Construction financing without equity as an option?

And if the parents squander their money on vacations and luxury and then are taken care of by the state as care cases, is that better? Do you now want to forbid everyone over 60 from spending their money?

I find that better than if they spend it on children who wouldn't be able to buy the house without them.

But it's similar to a partnership. If the owner transfers the private assets to his wife so that creditors cannot get to them. You find that okay because everyone can do what they want with their money.

As I said. We will go around in circles. Back to the original topic :cool:

In my opinion, the parents have already done something wrong in raising the child. Since the child asks for money as a luxury item in adulthood. Now the question is which situation occurs more often? Yours from super-rich parents, which will become less and less common? Or mine?

And in my opinion, children shouldn’t have to ask for it in the first place. As I said, if I’m sitting on a pile of money (and as I mentioned in my previous post, I’m talking about a situation where one has more than enough reserves), while my children are in a significantly worse financial situation, then I gladly support them and don’t let my money lose purchasing power in the savings account, so that my children only benefit from it when they are already 60-70 years old and don’t really need it anymore. I’d rather give it to them earlier to enable them and their children to have a better quality of life. My parents still live quite frugally despite many savings and when they do treat themselves to something, it often benefits their children and grandchildren as well, because they invite everyone on a joint family holiday, for example. Not because we children couldn’t afford it ourselves, but because it simply makes them happy to do something good for their family. Just as it makes me happier to give my children something than to buy something for myself. And as I said, when I am a grandpa someday and have enough saved up, while my children have little (because they, for example, have chosen a poorly paid job in the social sector, which I would fully support), then I won’t buy a Rolex with my surplus money, but rather do something good for my children or grandchildren with it. But in our family, as I said, the credo has always been that EVERYONE should be doing as well as possible and if someone happens to be in a worse situation for any reason, help is given completely naturally, without anyone feeling forced or anyone else feeling disadvantaged by it—by the way, also among siblings.

The standard case here (wealthy area of Germany) is also that the house is paid off and in addition six-figure sums are available, which often just lie around in a savings account and checking account.

That’s exactly the case I mean (even if that shouldn’t be the standard case, we are exactly talking about this case here).

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

The state does not seize anything. The taxpayer simply does not pay social assistance for someone who does not need it. The money is saved to be able to use it in old age. In the nursing home, you simply have increased expenses and use it for that. Not everyone in a nursing home is bedridden or demented. There are plenty of elderly people who would gladly have more than €121.23 pocket money per month. That is the pocket money paid in social assistance in the nursing home. I really find the above attitude terrible.

Of course you may. But then the children, if the parents become care cases, should either sell their house, which is co-financed by the parents, or take out another loan so that none of us have to pay for their luxury item.

That should of course be equally self-evident. For example, my father recently inherited a house from his best friend. Since my father does not need it and I do not want to return to my homeland, we agreed that my sister would get it for her daughter and I would receive a rather symbolic sum, which corresponds to about one fifth of the actual market value, but my sister just has it lying around in her account anyway. If my parents ever unexpectedly find themselves in financial distress, it is completely clear to all involved that my sister will sell the house immediately and I will also return my compensation without delay.

We have already said it 1000 times. It is a matter of sense of honor and upbringing. And we can write another 1000 pages about it and still won't agree on a common denominator.

You will have to understand that many here will not take it sitting down if you indirectly accuse them of lacking a sense of honor and poor upbringing. For example, my sense of honor would forbid me to live in luxury while others in my family are financially much worse off. But yes, I also don't think we will come to a common denominator.

And in my opinion, children shouldn’t even have to ask for it in the first place.

As I said, if I’m sitting on a pile of money (and as mentioned in my previous post, I’m talking about a situation where one has more than enough reserves), while my children are in a significantly worse financial situation, then I’m more than happy to support them and not let my money lose purchasing power in the savings account, so that my children only benefit from it when they themselves are already 60-70 years old and don’t really need it anymore. I’d rather give it to them earlier to enable them and their children a better quality of life.

My parents, despite many savings, still live quite frugally, and when they do treat themselves to something, it often benefits their children and grandchildren, for example, because they then invite everyone on a joint family vacation. Not because we children couldn’t afford it, but because it simply makes them happy to do something good for their family. Just as it makes me happier to give my children something than to buy something for myself.

And as I said, when I’m a grandpa and have enough saved up, while my children have little (because, for example, they chose a poorly paid job in the social sector, which I would fully support), then I won’t buy a Rolex with my surplus money, but rather prefer to do something good for my children or grandchildren.

But in our family, as said, the credo has always been that everyone should be as well off as possible and if someone is in a worse situation for any reason, help is given completely naturally, without anyone feeling obligated or anyone else feeling disadvantaged – by the way, also among siblings.

That’s exactly the case I mean (even if that shouldn’t be the standard case, we are precisely talking about this case here).

I’m starting to believe that you either deliberately misunderstand my posts or don’t even read them. You write about parents sitting on a pile of money, which is not often the case. I wrote about the standard case where the parents have saved enough money for their old age and additionally paid off a house. These are two different worlds. If we keep writing to each other, it makes no sense, I’m out. Back to the topic.

Now the question is which situation occurs more often? Yours from super-rich parents, who will be fewer and fewer? Or mine?

You are switching from standard to super-rich. Self-made high earners, house near Berlin, paid off in 20 years, selling the house in 30 years to go into care. You don't really believe that yourself, your children/grandchildren will inherit the house and the state will pay for you. Self-made high earners are the stingiest :cool: