Does the real estate market increasingly force more families to build?

No way, I see it completely differently. Our gross income would be okay if our net income weren’t so low. But for decades, they’ve been robbing us, those in Berlin and in the country. [Soli], [EkSt Progression], VAT, insurance tax, property transfer tax, and so on. And what do they do with it? Gender asterisks, third-gender bathrooms, Gorch Fock, welcome culture for all the fortune seekers of this earth, free daycare, and so on and so forth. - They should leave us the money; we know ourselves what is important to us and what isn’t. Karsten

As a tenant, I pay rent forever. True.

But owners also have a kind of second rent forever. Many builders and buyers underestimate the costs of a property and forget to build sufficient maintenance reserves for a home. Experts recommend 1-2 €/m². Especially families who can just afford financing because of [Baukindergeld] and low interest rates quickly fall into a trap here.

Sure: Owning a house is not fundamentally bad. Great garden, your own boss. But in today’s times, where more and more professional flexibility is required, it is a difficult decision. Unfortunately, the rental market often offers few alternatives and therefore especially forces families to consider building a house.

No chand, I see it completely differently. Our gross would be okay if our net weren't so low.

Labour costs per unit are viewed from the perspective of the one who has to pay the wages. Your employer is not interested in your net wage; to them, you cost what you cost, regardless of your net. If you have more net, someone else has less net with the same gross (in the case of lower taxes, the state). But that doesn't mean there is more money in circulation; the same amount is just used for something else. The national wealth overall does not increase as a result. Then maybe twice as many people own homes; to balance that, there are twice as many roads in need of repair. By the way: If there were no state at all, there would be zero taxes and even smaller gross wages would be "okay" then. That's why big corporations always want less state and more market.

There are ETW, REH, RH, semi-detached houses, single-family houses. Something suits everyone.

Chand, we will not agree on this. I want a different state than you. No nanny state, no nanny TV, no GEZ, no energy saving regulation, etc. I am liberal, you are something else. K.

I am liberal, you are something else. K.

Nope. Also liberal. Also don't want a nanny state. And the GEZ and energy saving regulations can be scrapped as far as I'm concerned.

But I am also a scientist (at least by training). And as such it is clear to me that I cannot simply ignore the bookkeeping of income and expenses, debts and savings just because they don't really fit into a liberal worldview (in the sense of the FDP).

If some accumulate wealth (private individuals for home ownership, for example) must(!) someone else go into debt and the money saved on one side must be balanced out by credit on the other side in the system. Otherwise, the exchange of goods decreases and the economy consequently shrinks.

If now on the one hand more wealth accumulation by citizens is to take place (my approval), someone who is not a citizen must incur more debt than before. The remaining possibilities are companies, the state, and abroad.

The classic FDP liberal wants wealth accumulation everywhere and at the same time debt reduction everywhere. Logically impossible.

So I am liberal, but never in the sense of the parties calling themselves liberal that are available to us. Anyone who doesn't even master basic bookkeeping shouldn't come to me with proposals for the economy and society.