Rachel Cruze Breaks Down Five Controversial Money Moves That Split Financial Opinion

Personal finance discussions often reveal deep divides in how people manage their wallets. Rachel Cruze, a prominent financial personality and part of the Ramsey organization, recently weighed in on five money decisions that consistently spark debate within households and broader financial communities.

The Mortgage Timeline Question: 15 or 30 Years?

When it comes to choosing between loan terms, Cruze advocates for the shorter path. A 15-year mortgage aligns with the philosophy of building structural support for faster debt elimination. The interest rate advantage is tangible—as of mid-September 2025, borrowers could access 15-year fixed rates around 5.41%, compared to 6.26% for the standard 30-year option, according to Freddie Mac data.

However, Cruze’s perspective goes beyond just rate comparison. She believes the commitment itself serves as a psychological and financial guardrail, encouraging disciplined payments. Even better? She’d prefer to see people accelerate payments beyond the 15-year window when possible.

Home Equity as a College Funding Source: A Clear Position

Using your home as collateral to finance your child’s education receives a firm pushback from Cruze. She recommends exploring alternatives first—in-state universities, community college pathways, employment opportunities, or taking a gap year to reassess.

The risks are substantial. Beyond the obvious threat to your home’s security if payments falter, borrowers face mandatory variable interest rates, absence of tax deductions on certain student loans (though potential deductions exist on home equity instruments), and sometimes restrictions on early repayment terms. Citizens Bank documentation outlines these considerations in detail for those contemplating this route.

The Credit Card Rewards Paradox

Earning points through plastic purchases seems logical on the surface. Yet Cruze identifies a troubling dynamic: cardholders who maintain balances effectively subsidize the perks enjoyed by those who pay in full each month.

A West Virginia University study reinforces this concern, revealing that when cardholders carrying balances receive credit limit increases, spending typically climbs. Cruze finds this wealth transfer uncomfortable, noting that many people struggle financially while funding reward programs for others. The system itself, in her view, merits skepticism.

Adult Children and Rent Payments at Home

The question of whether to charge grown children rent for living at home doesn’t have Cruze enthusiastically on either side. She respects the impulse to teach financial responsibility but questions whether charging rent for temporary living arrangements proves necessary or beneficial.

Her nuance matters here: she’s more concerned about extended adult stays without timeline expectations. Short-term arrangements—whether rent is charged or not—fall into a gray zone she doesn’t strongly oppose. Long-term cohabitation without structure, however, registers as the real problem.

Student Loan Forgiveness: Heart Versus Economics

This topic produces visible tension in Cruze’s analysis. From a strict contractual standpoint, she acknowledges the principle: you signed an agreement, so you owe the debt. Fairness suggests non-signatories shouldn’t absorb costs.

Yet she recognizes the age factor. Many 18-year-olds making these decisions lack the maturity and information to fully comprehend lifelong obligations. The burden falls particularly hard on younger generations. Current Federal Student Aid guidelines do permit forgiveness under specific circumstances—educator roles, government employment, nonprofit work, medical professionals, disability status, or Income-Based Repayment Plans—but these exceptions highlight rather than solve the broader tension.

These five money conversations matter because they force individuals to examine their assumptions about debt, spending, investment, and family dynamics. Rachel Cruze’s willingness to present conflicted perspectives—rather than absolute rules—reflects the genuine complexity underlying personal financial decisions.