Defensive offer, or have house prices become so expensive?

I see that differently too. You say that two more single-family houses can fit on the property, so surely a small multi-family house would also fit. That would create living space. The situation would rather worsen if, for example, a grandchild lives there alone while studying, but not if a multi-family house with 5 residential units goes up. But that is your good right, after all, you are the owner and can do what you want. The evil, evil investors do not always worsen the housing situation.

I meant more that the owners of the houses in the cities would then not be the ones living there, but some investors who mercilessly drive up prices. Whether there are 1 or 2 houses there hardly matters.

From a societal perspective, your "problem" is probably the smallest of the current boom.

Regionally, there are indeed socially significant changes as a result: for example, on the Frisian Islands, heirs cannot keep the inherited house and have to sell it—the islands thus fall into the hands of investors, housing for locals and workers diminishes, and the beautiful houses stand empty. Businesses hardly find any staff anymore or can no longer afford employee housing. The business closes. Sylt, for example, is already bleeding underneath the glossy press surface. Many needed trades no longer exist locally on the island. That doesn’t matter to the investors, but it does to island life.

Can we tone down the personal attacks a bit? This is an interesting topic in itself.

I would appreciate that too, thanks.

Keeping the house in the family – that can be done with holiday homes, but not as a "normal earner" with properties of that size.

Why now? A rented house should generally at least pay for itself.

(As millionaires, on the other hand, you can gladly leave villas empty for a few decades.)

Who is talking about vacancy? Vacancy is always bad for a house. You should try to avoid that.

Hi,

So that the current heirs are approximately equated with the heirs from 10 years ago,

it's quite simple: then all house heirs are forced to sell the inherited houses at the price from 10 years ago. Then that's totally fair and the ratio of house value to exemption amount hasn't worsened... ;-)

Tell me, are you serious? You're basically complaining that a decent fortune will come to you without any effort on your part and whining that this fortune has grown over the last 10 years?!?! Am I supposed to understand that? Do you also complain about rising stock prices?

If I were you, I'd rather be happy about the value of the house and already prepare the sales advertisement.

Little tip: You can also renounce an inheritance if you find all this too unfair. Then you don't have to pay any inheritance tax either!

Lord, throw some brains from heaven....

Andreas

The problem is that as a landlord, you also have to factor in all maintenance measures and management costs for rented houses. And if you want to use the house yourself again after the tenants move out, the renovation effort is also significantly greater than with a condominium. If owner-occupancy is not an option for you and you are speculating on use by the grandchildren, then it makes little sense. You could better re-invest the money in apartments. Your emotional attachment to the house will not be shared by the grandchildren to the same extent.

I find these insults really unnecessary. :rolleyes: The topic can also be discussed critically without attacking K a t j a rudely.