Child benefit for building and other subsidies?

  • Erstellt am 2018-05-22 13:08:17

Kekse

2018-05-23 11:07:28
  • #1
Well, for me it probably only offers advantages, but I still think it's bad that it is being introduced.
 

Zaba12

2018-05-23 11:10:26
  • #2
Then please elaborate... I would be interested to know why you think it's bad.
 

Kekse

2018-05-23 11:20:53
  • #3
Because it is, from a societal perspective, more expensive nonsense (which was abolished not too long ago for good and still valid reasons), because the construction industry really does not need to be subsidized at the moment, because it is exactly the wrong people who receive it (and then retroactively!) and, if one wants to ignore all this: because, according to the agreed key points, the order of property acquisition and having children is considered far too important.
 

arnonyme

2018-05-23 13:37:09
  • #4


Here is a quote from a recent Bundestag debate: "whereas the new Baukindergeld of 400 million euros per year does not even reach the euro rescue costs of twelve hours"
If you put this into relation to the home ownership allowance of approx. 11.4 billion euros, which was paid out in 2004, your argument is all the more refuted.

How to implement this can be discussed, but to say flatly that it is useless I consider wrong.
Maybe it should not necessarily have been called Baukindergeld and thus made independent of homeownership status.

We are happy about the 24 thousand. From that, we can have half of the outdoor facilities done.

I always find it funny how people are brainwashed that there is no money in the household budget. This goes on until even the last Hartz 4 recipient speaks out against an increase in the standard rates.

Also always interesting that the finance minister position has now been filled repeatedly by a lawyer.
 

Kekse

2018-05-23 14:46:00
  • #5
"From the debate" --> who exactly says that? I am not talking here about the Euro rescue or Hartz 4, but exclusively about the Baukindergeld. The nonsense of one is not canceled out by the alleged worse of the other – this must be discussed separately. 400 million is also not per year but the estimated cost for the specific year 2018. Until 2027 (or hopefully not that long, if it is abolished again earlier) the amount will increase annually simply because funding cohorts are being added (and in later years, when not only catch-up effects like with all of us are present but 2 or 3 people actually base their decision on it, more than this year). The annual amount is then estimated to be up to 22 billion. Your argumentation is therefore the one that is refuted.
 

arnonyme

2018-05-23 15:06:00
  • #6


No, exactly not. The 22 billion is at best conservatively estimated over 10 years, not for 1 year. Everyone tailors it nicely or poorly to suit themselves.
 

Similar topics
20.11.2020Wait with the building application because of the child construction allowance1354
28.10.2018Apply for child construction allowance later11
20.11.2018Entitlement to child-building allowance after inheritance case19
13.06.2019Baukindergeld - Interpretation of the new funding guidelines105
03.07.2019Building allowance - purchase from uncle, before that inheritance community15
04.11.2019Child benefit for home construction - Returnees from abroad16
17.09.2019Baukindergeld - Family Constellation26
05.03.2020Pre-financing of child construction grant18
17.06.2020Child Building Allowance / KWF 424 - Advice28
30.04.2020Child construction allowance for building a new house, but..39
23.09.2020Child construction allowance with non-final building permit49
09.12.2020Extension of Baukindergeld until 31.03.202114
24.10.2020Baukindergeld - Does it no longer have to be the first property ever acquired?22
25.12.2020Child Building Allowance / Homeownership Grant - Move-in Date Dilemma25
23.08.2021KFW Baukindergeld rejection explanation unclear11

Oben