The mouthbreathers in blue check land are crowing about the release of the January 6th tapes. They were released about an hour and a half ago, and contain 40K hours of footage, but of course in that 1.5 hours every person who has been found guilty of crimes have been 100% vindicated.
He should not pay any more than the minimums on that loan. He is a huge favorite to beat a 3.3% tax-free return long term by investing in many of the options that Iâm sure are available in his 401k.
Having said that, there is definitely some psychology involved. While paying it down faster is clearly -EV, some people just feel a lot better or more secure when they have no debt or less debt. You canât really put a price on that, but itâs not nothing.
Ok thatâs the same answer I wouid give a Canadian. I just thought there might be some angle with the long fix mortgage and being able to write off interest. We donât have any of that in Canada.
Even if he is able to deduct all of his mortgage interest, which is less likely after the TCJA, 3.3% is still so low that it is easily beatable even with conservative investments.
Before you could take out a loan on your 401k balance, this was more than a psychological factor in the calculation, because of the risk of losing employment or whatever. Bank canât take a paid off house. Or you donât have to take a huge penalty to keep the bank from taking the house
And is 401k most likely to be in a valley when most people are losing their jobs? So even bigger penalty than the statutory penalty
I donât know for sure if paying it down faster helps you that much in this situation. You will be done with the loan a bit earlier, so there is that. However, if the payoff date is a long way away, even if you paid extra principal in the past, the bank still wants their monthly check. To truly defend against that you would want to put the cash in some sort of liquid, low-risk investment vehicle for emergencies like this. These days, you can beat 3.3% (including tax considerations) doing that. So the best answer for someone concerned with this is neither paying down faster nor 401k.
My million-dollar idea is that someone should make a biopic about young Abraham Lincolnâs decade-long 299-1 career as a pro wrestler, because that seems like a crazy interesting and untapped vein of American history. Can you imagine how rowdy 19th-century frontier wrestling was? I would basically watch two hours of Abe Lincoln beating the shit out of people as a sports movie. Imagine this story told as cinema:
The National Wrestling Hall of Fame in Oklahoma states that Lincoln lost only one fight in twelve years. This loss came at the hands of Hank Thompson. Their match happened in 1832 during the Black Hawk Wars, when Lincoln was a commander of his men, while Thompson was from Southern Illinois. At the time, their respective units happened to meet while getting their military supplies. Later, an argument between the two units began to get heated, as both contested which one had the right to the best camping location. The opposing units soon agreed that their best men in wrestling should settle the matter.
The fightâs rules were set: Lincoln and Thompson would fight for three rounds. Whoever gets to throw his opponent twice wins the fight. Soldiers from the opposing units started placing their bets â money, knives, blankets, whiskey. Each one was confident that their man would win.
One thing that Lincoln shows is that being a genuine ass kicker while also being able to talk to smart people is great for electoral politics. I love me some Obama and am fine with Buttigieg, but they need more Fetterman in them.
Unfortunately, Jim Jordan was also an elite wrestler. 4-time state champ, 2-time NCAA champ, and only missed the Olympics because of losing a close match to the famed John Smith, who Jordan beat in the NCAAs.