ᐅ Is the real estate market increasingly forcing families to build their own homes?

No chand, I see it very differently. Our gross income would be fine if our net income weren’t so low. But for decades, they have been taking from us—those in Berlin and at the state level. Solidarity surcharge, income tax progression, VAT, insurance tax, property transfer tax, and so on. And what do they do with it? Gender-neutral language, third-gender restrooms, the Gorch Fock, a culture of welcoming all fortune seekers from around the world, free childcare, and so on and so forth. They should leave us the money; we know ourselves what is important to us and what isn’t. Karsten

As a renter, I pay rent forever. True.

But owners also have a kind of second rent for a long time. Many builders and buyers underestimate the costs of a property and forget to adequately set aside reserves for maintenance in a home. Experts recommend 1-2 €/m² (0.09-0.19 $/ft²). Especially families who can just afford financing because of housing subsidies and low interest rates can quickly fall into this trap.

Clearly, owning a house is not necessarily a bad thing. Great garden, being your own boss. But nowadays, when more and more professional flexibility is required, it is a difficult decision. Unfortunately, the rental market often offers few alternatives and thus especially forces families to consider building a house.

Nordlys schrieb:
No chand, I see it completely differently. Our gross wage would be fine if our net wage weren’t so low.

Labor costs per unit are viewed from the perspective of the party paying the wages.
Your employer doesn’t care about your net wage; what matters is the total cost to them, regardless of your net income.

If your net wage increases, someone else’s net income decreases at the same gross wage level (in the case of lower taxes, that would be the state). However, this doesn’t mean more money is circulating overall; the same amount is just being used for something else. The total national wealth does not increase because of this.

It might result in twice as many people owning homes, but as a trade-off, there could be twice as many roads in need of repair.

By the way: If there were no government at all, there would be zero taxes and even much lower gross wages would be considered “acceptable.” That is why large corporations often advocate for less government and more market.

There are condominiums, terraced houses, row houses, semi-detached houses, and single-family homes. There is something to suit everyone.

chand, we won’t come to an agreement on this. I want a different kind of state than you do. No nanny state, no nanny TV, no broadcasting fee, no energy saving regulations, etc. I am liberal, you are something else. K.

Nordlys schrieb:
I am liberal, you are something else. K.

Nope. Liberal too. I don’t want a nanny state either. And I wouldn’t mind if the license fee and energy saving regulations were scrapped.

But I am also a scientist (at least by training). And as such, I understand that I can’t just ignore the accounting of income and expenses, debts and savings, simply because they don’t quite fit into a liberal worldview (in the sense of the FDP).

When some are building wealth (private individuals, for example, for homeownership) someone else must(!) take on debt and return the money saved on one side back into the system through credit on the other side. Otherwise, the exchange of goods decreases and the economy shrinks as a result.

If on one side, more private wealth accumulation is to happen (which I agree with), someone who is not a private individual must take on more debt than before. The remaining options are businesses, government, and foreign entities.

The typical FDP liberal wants wealth accumulation everywhere and debt reduction everywhere at the same time. Logically impossible.

So I am liberal, but never in the sense of the so-called liberal parties available to us. If you don’t even master basic accounting, don’t come to me with proposals for the economy and society.