400k house estimated - became a 470k house / an experience report

Yesterday I stumbled upon an article that listed guidelines on how much one should roughly spend on each area of life. It mentioned the well-known 33% for housing including additional costs, it also said a car should not cost more than six net monthly salaries and the property at most three annual salaries (net as well). According to that, I have a too expensive car, well... The originally intended used one would have been just right. Well, and the house... I had to laugh out loud: for the amount that came out, I might have been able to get a two-room apartment at best. At least the third for the installment and additional costs fits quite well. Leasing is just a pure usage fee, you don’t own anything. The purchased car belongs to me eventually. And then I can continue to use it.

But it will. The legislator even invented the mechanism of depreciation for this purpose.
In an appraisal of a property, you will always find two values.
The value of the land and the value of the building depreciated according to its age plus maintenance, which can reduce the calculated age of a property.
But you are of course right. It is undoubtedly better to invest in one's own house than to lease an Audi Q7 to impress the neighbor whom you don't even particularly like.
Whether I consider the forced savings rate an advantage, I am unsure. A responsible citizen should have a basic understanding of our money-based society.
I doubt the argument that this brings people into ownership who cannot afford rent and saving.
The balance of capital service + reasonable maintenance reserve for a single-family house is likely to be much worse than for the 3-room apartment.
If, instead, you start early with small amounts to let money work for you in the capital market, you will probably have more money in the long run.
I am excluding quality of life here; then we are back to consumer goods. This was my purely financial argument.
I'm not that opposed to it, I also build