off in 5 years. With the 10% APR this would take 88 months (7 years 4 months) £10,000 lump and £8,800 repaid over 7 years and 4 months (saving £9,200 and 4 years 4 months).   This also allows for some extra spending (even racking back up the debt – although not advised) AIM: Clear some debt to allow further controlled spending As above apart from this will allow you to spend to get back up to full £16,000 debt. NOTE My figures are theoretical, paying off £500 (£250x2) a month instead of the £100 (10%APR) would take: Lump sum 10,000, remaining 6,000 – 14 months (£17,000 paid) Lump sum 5,000, remaining 2 x 5,500 – 26 months (£18,000 paid) Lump Sum 0, remaining 2 x 8,000 – 40 months (£20,000 paid) Now I have finished waffling, I hope you have an idea on what you are aiming to achieve and a better idea of what to do when you receive the income  Stephen.

negative: "Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan.  Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that ""which loan to pay first?"" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the ""best"" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen."

negative: "You'd have to check the terms of your contract. On most installment loans, I think, they calculate interest monthly, not daily. That is, if you make 3 payments of $96 over the course of the month instead of one payment of $288 at the end of the month (but before the due date), it makes absolutely zero difference to their interest calculation. They just total up your payments for the month. That's how my mortgage works and how some past loans I've had worked. All you'd accomplish is to cost yourself some time, postage if you're mailing payments, and waste the bank's time processing multiple payments. If the loan allows you to make pre-payments -- which I think most loans today do -- then what DOES work is to make an extra payment or an overpayment. If you have a few hundred extra dollars, make an extra payment. This reduces your principle and reduces the amount of interest you pay every month for the remainder of the loan. And if you're paying $1 less in interest, then that extra dollar goes against principle, which further reduces the amount you pay in interest the next month. This snowballs and can save you a lot in the long run. Better still, instead of paying $288 each month, pay, say, $300. Then every month you're nibbling away at the principle faster and faster. For example, I calculate that if you're paying $288 per month, you'll pay the loan off in 72 months and pay a total of $6062 in interest. Pay $300 per month and you'll pay it off in 67 months with a total of $6031 interest. Okay, not a huge deal. Pay $350 per month and you pay it off in 55 months with $5449 interest. (I just did quick calculations with a spreadsheet, not accurate to the penny, but close enough for comparison.) PS This is different from ""revolving credit"", like credit cards, where interest is calculated on the ""average daily balance"". With a credit card, making multiple payments would indeed reduce your interest. But not by much. If you pay $100 every 10 days instead of $300 at the end, then you're saving the interest on 20 days x $100 + 10 days x $100, so 12.5% = 0.03% per day, so 0.03% x ($2000+$1000) = 90 cents. If you're mailing your payments, the postage is 49 cents x 2 extra payments = 98 cents. You're losing 8 cents per month by doing this."

negative: You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses).  Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive.  You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free.  At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses.  Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment.  Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach.  Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach.  Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both.  You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K.  Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.

negative: 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.

negative: When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism.

negative: Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money.  Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account?  That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month.  If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse.  You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do.  Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan.  (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision.

negative: Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up.  What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment.  What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them.

