Apartment or house purchase in 2-3 years, under what conditions?

Regarding the pension insurance: especially at a young age, I find it important because you can achieve relatively much through compound interest and relatively low installments.

Exactly, an apartment is already available. We are also constantly looking, but these apartments never pay off with 4% interest and 3% rental yield, and so far we did not want to add more money because then you are completely dependent on the value development .. would you still consider it sensible currently?

There are plenty of discussions that a pension insurance might only be worthwhile once the saver’s allowance (2x1000.--) is reached. Whether it then pays off depends on some factors you can influence (e.g., how often you rebalance, net contract) and cannot influence, such as the tax situation in 20-30 years.
In addition to the 3% rental yield, there is also rent increase, value appreciation, and tax reimbursement.

The household book has been kept in great detail for 3 years, so all values come from there.

Very commendable. Also the down-to-earthness. This is the first time I read that someone also includes medication costs and also has rather realistic numbers for other things and no doctored ones.

As I said, since it does not necessarily have to be the "forever" property, we do not have the strict goal of being paid off by retirement with the rate (so basically a 1% repayment would also be conceivable for us, whether the bank agrees is another matter).

You forget that it is not only about the value appreciation of the property, but also about minimizing the debts, i.e. the external capital. As a result, more belongs to you, which later means more equity.

then apartments we can imagine in the next few years, but including compromises (be it location, size, condition, ..), around 400-500k.

May I ask how the apartments are designed? 100 sqm within a 10 km radius of the desired location with a new-build character or is the compromise a real one with a 2-room apartment, 60 sqm in a 70s multi-family house?

I would also preferably keep the pain threshold at 2k ...

we really have absolutely no worries

preferably calculate current cold rent vs. interest burden.

So if we pay more interest than the current cold rent (1.4k),

I see a big mistake that is often made when young: trying to invest in a property while simultaneously saving for retirement in other ways. For you, there is now a third component added, namely investing in a home of your own.
You can do it that way, but then you won't be really happy with the numbers, because e.g. the mentioned 1% here really does not achieve much.
But you don't dare to do more, even though the salary is good. (Or rather, stinginess is cool) The pain threshold is not adjusted.

And so one drifts somewhat dissatisfied for 20-30 years, to have a good retirement provision later, but has not gained quality of life in the 30 years in between.

I think you invest too little: anyone who thinks to calculate with cold rent and not invest more from the salary has to make too many compromises.
You should already recognize the potential of a "new property" and invest in it as well so that you also get more quality of life, that means: using it for retirement provision is of course okay and desired (more repayment) and also in principle investing more.
Don't fumble around with ETF, apartment, property, pension insurance etc., so that the true aspect of life falls by the wayside.

There are enough discussions that a pension insurance might only be worthwhile once the saver’s allowance (2x1000.--) is reached. Whether it is then worthwhile depends on some factors that you can influence (e.g. how often you restructure, net contract) and ones you cannot influence, like the tax situation in 20-30 years.
In addition to the 3% rental yield, there is also the rent increase, value appreciation, and tax refund

So for me, the saver’s allowance is fully utilized for the first time this year, it is a net contract and restructuring would be possible. Of course, I don't know the tax situation in 30 years, but that applies to all investments.

I wouldn’t completely rule it out either, it’s just less lucrative than 3 years ago, when all of this was also given.

Very commendable. Also the down-to-earth approach. This is the first time I’m reading that someone also includes the costs of medication and has rather realistic numbers for other things instead of beautified ones.

Thank you

You forget that it’s not only about the appreciation of the property but also about minimizing the debts, i.e., the external capital. Ultimately, you own more, which means more equity later on.

That is of course true, slightly higher repayment than 1% would probably really make sense..

May I ask how the apartments are designed? 100 sqm within a 10 km radius of the desired location with a new-build character or is the compromise a real one with a 2-room apartment, 60 sqm in a 70s multi-family house?

Since we currently live with 4.5 rooms at about 100 sqm, 2-room and 60 sqm definitely do not come into question, then we’d rather continue renting. We are currently looking for 4 rooms and 90 sqm or more. The radius depends more on the connection (20 min by public transport to the center) and it doesn’t have to be a new building, but without necessary renovation.

I see a big mistake often made in young years: trying to invest in a property while at the same time saving for retirement in other ways. With you, a third component is added now, namely investing in a home of your own. You can do it that way, but you won’t be really happy with the numbers because, for example, the mentioned 1% does not really achieve much. People don’t dare to do more even though the salary is good. (Or rather, stinginess is cool.) The pain threshold isn’t adjusted. And so one drifts somewhat unsatisfied for 20–30 years, to later have a good retirement provision but not have gained quality of life in the 30 years in between.

That is a point I actually see differently. Not focusing on just one pillar I find extremely important both now and in retirement. If I go all-in on one option, I am completely dependent on whether that will actually work. If I split it up, I minimize my risk. And for me, the home of my own is not retirement provision but consumption, because without selling it, I still have expenses and zero income.

The pain threshold is also such a thing: before I take away my chance to at least somewhat freely shape my life (possibility of reduced hours, job changes, self-employment, etc.), then better 1% repayment and special repayment or no home of my own at all.

I think you invest too little: those who think to calculate using the cold rent and not to invest more of their salary have to make too many compromises. You should already recognize the potential of a “new property” and invest in it so that you also get more quality of life, that means: using it as retirement provision is of course okay and desired (more repayment) and also fundamentally investing more. Don’t get confused with ETFs, apartments, property, retirement insurance etc. so that the true aspect of life is lost.

For the entire installment we already calculate more than just the cold rent anyway. The only thing where we use the cold rent as a comparison: if for a worse apartment we would have to pay more interest than the current cold rent, then it would make no sense either for the quality of life or financially (unless there is a massive appreciation, but then we would have the same problem with the new property again, that it also becomes significantly more expensive there).

And honestly, I don’t want to neglect my future at the expense of an even nicer property now.. We value quality of life, and it’s already quite high; if a property lowers my quality of life in the future, then it doesn’t have to happen at any price.