11ant
2020-06-10 13:42:07
- #1
It is a naive calculation in several dimensions: Misconception 1) From the very beginning, we make a profit from renting out (false assumptions, among others no vacancy, punctual payment, no damage not covered by the deposit, no reasons for rent reduction in the new house, etc.); Misconception 2) Due to the profit, the rented square meters in the subtraction calculation "repayment burden minus rental income" are more valuable than the self-used square meters, so the granny flat not only finances itself but also, for example, the square meters of the study, children's bathroom, or those gained through the knee wall height increase; Misconception 3) - and at this point even the naive person themselves should really dawn on it - If, given our creditworthiness, the loan request for a home (= investment in own living space consumption) already leads to strenuous conditions, it will become easier instead of logically harder if we combine it with a second loan request for a business as a landlord (= speculation on business profit). Viewed this way, this is hopefully a clear case of "figured that out yourself". Granny flats are an instrument from a time when instead of §10e, §7b of the Income Tax Act was responsible (and the acting Federal Chancellor was Helmut Schmidt). But back then we also still had monolithic 30 cm exterior walls as the standard—even with radiator niches. Meanwhile, a lot of time has passed. That calculations (can) add up is not absolute, i.e. one cannot assume continuity or even indefiniteness for it. Yesterday’s news.It is a pink cloud to believe that a tenant finances someone’s house to a large extent