negative: If you have a 20,000 balance and a 8.75% interest rate, you should be paying between $145 and $150 in interest each month, with the balance going to principal.  (0.0875/12=0.007292, and that times 20,000 is 145.83; as interest is compounded daily, it'll be a little higher than that.)  If the minimum is below $145, then you are not covering the interest; I suspect that is what is happening here, and they're reporting interest paid that wasn't covered in a prior month (assuming you have some months where you only pay the statement minimum, which is less than the total accrued interest). Assuming you're in the US (or most other western countries), your loan servicer should be explaining the exact amount each payment that goes to principal and interest.  I recommend calling them up and finding out exactly why it's not consistent; what should be happening, assuming you pay more than the amount of interest each month, is the interest should go down (very) slowly each month and the amount paying off principal should go up (also slowly).  EG: Etc., until eventually the interest is zero and your loan is paid off.  It probably won't go this quickly for this size of loan - you're only paying off a tiny percentage of principal each month, $50/$20000 or 1/400th - so you won't make too much headway at this rate.   Even adding another $25 would make a huge difference to the length of the loan and the amount of interest paid, but that's another story.   You will eventually at this rate pay off the loan (at $200 a month for all 12 months); this isn't dissimilar to a 30 year mortgage in terms of percent interest to principal (in fact, it's better!).  $50 a month times twelve is $600; 400 payments would take care of it (so a bit over 30 years).  However, as you go you pay more principal and less interest, so you will actually pay it off in 15 years if you continue paying $200 a month exactly. What you may be seeing in your case is a combination of things: In months you pay less (ie, $100, say), the extra $45 in interest needs to go somewhere.  It effectively becomes part of the principal, but from what I've seen that doesn't always happen directly - ie, they account it differently at least for a short time (up to a year, in my experience). This is because of tax laws, if I understand correctly - the amount you pay in interest is tax-deductible, but not the amount of the principal - so it's important for you to have as much called 'interest' as possible.  Thus, if you pay $100 this month and $200 next month, that total of $300 is paying ~$290 of interest and $10 of principal, just as if you'd paid it $150 each month. If you had any penalties, such as for late payments, those come out off the top before interest; they may sometimes take that out as well. All in all, I strongly suggest having an enforced minimum (on your end) of the interest amount at least; that prevents you from being in a situation where your loan grows.  If you can't always hit $200, that's fine; but at least hit $150 every single month.  Otherwise you have a never ending cycle of student loan debt that you really don't want to be in. Separately, on the $1000 payment: As long as you make sure it's not assigned in such a way that the lender only accepts a month's worth at a time (which shouldn't happen, but there are shady lenders), it shouldn't matter what is called 'principal' and what is called 'interest'.  The interest won't go up just because you're making a separate payment (it'll go down!).  The portion that goes to interest will go to paying off the amount of interest you owe from the time of your last payment, plus any accrued but unpaid interest, plus principal.  You won't have the option of not paying that interest, and it doesn't really matter anyway - it's all something you owe and all accruing interest, it only really matters for accounting and taxes.  Double check with your lender (on the phone AND on their website, if possible) that overpayments are not penalized and are applied to principal immediately (or within a few days anyway) and you should be fine.

negative: "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."

negative: "It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month?  Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens.  2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The ""I'll make extra payments every month"" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of ""more important needs"", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility.  Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400.  On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270.   There are two practical differences for you:  1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but:  2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-)  Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor."

negative: You're halfway done with the debt elimination.  Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house.  First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without.  Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage.  This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP.  The rates aren't horrible.  That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that.

negative: Forget about terms.  Think about loans in terms of months.  To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month.   This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis.  In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest.  With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month.  So on and so forth.   The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest).  You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54.  The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing.  You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month.  So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.).  The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing.  So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing.  It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest.   If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different.  Say  You borrow $1000 for one month.  Then 834 for one month.  So on and so forth.  Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed.  Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest.  And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54.   That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere).  Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations.   I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter.  But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments.  And they ended up crediting me with an early release.  In fact, they rebated part of my last payment.  I saved several hundred dollars through the early release.  Perhaps your loan did not work the same way.  Perhaps it did.  But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe.

