Sorry, I should've specified the question/topic better in my initial question. The comparison or example "majority" of the time I see is comparing on the 30 year time line. What I was asking is............
If you can use the extra/investment money to pay off the mortgage in only a few years (say 3 to 4) and then invest all of the money (extra plus original loan monthly payment), do the numbers still favor investing by such a huge gap at the end of the same 30 years?
To use the example of 30 years...... if you only take three and a half years to pay off the mortgage (not some other timeline such as 15 years) and still have 26.5 years left to invest with lower expenses, wouldn't you catch up and potentially surpass the individual that is doing both (paying mortgage and investing at the same time for 30 years)?
I tried to look for such an example in the other thread that was linked early on, but stopped looking after people turned into yelling at each other. Wasnt trying to troll anyone or any topic. New to all of this and there is a LOT of information all over the place. I used a few different calculators online and was verifying what they were giving for results (assuming I used them correctly).
Sorry to those of you I offended.
I just ran my own personal numbers on this, we are in the process of doing what you described. We have only a couple more payments until we are completely paid off, took us 3.2yrs. We also bought well and the home is worth 2.3x what we paid for it, could also rent out and produce 10% ROI. You always make your money when you buy, our home was a great buy.
All else being equal in 30yrs, not paying off the house would come out about 157k ahead vs paying it off first... But there are a lot of assumptions and variables that can wildly change that scenario over a 30yr period. For example, long term unemployment, lower than average stock market returns(which happens from time to time), changes in regulations, changes is taxation, changes in interest rates, the allure of taking out home equity at some point, forced sale of assets in a down market......... There is a lot that could change the numbers.
For me, I work in a the construction industry which has its booms and busts, sometimes I get laid off or am forced to move, or take a pay cut, or cut in hours. I like having the house paid for, it is just another layer of security when times get tough and it gives me more options. I dont have this big hole draining away my savings. Instead of renting the house out and only cash flowing maybe $100 a month, I could cashflow $1000 per month. If rents drop, guess what, I'm highly competitive and go much lower than someone with a mortgage payment to keep that money coming in without high vacancy rates. Or I could probably even sell right now and fund paying for 2 rentals in a low cost of living city and add a little more cashflow. Or I can sell and pay for another house in cash if we move.
But I get the argument a large portion of people here will make, if you have a big rainy day fund and put the rest away in stocks its a good way to go too. But sometimes its what helps you sleep at night, and at the end of 30 yrs if we are talking 6.9 million vs 7.1 million does it really matter? Its a win either way.
Anyway... those are my thoughts.