Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

  • Erstellt am 2021-04-23 10:46:58

SaniererNRW123

2022-10-13 14:26:48
  • #1

And precisely for this reason, one should not touch the property transfer tax for investors like you. You are after returns, not affordable housing.

It is about institutional companies, housing associations, and large private property holders. If they could build directly 19% cheaper, affordable housing could also be created – for rental purposes, not for capital investors.

In Munich, for example, you as a private individual can no longer buy subsidized housing yourself. Individual sales of newly built apartments are prohibited there – only property holders may directly buy entire houses (blocks), as they rent them out long term.
 

Oetti

2022-10-13 19:19:37
  • #2
Uh, someone is quick to get irritated. But I can reassure you: we do not rent anything out, we purely have our own apartment. I cannot understand your anger towards private investors. Of course, every investor wants to generate a certain return. And in the worst case, that's loan interest + 1% repayment + maintenance reserve. And this minimum calculation is also made by every commercial or public landlord. Only with the difference that the fixed costs are significantly higher here due to the wages to be paid for administration. How great big investors are can be seen with Deutsche Wohnen. Which, in addition to the above-mentioned calculation, also has to generate a dividend for the shareholders. Of course, I immediately know that suspending the sales tax here will definitely benefit the tenants or result in more affordable housing... Once again on my argument about the real estate transfer tax: if it is eliminated, it will be easier for current tenants to take the leap to own a home...
 

WilderSueden

2022-10-13 19:53:03
  • #3

I rather believe that the leeway will immediately be used to increase something else. After 2 months, prices will be a few percent higher and no one will have gained anything. In regions where demand exceeds supply, this problem can only be solved by more supply.
 

Sunshine387

2022-10-13 20:21:54
  • #4
And exactly this increased supply can only be created if the so-called "evil investors" from your perspective also have an incentive to invest (KfW funding, no real estate transfer tax). Then they create more living space (by the way often with 25% social mandatory funding in cities), so that more supply is available and those who then rent an expensive new apartment there leave their old usually cheaper old building apartment and more supply is then available in the cheaper price segment. If these incentives for investors are not created, hardly any new apartments will be built and the scarcer supply will accordingly become more expensive. Consequence: Everyone has to pay much more. But for many, a too complex way of thinking is simply required, and people are reluctant to do that (not referring to you!). Because all this can be seen with the unconstitutional rent cap in Berlin (less supply => higher prices), which has failed spectacularly. If no one invests in Germany anymore, then no one is helped either. The state should not intervene too much here, because then investors will withdraw from the currently already too tenant-friendly German market. Because the returns are certainly not very high. One can already be grateful if investments are made here. But due to the sharply rising construction costs, this will soon be over anyway, no one will build anymore. Then those people can observe for themselves how prices for the existing old buildings will develop when there is less new construction.
 

mayglow

2022-10-13 20:35:55
  • #5
My thought on real estate transfer tax and purchase incidental costs in general is actually a bit different. Namely that in the private sector, the "I only buy/build once in my life" mindset is still somewhat encouraged. And I'm not sure if that's always such a good thing.

On the one hand, people tend to invest in higher quality and possibly more sustainable construction because they want to spend their whole life there. On the other hand, it also seems to lead to us living extravagantly, because we tend to look for the "jack of all trades" for all phases of life.

In other countries, it is much more common for a young family to move into a "starter property" and then, after a few years, look for something new depending on their needs. There are also some people in this forum who recommend that, but overall I hear it very, very rarely. And yes, I do believe that purchase incidental costs play a role. If you have to pay a five-figure real estate transfer tax every time you buy something new and get nothing in return for it, you think about it quite carefully. And then you read about people in their twenties already worrying about barrier-free living for old age.

I think that's more what bothers me about it.

Of course, that only helps to a limited extent with the topic "we want to build faster." Although on the other hand, if we lived more in line with our needs, we would also need less living space. And in my opinion, that is already difficult in the ownership sector.
 

WilderSueden

2022-10-13 20:45:19
  • #6
Yes, of course. If every change costs 10-12% ancillary purchase costs that are irrevocably lost, then you simply cannot recommend buying an apartment now and a house in 5 years. At current prices, that is capital destruction par excellence. Personally, the agent fees bother me much more than the taxes, because you can't even convince yourself that they benefit the general public.


I do not see investors as evil. But regarding the real estate transfer tax, I mainly see a revolving door effect. At the same rate, everyone can afford a more expensive property, so that is what happens. And honestly, for a project developer, the real estate transfer tax is a minor item. The main problem in recent years has been the building land.
 

Similar topics
28.02.2016Buy a house, renovate or build new?41
08.05.2016Renovation & Attic Expansion: KfW? Cost-effectiveness vs. New Construction?18
10.05.2016KfW funding for two-family house26
30.09.2018BAFA funding for air-water heat pumps in new construction - how does it work?30
10.12.2017Second residential unit in the house due to KfW funding 15313
15.02.2020KFW55 funding + BAFA funding57
29.01.2021Is the 2014 Energy Saving Ordinance a KfW standard?24
19.05.2021Promotion of e-mobility for new construction118
14.02.2024Bafa funding for heat pumps will be discontinued as of 31.12.2020.508
18.11.2021KfW funding for KfW 40 Plus houses from now and from 01.07.202157
21.03.2021Land registry later than planned - save KfW funding18
08.05.2021New building with granny flat - general contractor restricts rental and KfW funding51
31.08.2021Kfw 40 Plus funding - Ban on feed-in tariff?21
12.11.2021Exclusion of funding / Purchase contract signed before KFW grant10
14.06.2022KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 4641239
02.10.2025KfW Funding Climate-Friendly Residential Building from March 2023167
19.07.2023Double KFW 297 funding through two residential units?16
31.10.2024KFW 300 Funding - Attractiveness23
11.01.2025KfW 300 funding upon disposal of real estate ownership10
16.08.2025Single-family house with 2 residential units for KFW funding35

Oben