negative: I concur with pretty much what everyone else said. Let me break it down in a concrete plan of action.  First, though, note that at least the minimum payments for the credit cards needs to be on this list of fixed expenses. Also, you have $868 remaining in a normal month -- food could be $500 or more easily for a family, so find out how much!  Adding in just those 2 things, and you're already at your max. And there are other expenses in life.   Ok, cutting from the top: DirectTv -- gone. Pure luxury, and between netflix, hulu and your   internet connection (hook your computer to the tv), there's no need   for it. $80 savings.  Cell phones -- you're already moving in the right direction, but not   far enough. In a financial crunch why does your stay-at-home wife have   a cell? Especially when she could just as easily use Google Voice for   free? Both plans gone, replaced by one of the prepaids @$45. $105   savings, total $186 savings.  529 plans -- Of course you want to save for your kids college, but it   doesn't help them for you to drown financially. Gone until your credit   card debit is too. $50 savings, $236 total. Ok, we're already up to $236/month in savings just cutting items you don't need. That probably gets you back into the black, but why stop there?  Trimming expenses  Electric -- ok, I know it's summer, but can you cut this back? Is the   thermostat set as high as you can comfortably bear? Are you diligent   in turning of lights, especially incandescent? Do you turn off your   computer when you're not using it? See if you can get the Electric   down by 10%. That's $20/month savings. Doesn't seem like much, but it   adds up.  Gas -- same with gas. Do you have gas hot water? If so, cut shower   length. Saves on water too.  Food -- this one you didn't list. But as I said, you could be spending   $500 or $600 a month easily for a family. Do you guys plan meals, and   thus plan shopping trips? If not, do it. You'll be surprised how much   you can save. Either way, 10% reduction should be doable. That's   $50/month. If you don't plan now, 20% is within reach -- that's   $100/month. Ok, that may have added as much as $130 or so. If so, you're now up to $366/month savings. That's like a 15% raise.  Simply cutting, however, is only half the plan. You want to improve your situation, so you can get the Directtv back (assuming you'll even want it at that point), and the wife's cell phone, for starters.  To do that, you've got to nail down that debt. I figure you've got minimum $567.23/month in debt payments. That's not including your mortgage, and including an assumed $80/month minimum credit card payments. You pay over 21% of your take-home to short term and consumer debt!  Yea, that's why you're hurting. Here's what you do  In both cases, apply the extra payments entirely to one balance at a   time. Pick either the smallest balance (psychologically best because   you quickly see a loan & it's payment dissappear), or the highest   interest (mathematically the best). Roll each regular payment that's paid off into the extra debt payments. You didn't list total debt balances, but you did say you had $4000 in   credit card debt. Applying an extra $250/month to debt (out of that   $366 savings), plus two extra paychecks of $1300 each, is $5600/year   paid off. In under a year, you could have those credit cards paid off, and likely that window loan too. Start the 529s again, but keep going   paying down the rest. When you have the car paid off, bring back the   wife's cell (you and I both know that's going to be #1 on the list :)    ), then finish off those student loans.  Then bask in the extra $567/month - 21% of your income - you'll have in sweet, sweet green cash!

negative: When paying off multiple debts there is a protocol that many support. Payoff your debts according to the snowball method. The snowball method proposes that you make minimum payments on all debts except the smallest one. Payoff the smallest debt as quickly as possible. As smaller debts are paid off, that makes one less minimum payment you need to make, leaving you with more money to put against the next smallest debt. So in your case, pay off the smaller debt completely, then follow up on the larger one by making regular payments at least equal to the sum of your two current minimum payments. You'll see immediate progress in tackling your debt and have one less minimum to worry about, which can serve as a little safety of it's own if you have a bad month. As to saving the thousand dollars, that is pragmatic and prudent. It's not financially useful (you won't make any money in a savings account), but having cash on hand for emergencies and various other reasons is an important security for modern living.  As suggested in another answer, you can forgo saving this thousand and put it against debt now, because you will have a freed up credit card. Credit can certainly give you that same security. This is an alternative option, but not all emergencies will take a credit card. You typically can't make rent with your credit card, for example. Good luck paying your debts and I hope you can soon enjoy the freedom of a debt free life.

negative: "First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, ""you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement"".  Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total.  Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month.  If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt.  This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college.  You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more).  You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers.  If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note:  Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one.  Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt?  If it were me, I would consider a job change.  At least until the debt was cleaned up.  If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years!  Then he can go back to the charity gig."

negative: "@fredsbend, Hope this helps!  ""I understand that a reverse mortgage can be paid out in two ways: A lump sum and monthly payments. I figure that if you take the lump sum, eventually, the bank wants you to start paying it back."" Answer:   Actually, there are 3 payout options, or 4 if you consider a combination payout as another one. There's a lump sum, a line of credit, or the monthly payout, or a combination.  ""I figure that if you take the monthly payments, eventually, the bank stops paying out and wants you to pay it back. In both situations, interest accrues and this is how the bank makes money off of the deal"".  Answer: The only time the monthly payments would stop would be if the borrower defaults on the lenders' terms or they no longer live at home. You are right though, and interest does accrue on whichever payment is decided on. I'm not sure how the lender makes money, probably by the interest, but I know borrowers are protected against high rates and owing more than your house. Here's an article I found that goes over the protections more in detail: https://www.americanadvisorsgroup.com/news/6-consumer-protections-reverse-mortgage-loan-borrowers.  ""But what determines when you have to begin paying back the reverse mortgage? Some sources online seem to say that it's based only on if you die or would like to sell/move. That can't be right in all situations, because you could end up with a massive debt on a property more than its value.""  Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a ""mortgage"" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything.  Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back?  **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that.  Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?""  Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment."

negative: "Would you run a marathon with ankle weights on?  It starts off as ankle weights, but then grows into a ball and chain as you dig yourself a little deeper each time you use your credit card (and then don't payoff the balance because ""something more important came up""). I would love for my wife to be able to be home and raise our son, but we simply can't afford to do that with the amount of debt we have. We are clawing our way out, and will pay off one student loan and a car loan, then start saving for a house and once we have that, we'll get back to debt reduction. Get debt free.  That's where we are headed.  Most of it is student loans at this point, but debt will take away your freedom to do whatever you like down the line.  It just increases your overhead in the long run."

negative: Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee...

negative: 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.

negative: An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month.

negative: Besides the reason in @rhaskett's answer, it is important to consider that paying off a 30-year mortgage as if it was a 15-year is much more inconvenient than just paying the regular payments of a 15-year mortgage.  When you pay extra on your mortgage, some lenders do not know what to do with the extra payment, and need to be told explicitly that the extra needs to be applied toward the principal.  You might need to do this every month with every payment.  In addition, some lenders won't allow you to set up an automatic payment for more than the mortgage payment, so you might need to explicitly submit your payment with instructions for the lender each month, and then follow up each month to make sure that your payment was credited properly.  Some lenders are better about this type of thing than others, and you won't really know how much of a hassle it will be with your lender until you start making payments. If you intend to pay it off in 15 years, then just get the 15-year mortgage.

negative: This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings.  Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.

negative: If I were you, I would save 200 euros for retirement each month and another 800 I would stash away with the hope to start investing soon. I think you have to invest a bigger lump sum, then 1000 euros. It makes sense to invest at least 30K to see any tangible results. My acquaintances started from 50K and now see pretty handsome returns. Investing is profitable, as long as you approach it smartly. Also, do not ever hire an overly expensive financial consultant - this expenses will never pay off. Of course, check their credentials and reputation... But never pay much to these guys. Not worth it.

negative: I'm no financial advisor, but I do have student loans and I do choose to pay them off as slowly as I can. I will explain my reasoning for doing so. (FWIW, these are all things that pertain to government student loans in the US, not necessarily private student loans, and not necessarily student loans from other countries) So that's my reasoning. $55 per month for the rest of my life adds up to a large amount of money over the course of my life, but the impact month-to-month is essentially nonexistent. That combined with the low interest and the super-low-pressure-sales-tactics means I just literally don't have any incentive to ever pay it all off. Like I said before, I'm just a guy who has student loans, and not even one who is particularly good with money, but as someone who does choose not to pay off my student loans any faster than I have to, this is why.


query: Does it make any sense to directly contribute to reducing the US national debt?

positive: "At its heart, I think the best spirit of ""donation"" is helping others less fortunate than yourself. But as long as the US remains solvent, the chief benefit of paying down the national debt is - like paying off a credit card - lowering the future interest payments the U.S. taxpayer has to make. Since the wealthy pay a disproportionately large portion of taxes (per capita), your hard earned money would be disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So I'd recommend you do one or both of the following: instead target your donations to a charity whose average beneficiary is less fortunate than yourself take political action with an aim towards balancing the federal budget (since the US national debt is principally financed in the form of 30 year treasuries, the U.S. will be completely out of debt if it can maintain a balanced budget for 30 years recanted, see below)"

positive: I think it would have the same effect as paying off a compulsive gambler's debts. Until Congress and the people who vote for them can exercise some fiscal responsibility sending more money to Washington is pointless. In fact, I'd argue that if you were a multi-trillionaire and could pay off the whole thing through a donation, we'd be back to deficits within a decade (or less).

positive: "The US national debt isn't the problem. If the Bush-era tax cuts had been allowed to expire then US debt would have been paid off reasonably quickly. The CBO’s “baseline” budget forecast,   which assumes that the cuts do indeed   expire as planned, sees the deficit   falling from 9.1% of GDP in 2010 to   2.5% in 2014. These are just the debts the US has already incurred. The problem is the future entitlements the US is promising to its soon-to-be-retired generation of Baby Boomers.  Medicare, health insurance, and so on are all future costs that can be calculated fairly accurately when considering the size and earnings of the work-force relative to the size, longevity and health of the newly-retired. Governments can ""solve"" the problems of entitlements simply be reneging on their promises. The concern that investors have is that either entitlements will be paid by raising taxes (and so cutting profits and investment returns) or countries will simply default on their existing debts as their tax receipts run out. As Europe has shown (from French workers rioting about having to retire at 62, to British students rioting about paying their tuition fees), breaking promises has consequences for elected politicians too. Europe is already going rather painfully through this process of economic restructuring.  The US will eventually come round as well.  Just don't expect it to be painless. So keep your money and invest it wisely.  No doubt that tax collectors will be round in a while to take their cut so you can make your contribution."

positive: No. Unless you are ten Bill Gates rolled into one man, you can not possibly hope to make a dent in the 14 trillion debt. Even if you were and paid off whole debt in one payment, budget deficits would restore it to old glory in a short time. If you have some extra money, I'd advise to either choose a charity and donate to somebody who needs your help directly or if you are so inclined, support a campaign of a financially conservative politician (only if you are sure he is a financial conservative and doesn't just tell this to get elected - I have no idea how you could do it :).

positive: No, it makes no sense.   The US national debt is different from other debt on TWO KEY WAYS : 1.) The national debt is not money we owe to our government IT IS MONEY WE OWE TO OURSELVES. 2.) If the GNP of our country can grow at a rate equal to or greater than the national debt interest, then the figure of national debt has no bearing on anything. So a more philanthropic endeavor would be to help grow the economy.

positive: It doesn't make any financial sense for you personally, because the impact on the debt would be so little it would have no significant benefit to you, and you'd be out the money you donated.

negative: Lol to be fair, our monetary system is nutty. Money is created out of thin air because (mainly) 3 institutions trade debt around. I get the basics but also have no clue what some concepts actually mean.  Like the national debt; its growing, does that even matter? Its not like anyone is going to call that debt in and collapse the whole global system. Or the big one; so the government doubles the money supply in 2008 but we didn't have run away inflation... that does not make any sense. Its all imaginary. The only sense there is to make, is that some rich sociopath/s are now richer.

negative: "To answer your first two questions: according to IRS pub 696 ""Contributions to an HSA"" section: Rollovers A rollover contribution is not included in your income, is not   deductible, and does not reduce your contribution limit. Archer MSAs and other HSAs.   You can roll over amounts from Archer   MSAs and other HSAs into an HSA. You do not have to be an eligible   individual to make a rollover contribution from your existing HSA to a   new HSA. Rollover contributions do not need to be in cash. Rollovers   are not subject to the annual contribution limits.   You must roll   over the amount within 60 days after the date of receipt. You can make   only one rollover contribution to an HSA during a 1-year period. Note. If you instruct the trustee of your HSA to transfer funds directly to   the trustee of another HSA, the transfer is not considered a rollover.   There is no limit on the number of these transfers. Do not include the   amount transferred in income, deduct it as a contribution, or include   it as a distribution on Form 8889, line 14a. (italics mine) So if you transfer the money yourself, you can only do it once per year, but there are no limits to when or how many times you can instruct the old HSA trustee to transfer funds directly to the new trustee."

negative: Idk if equating fiscal policy to direct changes in debt is the greatest idea. Yes if you buy one more F-35 your debt will increase by $160 million. However it's more complicated when discussing decreased debt, as for the direct cause.

negative: it would help the economy tremendously.  even better, the US govt should give households massive amounts of money, to pay off debts.  and if they dont have debts they should go spend that money in the economy.   That type of economic stimulous would generate more revenue and taxes for govt to help pay off the US govt debt it accrues by printing money.

negative: Any state sponsored media outlet is going to in some way serve the agenda of its sponsor. The BBC does make an effort to remain more impartial whereas the KCNA of North Korea obviously does not. Private media such as CNN are obviously still often employed to further national agendas, especially in areas such as war reporting, but will also be directly more critical of their government if there are conflicts between interests of the ruling party and the owners of the media. Naturally in undemocratic regimes like China and Russia, such dissent is not permitted as there are not rival political partys in any true sense.

negative: "Well, they don't ""make"" money in the sense of income, but they receive money in exchange for shares of stock (more of the company is owned by the public).  The Warrant entitles the holder to purchase stock directly from the company at a fixed price.  It is very much like an open-market call option, but instead of the option holder buying stock from a third party (which does not affect the company at all), the holder buys it directly from the company, increasing the number of shares outstanding, and the proceeds go directly to the company. If the holders do not exercise the warrants, the company does not receive any cash, but they also don't issue any new shares."

