Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
General Real Estate Investing
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 12 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

1,493
Posts
450
Votes
James H.
  • Investor
  • Fort Worth, TX
450
Votes |
1,493
Posts

To pay or not to pay off your primary residence

James H.
  • Investor
  • Fort Worth, TX
Posted

This discussion was cropping up in another thread about a different topic, and I wanted to hear more feedback from other members about what they prefer. As a primer, I am going quote @Rich Weese contributed as I find it was very interesting - hope you don't mind Rich.

" Brian and Jon H- Here is my contrarian view to owning your OWN residence free and clear and why I don't do it. I like my contrarian view for the following reasons . I DO agree you should have A house free and clear.
1. I have at least a home free and clear.
2. I am able to obtain a better loan on OWNER OCCUPIED home.
2. I do have a sense of security with F&C home- and it doesn't have to be the residence.
3. I live in a nicer home, higher LTV, lower rate, etc and still have a F&C home if everything goes to pot.
4. If everything only goes PARTIALLY to pot, the lender probably won't want my highly leveraged home I live in. We all know people who are under water for over 3 years and lender hasn't taken the home.
5. I get interest deductions on my residence, which I wouldn't if it was F&C.
6. I still have the sense of security with other F&C home.
7. I have more $ to invest elsewhere because F&C home is not as expensive and only there for severe emergency.
8. The extra $$ to invest makes me more $$, more writeoff etc-which I wouldn't otherwise have.

Just a contrarian view for BP members to digest. Rich"

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

5,700
Posts
3,498
Votes
Rich Weese#2 Off Topic Contributor
  • Real Estate Investor
  • the villages, FL
3,498
Votes |
5,700
Posts
Rich Weese#2 Off Topic Contributor
  • Real Estate Investor
  • the villages, FL
Replied

Brian- I forgot to mention-you're ok reproducing anything I write. I stand by it, so feel free to share. This has the possibility of being a fun thread if it doesn't turn ugly. Speaking of ugly-today isn't. In Yellowstone waiting for kids and grand kids to arrive for reunion.This is TRULY what passive income is all about! REALLY Rich-(because of 6 kids and soon to be 12 grand kids!)

Loading replies...