I don’t think I ever wrote about "facts" anywhere, or claimed anything. I always write that I don’t know, I write what I have read somewhere and what has been told to me – with references for self-verification. These are not claimed facts but merely assumptions. And I also do not accept that I am supposed to be incorrigible. Anyone who has read my previous posts will notice that I have repeatedly written that it is certainly true when people say more equity and more income are better. Where do I write any rigid claims?
I rather find the answers somewhat "stuck." When it is claimed that a house simply costs so much and so much, in my opinion it is not taken into account that you don’t necessarily need Grohe fittings and Villeroy and Boch, but that you can also get by with cheap hardware store products. And then the house no longer necessarily costs "such and such," one can easily calculate with three fingers. Why is it so hard to accept when someone wants to adjust the construction and finishing costs to their personal income conditions?
I come from poorer circumstances, and yet almost everyone in my family has built or bought their little house. Without equity and without 4000 net, but mostly with several children and one sole earner (average earner)! All of their houses are still standing even though they helped out, and none of them had anything foreclosed. Of course, they have houses at an appropriate "value level," no marble bathrooms and no super-fancy outdoor facilities. They are simple, small and cheap houses that serve their purpose. Why is someone verbally attacked or portrayed as a "foreclosure candidate" just because they want such a house too?
The construction costs given here in the forum should be allowed to be discussed, right? Also that a passive house is 70% more expensive than the standard build stated at 240k cannot be quite true if several builders according to construction reports build a passive house all-inclusive for 120k? And if it’s already said, I accept no facts: where exactly is the error in the given reference (Kreutzkamp)? If it is simply claimed that a passive house costs 400k, period, where are the itemized building costs for that? It seems to me as if I have landed here in a forum of higher-earning builders or construction companies (both the comments on the 4000 net, below which one should stop, and the various hints "I’ve been doing this for decades" point to that).
What is forgotten is: if only people who really have lots of money behind them were building, the construction industry would have long been bankrupt – most people are not rich but average earners (average = 2000 euros, you can google this, plus a wife with a mini-job AND children on top) and they still build. And do not automatically go bankrupt.
Pointing out risks is okay (I am aware of them, and if I rushed it, I would already have signed the contract, I already have an offer!) – but dismissing everything that deviates from your own opinion as nonsense and stupidity condescendingly is no basis for discussion. It can be done differently. Especially personal attacks like "You live up to your nickname" – what’s that supposed to mean? Does that have anything to do with a factual discussion?
Regarding my specific information – even with the source given – it then says "I am relatively sure that this example is not correctly reported." Why relatively sure? You can simply google this text yourself under the reference wibank – requirements. It says it there in black and white... so before I am portrayed as an idiot, how about just checking it? And yes: it IS correctly reported. You can easily read it yourself.
Honestly, I thought there would be concrete help and tips here, but instead one is simply portrayed as a dimwit – I am severely disabled, but my brain still works. Maybe it’s better to leave it at that point then nobody has to get upset about me anymore. So many thanks for the discussion and best regards. (Nick can be deleted then)