negative: Taxes should never be hated. It should be an honor to contribute toward the common good of the nation. It used to be this way until they were made into a political weapon. Our nation used to raise taxes when we held debt and lower taxes when debt was low. Instead, this bullshit idea that taxes are bad was crammed down peoples throats, and now we're sitting at a significant debt that really started to take off with Reagan.

negative: We are the richest nation in the history of the world. We produce and consume more now than at any point in history.   Credit card debt is nowhere near historical levels. Delinquency rates on credit card loans is near the lowest it has ever been.  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRCCLACBS   It may seem wild and not make a lot of sense that data does not fit your worldview, but let yourself be open to information that conflicts with your own.   otherwise you are just held hostage by your own misconceptions.   You are going to wait a lifetime for that riot pal and you may learn to capitalize proper nouns while you are at it.

negative: No.  What's the point in that?  All it does is create government overhead to administer the payments.  Just pay your own way in the first place.    Oh, wait!  I see, when you say it's my turn now and your turn later, later never comes.  Nevermind.  I get it.

negative: Yes, because we don't want to be China. It also helps stimulate an economy to have your largest portion get most of the wealth.      Warren Buffett can only eat one meal at a time, live in one house at a time, and only has so much time in his day. If you give his yearly salary to 150 people that are right now unable to do any of those things, they will put that money to better use.

negative: Yes. Using debt appropriately is a huge part of what's called optimal capital structure theory in the finance world. Debt is generally cheaper than equity financing due to the tax deductibility of interest and using it appropriately can really juice the profitability of a business as long as the rate of return on equity in the business exceeds the interest rate on the debt.

negative: It's amazing that there is this assumption that Government does not contribute to a nation's economy. In the US, so many radical right wingers want to remove government taxation and spending entirely because they honestly believe that it has zero effect on the economy. These were the sort of people who were getting excited during the debt limit debate in the US a few years back.  As for me, I would love to see American politicians decide on principle to cut government spending by 75% (no medicare, no NASA, etc). The resulting economic and social collapse would kill off that ideology for a few generations at least.

negative: "[of course it does](http://www.tylervigen.com/correlation_project/correlation_images/per-capita-consumption-of-chicken-us_total-us-crude-oil-imports.png)  ... but really, the answer is something along the lines of ""probably... to some extent..."" It's not the sole reason, but it may be one of them.   Ultimately QE did more to fix balance sheets than the wider economy, but that in itself had value at the time."

negative: The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using.  I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income.  What's left is your taxable income.   The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)).  Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company.  Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan.  Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions.

negative: "Your SSA payments are not IRA contributions, but they're actually a tax that is earmarked to the Social Security Trust Fund.  As such, no, you don't have any ""contributions"" that can be refunded: you paid a tax, and in exchange for having paid that tax you will possibly later have a benefit. However, some foreign nationals are able to convey that benefit into their national savings plan.  The Social Security Administration has a FAQ page on this particular subject.   Unfortunately for you, Pakistan does not have a bilateral agreement according to their list, so you may be out of luck."

negative: Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in.  Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount.  This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before).  If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever.  This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement.  In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions).  At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates).  However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit.  AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances.

negative: "don't you love the shills in here? Hahahahahahahaha  ""The billionaire knows nothing about economics or the economy."" Shariablue.   He just turned 10 million into an empire.  Oh and Obama increased the national debt by 9 trillion and the fucking shills are complaining that he is reducing the wrong debt HAHAHAHAHAHA.   http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1"

negative: Not exactly. Tax reasons. Can't repatriate the money without paying full boat corporate tax rate. The Donald was supposed to offer a tax holiday on that at some point.  The problem with using debt is that many companies forget that they have to roll it over at some point or pay it off. And, in a rising interest rate environment, it can be a problem.

negative: If you expect your taxes to be higher next year, it saves you the trouble of sending estimates or changing the withholding levels. But yes, its basically a free loan you're giving to the government.

negative: "I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that ""after tax"" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution."

negative: no it would not. Did you read the article? corporations and funds are already paying the government to hold money short-term (negative real 2 year bond yields).   or are you advocating that the government place an additional tax on people who buy government bonds?

