Construction financing without equity as an option?

So here there are really only Reichsbedenkenträger.
After deducting loans, ancillary house costs, insurance, etc., a young couple with children is left with just under 3,000 (THREE THOUSAND!!) euros EVERY month.

Yeah sure, pure poverty.
All you can do is collect deposits.
Come down from your ivory tower with your paid-off properties and incomes well beyond 15k EUR/month.

This is a completely normal and comfortable livelihood for the family.

Are there more details about the old building? That sounds great.
I would always prefer a stucco old building from the turn of the century to these misshapen new buildings, despite all disadvantages.
After all, these houses have charm and are worth preserving.

The original poster has not responded, so a discussion about feasibility is pointless. And whether the livelihood will be so comfortable is questionable, since the renovation costs are probably set far too low at 100,000 for an old building – whatever that means.

And when the parents then go into a nursing home, first the entire saved-up assets are confiscated by the state and everything was for nothing. Also a sensible thing.

I hope that was not meant seriously? Is it then better if the assets are distributed beforehand and then the taxpayers pay for the parents just because the child otherwise couldn’t afford the house?

As I have said many times before. If the parents have a lot of money and can actually afford it, then it’s okay. I wouldn’t do it then either. Because I believe that the parents have already paid for me half their lives. You also have to give something back and not take even more. But both are okay. I just live it differently.

What I find very bad, however, is when the parents sign a guarantee, which is also not uncommon. A guarantee means to me that they have no savings but a house with which they stand surety. In that case, the child should come down from their high horse (house as property) and not endanger the parents.

And when the parents then go into a care home, the entire saved-up assets are first confiscated by the state and everything was for nothing. Also a sensible thing.

Why is the entire saved-up assets then confiscated by the state? A place in a care facility costs money, and those who have assets should contribute them there as well. When I was still renting, the landlord also confiscated my saved-up assets every month by charging me rent.

Your statement sounds to me like: privatize profits, socialize losses. That just doesn’t work.

what's the point of all this saving? We also save 60% of the household equity - but come on, there must be something in there! Why even earn money beyond living expenses? You only live once. Some here seem not to have experienced early deaths yet. Don’t forget to live!

Absolutely right, what you write. I see it exactly the same way. It does me no good to be the richest man in the cemetery.

BUT: In this special case, in my opinion, the priorities are simply set wrong. Three quarters of a million euros (partly calculated using a rough estimate) are supposed to be invested in an old building. Let’s be honest, three quarters of a million will not be enough in today’s environment. Whoever even remotely thinks about such a project, I expect them either to have money/equity like hay or, if you want, also a five-figure net income. If they can present neither, I at least expect them to be very good with money. According to the information provided so far by the OP, that does not seem to be the case. I know it is difficult for many to abstain sometimes, especially when you were not born with a silver spoon in your mouth. You want to treat yourself sometimes and such. Then, in my opinion, you should not take on such a risky project.

I am skeptical that at 35 years old and a household net income of just under 7,000 EUR, one only has 40,000 in equity. If you can save 2,000 EUR/month, that would be 24,000 EUR per year. And also the absolutely crisis-proof job... the guys in the coal mining industry once thought so too.

As your salary increases, you simply treat yourself more. It only really works if you live as if you had significantly less income. Those who manage that might pull it off. But those are the few.

Spending money as an end in itself is boring. Why start playing golf when your previous hobbies are more fun? Why buy expensive cars when the Octavia or ID3 has everything you need? Why a luxury hotel when a holiday apartment is usually much cozier? I think I’m doing quite a bit wrong there. Never mind, the monthly residue left in the account is simply pushed into the capital market. It’s less annoying than compulsively walking around car dealerships, fancy restaurants, designer furniture stores, and electronics markets until the spending side finally matches the income...