WilderSueden
2022-06-01 21:40:25
- #1
But precisely because of the retirement issue, I would not necessarily recommend building a house to everyone. A house is a huge chunk of assets. Those who built in the outskirts of certain areas 40 years ago can now ask for almost a million for it. And even in the countryside here in the Southwest, you can get 400-500k for any wreck, even in rural areas. What use is that to people? None. Because to access that money you have to sell the house. Then there are maintenance costs, which are certainly not negligible for a 40-year-old house and lead to the mentioned run-down houses. For me, the goal still applies that a house should not totally dominate the assets. Living rent-free is nice and all, but it is not cost-free. You also need sufficient income in old age to cover the costs, whether from a pension or private retirement provision. Moreover, people usually calculate the rent-free living quite optimistically. How many people would stay as tenants, two people in a 5-room apartment, when they are old? Very few. Why do we then consider this completely normal and reasonable with houses?In my opinion, building is always the better solution. Especially with regard to retirement, everyone should, if possible, structure their financing in such a way that they have no financial obligations when they retire. A second aspect is also important. The aging own house also requires renovation after 20 or 30 years. Perhaps the floor plan in the building also needs to be optimized (living on one level). If such things are only tackled in retirement, sufficient financial resources must be available. Who wants to pay rent from their pension later? Probably no one willingly.