Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
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
3,499
Votes
Rich Weese#2 Off Topic Contributor
  • Real Estate Investor
  • the villages, FL
3,499
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...