Construction financing without equity as an option?

Maybe some people here should just consider that the state is always the taxpayer and some municipalities have to spend more than 60% of their income on social welfare. That leaves nothing for nice parks or playgrounds or culture.

And of course people are allowed to spend or give away their money. However, the social welfare office simply does not pay when money is gifted.
Here in NRW, by the way, very few can pay for their nursing home place from income and benefits from the care fund themselves. Such a nursing home place often costs €4,500. At most, the care fund provides €2,005 for care level 5 and a care supplement which is around €70 upon admission to the home. So both spouses would need €9,000 per month. The care fund would provide a total of €4,150. In the example case, the two spouses would therefore have to bring their own good €4,800 pension without spending money. Who has that?

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

Everyone except you is talking about a case where parents have more than enough reserves and would otherwise let the money "rot" in the savings account. I believe this was still clear to you until two or three pages ago.

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

We have already said it a thousand times. It’s a matter of honor and upbringing. And we could write another thousand pages about it and still not reach an agreement.

How do you come to the conclusion that children necessarily have to sell their house then? That’s a one-dimensional way of thinking. It may apply in some cases, but not in others.
In my environment, there are no super-rich parents, but quite normal middle-class families; usually only the father worked and the mother was a housewife or worked part-time a few hours. They earned their living, paid off the house, enabled the children’s education, and were otherwise frugal. And whether there are €40,000 or €140,000 saved up, they give what they can because they want to and because nowadays it doesn’t make sense to just keep money sitting in the bank. Conversely, the children also give what they can. Moreover, some may not see why they and the children should give money to the bank twice – negative interest and loan interest.
Before the state steps in, there is still the parental home, which must first be converted into capital. There are so many different situations.

If you argue with upbringing and honor and mean that all those who see it differently than you are poorly raised and/or have no sense of honor, then all one can do is shake one’s head.

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

How does that fit together? If people live through their money and in the end the state has to step in for the care, as a taxpayer, you’d rather pay than if the parents helped their child with the house financing?
Is that now resentment or envy on your part that nobody should have a house unless they pay for it all themselves, because you have to or want to after all?

For some, the goal of upbringing is for the children to become independent and successful quickly. For others, the goal of upbringing is to support each other by all means as the smallest form of a community of solidarity. Some see themselves as successful parents if the children are financially independent early on by their own efforts and have "made something of themselves" and have found decent and well-paid jobs. And not some stupid junk like nurse or educator or artist. So that they can fulfill their dreams. Others see themselves as lifelong companions, and they are proud to have it so good themselves that they can afford to help the children. And to let the children become professionally what fulfills them, even if it doesn't make them rich. Both are absolutely equal values that stem from their respective biographies; there is really no need to argue about that.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe that everyone who can should finance their own old age. We live in an absolute affluent society, and anyone who earns a reasonable income can certainly take out additional long-term care insurance to cover the worst-case scenarios. Then neither the taxpayer nor relatives have to pay for the care. Likewise, one should keep in mind what kind of care the statutory minimum actually provides. Taking the house away from the parents so that the saved assets cannot be used for care potentially means many years of "survival" instead of living. Imagine you had a nice house until the age of 60, give it away in time, live there for another 10 years based on an agreement with your children, and then move into a 15 sqm bunker on the minimum rate for another 10 years. That’s not how I imagine my retirement. I’d rather pay into a reasonable insurance now and keep my assets for a nice retirement. And when the time comes, my children will be around 40 years old and hopefully have their lives under control. Of course, I am happy to support, but not at the cost of a decent life in old age.

Taking the house away from the parents so that the accumulated assets cannot be used for care may mean many years of "survival" instead of living. Imagine you had a nice house until the age of 60, give it away in time, still live there for 10 more years due to an agreement with your children, and then go into a 15 sqm bunker for another 10 years on the minimum rate.

But that is again a completely different situation that was not the subject of the previous discussion.