Your easy money plan sounds greedy to me. You are looking for a short cut to wealth. Your idea is not a new one. Short cuts seem to work best on paper. In real life, you only hear about the winners. Often the markets forget to cooperate with someone's plans.
In the early eighties, I lost $60,000 (two years gross wages) in limited partnership land investments. Calculate the compounding on that for 35 years. My suggestion is to start saving aggressively. In 21 or 25 years, you will be so used to living frugally, that you will need less for retirement than your spendthrift co-workers. That method works because there is less risk due to less leverage. If the market dumps, you still have more than the next guy. There are an enormous amout of very bright people trying to get rich in the markets, and a very few do, but at the expense of all of the other ones.
At age 41, you have seen someone take a new position and say, "I'm going to show them how to do this job" then fail due to lack of experience. Your proposal is similar. You intend to get rich due to your plan. Where is the experience, hard work, and sacrifice that the successful people use to get there?
Joe
im not being greedy im just trying use what have to work for me and the sooner i act the better my chances are to make a little more money.
i live fugally now as it is, i have no car payments at all and i have no debt to anyone except a small balance on 2 credit cards just to keep something active on my credit report for which the balances are under 20% of total credit limit.
when working on paper i could double my money every 7 years at 10% and compare that to just starting out with just 1500 a month, it just seem to make more sense to start off with the bigger chunck of money
everyone im sure has done the numbers on paper and then try to decided from there what to do.............i did the same i started out on paper and thought of as many ways a possible to generate more money for retirement.
and so i jumped in and started to do research and look at the different ideas i had, so i asked q's like here on this board to help along my quest to find some answers.
the way i saw it was using my house for a lump some investment of 125,000 to get an account rolling had the potential of making 1 million in 21 years at 10% return. therefore that millions bucks would cost me about 1000 bucks a month.
but if i was to start out with smalller payments to reach the goal of 1 million bucks it would take many thousands of dollars each month to reach the goal for the next 21 years.
so it would be cheaper for me to use my house plus i can deduct my interest and i would have it paid off by the time i retire anyway.
and even if i lost the house so to speak i still have my money in the market and i could just walk away from the house and owe nothing ( which i wouldnt do anyway)
i dont see what the big deal is anyway wether the housing market tanked or not the end result is i would have more cash at retirement then doing nothing at all. even by the time i retire what different does it make if i my house is worth less or more in 21 years it would be paid off. and the botton line is i would have spent more money every month making payment to and investment to reach the same goal.
which would be worse
paying 1000 bucks each month on my house payment for which i invest the money to the market that tanked and now my 125000 invest is worth 90000 when i retire.
or pay 3000 a month and come to find out my invest ment is only worth 90000 at retirement.
all of this was in the attempt to reach a goal.
or em i just missing everything in all this?