negative: This depends on the loan calculation methodology. If it is on reducing balance then yes. Else not much difference

negative: I believe we already do? We have subsidies and stuff to entice companies to move to certain cities for example. Also the defense companies are still businesses in the end. I used to work at one for what it's worth.  But sure if it somehow makes a difference instead of businesses we can fund infrastructure projects, public transportation, education, or really anything else that benefits society in a more direct way.

negative: "With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the ""loophole"" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k."

negative: The US Gov't spends $0.9T on the military, they borrow $1.9T (on top of the $2.3-$2.4T they raise in taxes each year)... so, no.  Should we cut military spending? Yes, absolutely. But it won't come close to closing the deficit.

negative: "Again with a question that is only tangentially linked to the statement. Perhaps one could ask ""Is it better to unload debt in financial terms or a reproductive debt, like the low birth rates of developed nations and the death of the human race... ?"", but it wouldn't be related."

negative: It's more about ending the policy of perpetually low interest rates, which makes borrowing/debt artificially cheap for the private sector. Higher interest rates will encourage savings and thus a rebuilding of capital for wealth generation. The effects would not be immediate but would have a better end result.  Federal savings could help the economy too if taxes were lowered correspondingly. Or even if taxes weren't lowered and the government didn't borrow as much from the fed, the money supply would increase less and prices would be lower than they otherwise would, increasing the purchasing power and therefore the wealth of the citizenry.

negative: Sure:  http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/YourMoney/story?id=129651 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/ cbo.gov and a dozen other sources are just one short google search away.  That's true. Then I guess we should start charging fees for their use instead of taxes for police and courts. Fine by me.  Mandatory public healthcare can't be financed without introducing excessively progressive tax rates for a more wealthy minority. We agree on the subsidies though.

negative: By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one.

negative: "You may have misunderstood some parts of the system. If you make a pension contribution in any given year, the tax relief is based on your income for that year - the gross pension contribution is subtracted from your gross income and you only end up paying tax based on the reduced gross income. So if the higher rate threshold is £40K, you have income for the year of £65K, and you make a gross contribution of £25K, then you'll get tax relief at 40% on the whole contribution, i.e. £10K. If your income for the year is less, e.g. £50K, then you'll get tax relief at 40% on £10K and at 20% on the other £15K, i.e. £7K. So if you're significantly into the higher-rate band, it's usually not worth making a contribution large enough to reduce you to basic-rate tax - better to wait till the next tax year for the rest. Overall, while you probably could do what you suggest subject to the caveats below, why not just spread the pension contribution over the three years, rather than making it all up front? If you are confident you can invest the money at better than the 3.4% interest on the loan, then it might make sense to borrow, but you should be pretty clear that you're deliberately borrowing to invest (otherwise known as investing with leverage). Or you might know that your income is going to drop next year. Another clarification, as your comment on another answer mentions: basic-rate tax relief is claimed directly by your pension provider (""relief at source""), whereas the higher-rate part of the relief comes straight to you via your tax return. So for the above £25K gross contribution example, you'd hand over £20K initially and then get £5K back at the end of the tax year, leaving you with £15K less in your pocket. If you did want to make a £20K net contribution and had enough higher-rate salary to cover it, the gross contribution you'd end up with would be £33,333, and you'd need to find £6,666 more temporarily. Note that there are also limits on the annual contribution you can make of £40K (the ""annual allowance""), but you can carry forward allowances from three previous years so it's very unlikely to be relevant."

negative: What I am saying is that social contract, despite the words chosen and combined in order to label the concept, is not a literal contract or agreement.  How is it not common sense that individuals have to make some sacrifices for the good of their community/state/republic?  If you think that a nation can function on the level that US does without majority of its citizens paying their taxes, I don't know what alternative you are offering for paying the costs of running a country.

negative: "Maybe not the official solution satisfying int'l convention / legislation, but at least has some logic to it (though I myself am not 100% convinced as yet): Liabilities ! ... but is it really a liability? Rationale: And simultaneously ups my liabilities: since what difference does it make if I borrow some money (to use it or not use it, repay later) or if someone just wants to ""store"" some money with me: w.r.t. balance sheet I'd say: zero... ... with the one caveat that it might make a difference w.r.t. taxation ?"