Capital for new construction available - but

2016-09-01 13:37:41

Thanks for all the contributions above. I am building a low-energy house because I expect energy prices to rise steadily in the medium term and want to spend as little as possible on it in old age—when a smaller income than today is to be expected. Money in the bank doesn’t bring anything anymore anyway; you might as well invest it in a (today perhaps still financially unprofitable) house. If the state gives a small "pain compensation," you can take it too; that’s my opinion. If in 20 years the kWh from the electricity supplier costs 40 cents or more, it may have been worthwhile in retrospect. For example, in 1990 a liter of super gasoline cost about 1.- DM, if I remember correctly...

You have the money in cash to build several KfW40+ houses and worry you won’t be able to pay heating costs in 20 years??? If you can’t pay for a 100% house, then over 99% of the population can’t pay anymore...

2016-09-01 13:45:38

Is already a bit droll trollig

2016-09-01 13:54:34

I do not find it reprehensible. Subsidies are being claimed completely legally. There are entirely different dimensions when you look at the corporations, and they could also afford not to claim the subsidies.

I just find the investment a bit nonsensical, just like . As far as I know, single-family homes have a poor return, plus there is a high tax burden if no interest is deducted. From a tax and economic point of view, an investment in multi-family houses with the use of borrowed capital exploiting the leverage effect is more sensible.

2016-09-01 16:35:59

Well, considering that the bank, if the loan is over 100 TEUR and "survives" about a year, earns a margin of about 600 euros... without processing and administrative costs, which still have to be deducted... plus the notary and court costs for the mortgage for the borrower....

If I were a bank, there's the door...

Capital for new construction available - but

Peanuts74

RobsonMKK

Musketier

toxicmolotof