I was in one of my finance classes today and while we were talking about interest rates, one of the students asked a question about how when you finance a house for example, you end up paying 2-3 times the value of the house and how f'd up that is. What was interesting is that professor went on a tangent how the entire argument to pay off a house early is neutral advice at best. I dont know if I can recreate his argument on here, but at the very least it was an interesting discussion. Some of his points were that ultimately the present value of the house now, and then in 30 years is going to be exactly the same. For example, you're buying a house that has a $500,000 price tag. If for example you bought the house outright with cash, you would have to have to discipline to reinvest all the money you're saving on interest payments into new investment to realize the same gains you would if had just taken the mortgage. I think the point he was trying to make is that theoretically, paying for a home outright could end up be a negative decision because most ppl are going to take that extra money they save each month and just consume it on new golf clubs or some other garbage. I'm probably not doing the idea justice but maybe someone on here understands the premise behind it and has some thoughts. I mean this guy was a pretty smart dude, phd in finance and whatnot. He had this idea pretty well thought out and was shutting down all the counter arguments with ease. Anyone have any further thoughts. Also, this is pretty much pure theory that takes into account certain assumptions so I'd rather not see BillyT post about how the dollar is going to tank in April and all this is moot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!