Yeah. Market average is ~9% over all time, but I don’t see the market being ‘stable’ in the next eight years. Better to get rid of the guaranteed bad interest right now before putting stuff into the market for possibly more or less interest. It’s the safe option.
I’m pretty sure that’s not how that works. The math is the same on either side of the owed/earned determination.
If you start with 100$, and earn 10%, you now have 110$. If you owe 100$ and it earns 10% interest, you now owe 110$. This happens regardless of how much work that money is able to accomplish at the time.
Debts won’t grow with inflation, but the math ends up being the same anyways because the actual money amount remains constant.
More importantly, there is no guarantee of market inflation or deflation, much less a “hyper” version. The debt is a solid realised number. Getting rid of it is guaranteed money saved. Saving money in the market instead is a gamble against that debt, and not a guaranteed result, especially if you’re betting it on a less likely event such as hyperinflation.
*edit
And all of this is predicated on an either/or dichotomy. Really, if OP can, splitting between the two options based on their personal risk assessment is the better choice.
Yeah. Market average is ~9% over all time, but I don’t see the market being ‘stable’ in the next eight years. Better to get rid of the guaranteed bad interest right now before putting stuff into the market for possibly more or less interest. It’s the safe option.
Removed by mod
I’m pretty sure that’s not how that works. The math is the same on either side of the owed/earned determination.
If you start with 100$, and earn 10%, you now have 110$. If you owe 100$ and it earns 10% interest, you now owe 110$. This happens regardless of how much work that money is able to accomplish at the time.
Debts won’t grow with inflation, but the math ends up being the same anyways because the actual money amount remains constant.
More importantly, there is no guarantee of market inflation or deflation, much less a “hyper” version. The debt is a solid realised number. Getting rid of it is guaranteed money saved. Saving money in the market instead is a gamble against that debt, and not a guaranteed result, especially if you’re betting it on a less likely event such as hyperinflation.
*edit
And all of this is predicated on an either/or dichotomy. Really, if OP can, splitting between the two options based on their personal risk assessment is the better choice.
Removed by mod
Do not underestimate capitalists’ ability to make line go up.