Unless you have a terrible interest rate on your mortgage, put the money in retirement funds rather than paying off the house sooner. Especially with the market being strong in recent years.
Evenmore so if you plan on staying in that house until retirement. Maximize what you can save in retirment funds and have more money there plus a paid of house you can live in mortgage free or sell off for a big chunk of change to finance a move elsewhere.
Same is true of student loans, I used to be tempted to try and pay them off way early, but it's a bad use of money since I consolidated at 3.x%.
If you've paid off your mortgage or lived there long enough to overcome any loss from selling. Until then, you're paying taxes, insurance, and interest in the past for money in the future. Okay, it outpaces inflation... it probably doesn't outpace inflation, compound interest against you, compound interest from investing in something else, and the myriad of purchasing and selling fees unless the housing market is extremely good.
I'm a 31 year old American who wasn't born into upper-middle or upper class.
So no.
Why don't people ever take into account the appreciation of the house when they do this calculation? Homes are appreciating at 3% on average right now, and that's pretty typical. Depending on the area, the rate can be much higher. It also ignores risk. Investing is riskier. And if you're investing in your retirement, that money isn't liquid in any way without paying high taxes. You can sell your home and get your equity back.
That said, you should be doing much better than 7% on your retirement account.
Having savings isn't dependant on being born into a higher class. Shit can happen in life to set you back, but it happens if you make an effort.
It's belittling to insinuate that "effort" isn't being put forth by people who can't have double their salary saved. Starting off with zero debts and a family/network that can help you find better employment out of the gate (or negate student loan bills, car payments, etc) and help a great deal with the savings train.
Regular, dependable employment is crucial for me with savings. "Effort" can only go so far when you don't have a paycheck and a job to put effort into. I've had periods of gainful employment that ended abruptly due to budget cuts and downsizing (this has happened to me twice now after having a good job for ~2 years each time). I need to pay rent & eat with something during periods of unemployment that have lasted literally years.
That's also not accounting for property taxes, maintenance, and mortgage payments over the lifetime ownership of a house. These amounts are substantial.you benefit from the appreciation in the value of your home regardless of whether you pay off the mortgage. the value of the mortgage is fixed while the value of the house fluctuates.
7% over the very long term is a reasonable expectation, which if we are talking about "until retirement" is what we should use. dont let the last...10ish years fool you.
This. Counting it all, well above, 401 only, no.I guess it depends on whether or not we are counting investments, retirement accounts and property.
in straight cash? Hell no. Not to mention my salary keeps going up, so that "doubled saved" keeps going up.
Not 35 yet, but if we count both savings and retirement savings I think I'll hit that.MarketWatch had ridiculously said to millenials that they should have double their salary saved by the time their 35.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...ould-look-in-your-30s-2017-05-18?link=sfmw_tw
My question is does anyone here actually have that (Whether 35 or not)?
Given how much salaries vary this seems like some limited as fuck advice for a very particular population.
my wife and i max out our 401k's.Every time you get a raise (or sizeable one), you should consider increasing the percentage you save, in particular, 401k.
every year, yes.