Nords said:
Why does this discussion have to revolve around nationality & culture? And besides, wasn't it Japan that "invented" the 100-year mortgage in the late '80s?
I can see where different cultures/nationalities might take a very different approach to debt. Or even the "family culture".
My dad tells me that a very common mortgage instrument during the depression era was a 100% interest only product where you paid just the interest through the life of the loan (up to 20 or 30 years) and (hopefully) paid the balance off when you sold the (hopefully) appreciated home at teh end of the mortgage term.
It was often cheaper than rent if you bought a modest home and over 20-30 year periods - - if you stayed that long. I wouldnt be surprised to see this come back as the next step past the current adjustable rate interest only option...should the housing market resume its upward roar.
Actually I dont think we have enough information from the OP to offer a suggestion, but I'll hazard some guesses.
If the OP is still working, still in the accumulation phase, has an investment plan with a very large equity component, doesnt have a good sized portfolio outside of the monies mentioned for the home transactions, and is more than 15-20 years away from retirement, then I'd take a mortgage and invest the proceeds.
If the OP is retired, has a decent sized portfolio, has a large bond or cash component to the portfolio, and plans to live in the house for a shorter than 15 year period, I would suggest paying cash.
Otherwise, the thread REW links covers the range of math and emotion involved in this dialog.