Building from 50 - experiences with short-term loans?

At retirement, the monthly income decreases. The question to the thread creator: To what amount is the pension forecasted?

If the income decreases, what should one do: reduce the repayment? Then the term increases and possibly the house will never be fully paid off if major renovations need to be financed in 30 years and the burden rises again. And then the complaints will be loud again that the house as retirement provision is worth nothing anymore. Reminds me of this thread:

You can do all that, but you should be aware of how unhealthy the financing can become.

I am always amazed by the financial acrobats here in the forum. Retirement: then it has to be over. Otherwise, the house was too expensive if that can't be managed. The goal is to be better off in old age with a home of one's own than with rent. Therefore: finish by 65. Anything else is "you have taken on too much." Karsten

The question should be: "What rate can I still finance the outstanding debt X with upon retirement."
After all, all tenants also have the problem that the rent still has to be paid upon retirement. And that works too.
Why shouldn't a loan continue to be paid? It just depends on the amount and the monthly burden. That’s how most banks see it.

I see it that way too, and it should not be a problem if you choose a 30/35 year term at 40 (just an example) or a 25-year term at 50 and still have 100,000 to pay off after retirement. After all, once the children have left the house, you often have the opportunity to increase the repayment and thus pay off your financing monthly with a relatively small amount (under €500).
That doesn’t hurt, and you can live well over the years before and after retirement.

I am always amazed by the financial acrobats here in the forum. Retirement: then it has to be over. Otherwise, the house was too expensive if you can’t manage it. The goal is to be more carefree in old age with your own home than with renting.

I don’t feel addressed now - by the way, I juggle financing between €10 and €100 million, so I am quite risk-conscious.

What speaks rationally against still having, for example, €50,000 or €100,000 outstanding debt at retirement? If there is not just a mini pension, you are not worse off than millions of renters. With the advantage that you have "relatively liquid" assets.

It may be your goal to be carefree in old age. Does that mean being well off or being debt-free? Very subjective.

My goal is also to be debt-free in old age. But I can live well with my apartment/house still being financed by credit upon retirement. I don’t want to have any stress with the property in old age anyway and will gladly become a renter again then. Real estate in old age means the properties always have maintenance needs and cost money. I’d rather let my landlord do that and comfortably relax in the apartment suitable for my age – maybe enjoying a small piece of garden or a large balcony.

The ideas for the start of retirement are very subjective, so objectively it is no problem at all to still have a small financing then.

I see it very differently. Since yesterday we are debt-free. I'm almost 61 and she is almost 56. When the pension comes at 63.5, we will effectively have 4 gross with the Riester pension, which is de facto what we had so far after the loan payment. So no restrictions in living standards after retirement. If I die before her, and that will probably be the case, since I’m older and have worse genes in the family, she has 60% of my pension, her Riester, her pension, and a paid-off house. For maintenance, we are now making a home savings plan. So in about 12 years or so, a small reserve will be built up. Otherwise, we are just fine. Even if I have to go into a care home for a while, she won’t have to give up the house. She will manage that on her own. K.

What is the rational argument against still having, for example, €50k or €100k of residual debt at retirement? If there is not just a minimal pension, you are not worse off than millions of renters. With the advantage that you have "relatively liquid" assets.

The problem is that many people cannot properly assess risks, generalize from single cases, or assume they themselves will never be affected by misfortunes.

We are discussing here the case of the thread starter, and he plans to still have minor children at retirement! Does he also consider the partnership with a 20-year age difference as a rational risk factor?