Baukindergeld - Interpretation of the new funding guidelines

There were no "rules," really.

As I have written before:

Regarding the Bavarian Baukindergeld, there is a "directive"... so legally fixed, where everything is exactly stated about what is allowed and what is not.

At the federal level, there is nothing like that. The funding requirements result from the "KfW information sheet."

The restriction that the sale between relatives of a household member of the 1st degree is no longer eligible for funding simply did not exist before.

In this respect, it was just added to the information sheet as a "clarification"... that was it.

In my opinion, if it was only a clarification, it should have applied before and not only from 05/17.

But probably out of "protection of legitimate expectations," old applications are still probably being accepted.

As already said, it still does not say that an intermediate purchase leads to exclusion.

Strictly speaking, one could also rely on that: "It was not in the information sheet."

The KfW then sees this as a "civil law circumvention," which they also could have acted upon in the sale between relatives before 05/17.

I don’t see it as bad as Rudolf does (but I also haven’t invested that much). We would have bought the property anyway, and Baukindergeld would have been a nice "goodie," especially with 5 children... but we did not count on it firmly.

I think that is probably the difference. We would have done it anyway. If Rudolf would have also taken the previous actions "anyway," then he wouldn’t have to get so upset. Baukindergeld would have just been a "goodie." If, of course, the whole "Zinoba" was only done to receive the Baukindergeld and the property would never have otherwise been purchased, then that obviously has a bad connotation.

Now it just doesn’t exist for us... we just have to pay it off that way.

We have still saved a lot. The parents already bought it "for" us 9 years ago and we paid it off through rent. It is now probably worth 200,000 euros more.

If we really had to buy externally now and probably have to spend about 400,000 euros, the Baukindergeld of 85,000 euros wouldn’t make that big a difference anymore.

So I only pay off 100,000 and that’s fine (whereby with the Baukindergeld, the state would have basically paid off the house)... it would have just been "nice."

As said, I always see "fraud" differently. If you get the funding, it is simply not fraud in black and white.

The question is what and how the KfW checks.

The purchase from parents is just easy to prove.

As always, it is probably the case that those who "cheat" or really commit fraud manage to do it so cleverly that they don’t get caught—

See registration of residence.

The changes were announced on the KFW website.

well the grand coalition is falling apart, I’m curious how much longer the BKG will still exist

well Groko is falling apart, I'm curious how long the BKG will still exist

Until the pot is empty. We will report back in 1.5 months.

I think that I am probably the difference. We would have done it that way anyway. If Rudolf had made the previous actions "anyway," then he wouldn't have to get so upset. The Baukindergeld would also only be a "goodie." Of course, if the whole "Zinoba" was only done to receive the Baukindergeld and the property would otherwise never have been acquired, that naturally has a bad connotation.

That's right. We originally wanted to buy in 2021/22. Because of the Baukindergeld, we decided to buy earlier. You call the 85,000 euros in your case a "nice goodie" that wouldn't make much of a difference, as if it were only a few hundred euros here... Sure – from the perspective of a new purchase for 400,000 euros, the cost-benefit calculation naturally doesn't make sense if you only have 100,000 euros left to pay off. But 85,000 euros is definitely not a "nice goodie" but a LOT of money.

There are people here who talk about "enrichment" or "asset building." But that is complete nonsense. People who buy from parents acquire the property cheaper than others and end up with more cash assets. But what is the difference? The others buy or build and get the same money. For their house, they pay, as in our case, 48,000 euros less. A house that would have actually cost 398,000 euros would then have been purchased by this family for only 350,000 euros. So it does not matter from whom it is bought. In any case, it is a gift that leads to more capital.

It is solely about meaningfulness here. The federal government wants to create more living space with the subsidy because of all the immigration and housing shortage. People are supposed to move out of the apartments and make space. But if a purchase is made from parents, no more "living space" is created. That is the only difference. It has nothing to do with the amount of the purchase price because the money makes every recipient richer. Whether they have more cash assets or paid 50,000 euros less for their new property.

What I do not understand, however, is why the "purchase" of properties is subsidized at all. Only new construction creates more living space. If someone buys from "non-relatives," they have to move out of the property and move into another house or apartment. That would also not create new living space.

The whole thing was a vote-buying gift from the Union. You don’t need to look for any economic justification there.