What did she "pay" ... well, "agree to pay" for her new car when she bought it two years ago? And how much has she paid over all of those months between then and now? And how much does she still owe? If she goes to buy a new one, how much will the dealer allow her as trade-in on her current car (with the less-than-attractive side) as reduction in price of the new one? She'll be astonished at the amount that the dealer will allow her as trade-in on her car with the caved-in side when she goes to buy her new car. I'll bet that it'll be less than she still owes, probably quite a bit less. So that, if the new car's price may be, say, $18,000. ... ... she may end up owing something like $22,000. on her new loan. On the new car that she paid $18,000. for ... ... but now, even if only a week after she bought it, and without a mark on it, would be worth probably about $14,000. Two thirds of what she owes? Not my idea of a good time! Would she listen if you drew a set of patterns for her, showing (with approximate sizes relative to dollar amounts), of what she paid for her current car, how much she's paid over the 24 months, how much she still owes, how much difference there is between her cost, what she's paid, what it's "worth" now as allowance toward an upgrade, etc. And showing how she's paying so much monthly on her student loan, so much monthly on her car loan, splitting those two payments into principal repayment and interest components, running the interest stream off the edge of the paper, as lost. So - she's working about half of her time monthly for ... ... nothing. But - currently, she's not working, is she? So how does she make car payments? How long before they may repossess it ... ... leaving her walking. Which wouldn't happen if the loan was all liquidated. Working much of her time - to pay someone else rent for the use of their money. And as long as she uses other folks' money ... she'll have to pay rent on it. Which is money that could have stayed in her pocket, had she driven the nearly new car (with the stove-in side) longer ... ... until she's paid off all of the money that she'd borrowed to buy it. Which would mean that the amount that she would be allowed at trade-in would be all hers, instead of mostly (or all - or maybe even more than all) going to pay off the loan that she still owes on the current car. Which would mean that the amount that she would have to borrow on the new car would be much lower. So - if she were paying the same amount per month ... the loan would be paid off in short order. Then she could keep putting that amount away (or most of it) to pay off her student loan faster. Could you draw comparable sized boxes to the amount of value that each item is, with labels, and the proportion of it that's hers, etc.? When we get stuck in a snow bank, we can do a lot of spinning wheels back and forth, with little result. Except burning a lot of gas. Wear and tear on tires. Wasting time. And, if we're not careful, when using an automatic transmission, burning up the transmission. And getting where? Nowhere! And getting not just ourselves, but people sitting in the car with us, more than likely, somewhat bent out of shape with irritability. Smells a lot like this situation, doesn't it? Just some thoughts. Or ... would you call it my whine? ole joyful

My brother and I moved swiftly and surely to isolate our mother's assets when it became clear her failing health would preclude her independent life style. That was 2 1/2 years ago. She has a revocable trust now. Assets are protected, we have powers of attorney, and the chaos that follows any death will be minimized. She has "gifted" every year since her health "crashed and burned". Her home has been emptied of its contents and her assets have been directed to its maintenance. I can only tell you, that having an elderly, frail, mentally failing parent in your home and in your care is no day at the beach. To be perfectly honest, I hate the encroachment on my personal freedom. But she is my mother, she needs my help, and who better than I to see she is well cared for, indulged, given mental stimulation on a daily basis? "Baby boomers" need to pay attention to this issue... , laws governing "look back" and estate planning change every month/year; you need to pay attention to politics! "Look back" for Mum had we tried to put our names on the deed to her home in 2003 was 3 years. With the trust it was reduced to 7 mos.. Get thee to a lawyer specializing in ELDER LAW and estate planning, ASAP. Loop holes on inheritance and the transfer of potentially valuable real estate are being closed routinely, even as we're being told that we should reduce our expectation of social security and Medicare. Smarten up! move now and isolate the assets. You'll be glad you did.

"The assumption (and I think it is valid) is that into your life a little more rain may fall. If you have 4 accounts on which you pay $100 a month each and you pay off the smallest one, you will only be under a $300 monthly obligation. You can use the newly freed $100 to pay down the next smallest account or, if you have to, you can use it toward your next emergency. This is the safer approach for most people. It depends on your circumstance of course and just how high the highest interest rate is." No, it's not valid. This only even applies if all your debt is fixed-payment (traditional mortgage or car payment, for example). Credit cards, HELOCs, store accounts, etc required minimum payment are all based on your outstanding principal, and the higher your interest is, the more you have to pay every month just to keep your principal from increasing. You don't suddenly "free up" $100/month at the end, you continuously "free up" $5 this month, $5 more next month, etc, and by paying down your higher rate loan, you're freeing up maybe $6 this month, $6 more next month, etc, rather than $5 so in a year you'll have freed up $72/month rather than $60/month. You will reduce your required minimum monthly debt payment (as well as your total debt) quicker by paying down the higher-interest debt. There may be (certainly is) a psychological benefit to getting rid of a debt; if someone is needing a motivational boost and the difference in interest rates is minimal, it may be worth it to pay off a small account, but from a strictly $ approach, I don't buy it.

Thanks for all of the feedback, folks. Renting is still certainly an option, but that $8,000 tax credit keeps whispering to me. I don't need the $8,000 tax credit to make this "work", but it would certainly be nice. As far as additional expenses that come along with homeownership, I must say that if I stay in this area, I'll be paying approximately $1500/mo + utilities, along with whatever outrageous pet fees and pet rents they will add on. For what it's worth, I've got money in accounts I'd rather not touch right now, but I can access. I also have my debts covered by insurance that kicks in if I'm disabled or unemployed. I've got a sizeable amount of available credit (the balance are small, but the credit limits aren't), in case of a terrible emergency. When it comes down to it, I've got more than enough cash/cheap credit around to tackle any catastrophe worth dealing with on a $130K property. I'm an insurance freak, so I don't have any debts that won't be paid if something happens to me, and even the pets have veterinary insurance, so a veterinary emergency won't make me choose between paying my bills or paying the vet. Again, for what it's worth, I'm focusing on houses without pools (don't want the maintenance expense), I'll be working from home (no commute/minimal gas expenses), and I am also focusing on houses new enough that everything won't start to break as soon as I move in. I've wanted to buy a home for years (but lived in an absurdly high COLA area), and I really feel like I've thought this through as much as I can without making sure I'm getting a reality check from everyone. Short of saving up for years to pay cash for a home, I'm not sure I'm in such a bad position to buy a house. With that said, I don't want to be the poster who just posts to get everyone to agree with her, regardless of the facts. So, I really appreciate the feedback. In my situation, with the pets, it just seems like I'm throwing away so much money on pet deposits, pet fees (nonrefundable), and absurd rents to continue doing the "sensible" thing and renting until all the moons align and I can pay cash for a huge portion of a home. One of my biggest considerations is the fact that I could take a 50% pay cut and make out. The mortgage/utilities on these houses = still less than I've paid in rent in years (and at much lower salaries). At what point does, "I really really want a yard and a dog" come into play? I get the impression that, for some locations/situations, renting will always be the most "sensible" solution, but then why do people even bother to buy homes? So, really, when do the scales start to tip in favor of buying a home vs. renting a home? Thanks, all! I've got a lot to think about.