Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Generations of farmers have cultivated their leasehold for centuries

The difference is that farmers there do not build structures, but use the land for crop farming or livestock raising.

The difference is that farmers there do not build structures, but use the land for crop cultivation or livestock farming.

Of course they do. At least their houses, but also stables, barns, threshing floors, utility buildings, granaries, etc. Where do these strange ideas come from? From the fact that the term lease today is also used for something less durable like, for example, gastronomic business premises? That could be it. But hereditary lease is something completely different.

Where do these strange ideas come from?

It is so incredibly convenient to insist on and hold onto one's preconceived opinion or prejudice. People only see their limited current state. That also has something to do with mistrust ;)

It is so incredibly convenient to insist on and hold on to your pre-made opinion or prejudice. People only see their limited current state. That also has something to do with distrust ;)

No, it’s just a question of what you want. Just because YOU don’t want to inherit anything (which is okay) doesn’t mean others have to see it the same way. It’s not always the case that children and grandchildren already have something of their own when you pass away. Especially nowadays, when people often have children late. If you have children at 30 to 35 today and they have children at 30 to 35, then that fits quite well for the grandchildren. And it’s also a question of costs. Often you pay about the same for a leasehold as if you were paying off the land. And if you buy land when you’re young, you’ve paid it off after 20 to 30 years; with leasehold, you pay it your whole life, possibly 50 to 60 years. And if you want to sell your house with leasehold, of course you get less than if you sell your house with paid-off land. That can be interesting if you have to pay nursing home costs. In some cases, it simply can’t be helped; if you can only get land with leasehold, then that’s how it is and you have to bite the bullet. But stubbornly sugar-coating that and accusing those who think differently of narrow-mindedness is unnecessary.

(...) I don't want to leave anything behind either. That also means no debts. What I want to leave behind are beautiful memories – people shouldn't mourn me and console themselves with the inheritance, but instead raise a final toast to me and celebrate with the other survivors.

It's an attitude, but it's not mine. Very few are able to build/buy a house without the family or the children having to go without. Whether it's vacations or even "just" time with the parents because they are busy with DIY work. It's only fair that the children eventually inherit the house. For me, that's even a given. I don't bring children into the world just to tell them, "So, for 18 years you cost me money, now go, you get nothing, I squander the inheritance down to the last cent. But you can cheerfully toast me when I'm dead."

We had also looked at a hereditary leasehold house. It had been built on a field by the father of the current owner. He had been a farmhand at the neighboring farmstead. Property 2500 sqm, lease about 200€ annually. The lessor (now the daughter) had no interest at all in buying the house. It would have only meant work. So good offers were made to the potential buyer regarding continued lease or purchase. At other times, however, she would have had to buy the hut when the contract expired.