I painted my home office myself before we moved. 1 sturdy stepstool, no problem. But there is no way I will EVER paint the two-story cathedral ceilinged-living room myself. EVER.

As for a 15-year mortgage–I’m not going to pay off that mortgage in the alloted time, because I’m going to sell the property in a few years. So my concern is balancing equity with funds available for the next property. In this case, I’m not really sure what the better deal is, though my instinct is to leave more cash free and go with the 30-year mortgage.

Others — myself included — find this hard. As I’ve mentioned before, I struggled for years to pay off my debt using the standard “high interest rate” first method, and just couldn’t do it. One try with the “debt snowball” method, and I’ve got it licked. (My debt isn’t gone, but it’s getting damn close.) Now from a logical, mathematical perspective, my decision doesn’t make sense because it costs me more in the long run. But from a practical viewpoint, it’s an excellent choice because I’ve actually paid off my debt.

I haven’t read Bach’s books yet, so I can’t comment on the reasoning behind his recommendation. I can’t endorse it, and I can’t condemn it. When Cat made the post, she admitted up front that his point didn’t make sense to her, and that’s why she posted the quote.

As for the mortgage: I’ve asked my accountant in the past whether it’s better to keep low payments on a thirty year mortgage, or to attempt to pay it off early via extra payments and/or a shorter term. His answer: It doesn’t matter. It makes little difference in the long term, so it comes down to personal preference.

However, my preference — and the preference of some financial advisers — is to pay off the mortgage as quickly as possible. Get rid of the debt. Obtaining a shorter term (and thereby higher monthly payments) is a sort of enforced discipline; it doesn’t give you the option to spend the money on a new boat or on a new piano or a new Thneed. Your higher payment is forcing you to pay off your debt more quickly.

I appreciate your pointing out these differences between posts, but be aware that not everything at Get Rich Slowly is going to have a unified viewpoint. Each poster will have his or her own opinion, as will the authors we quote. My objective here is to present as many options and viewpoints about debt reduction and investing while still adhering to sound, fundamental principles. I hope the site is achieving that so far. (I’ll have to check out that Back thing, tough — it worries me.)

Getting Rich Slowly is a learning process for me and for my readers. Your comments are great because they help me cross my Ts and dot my Is. Keep it up!

But this is what bugs me. Why is it such a good idea in an earlier post to stretch your credit card debt out over 30 years and not your mortgage payments? Check it out.

In this post, folks are being told go for the lowest possible loan term to pay off a low interest, tax-deductable loan. To do that, you maximize your payments, so you have less money left over every month to invest. In other words, pay off the 6% loan as fast as possible, even if it means that you have less to invest at 10%.

But in a prior post, we’re advised to extend a high interest, non-tax-deductable loan. So we’re told to pay 21% as long as possible to invest at 10%.

Something is wrong with this logic!