Financing single-family house - How much can we afford?

I probably also belong to those who are considered pessimistic here and write "destructive" posts.

But if someone asks here, I assume that person is also not sure whether the whole thing works as perhaps intended. Therefore, I express my concerns. What the OP then does with it is their business. And how much risk someone wants to take is also their business. Whether you design a financing so that it works even in the "Worst case" or in the "realistic case" (to stay with your words), that too is a matter of opinion.

A financing can also be "close to the edge" sometimes. What is important is that you can handle medium, unexpected expenses.

But for me, those are two completely different things again. A financing that is "close to the edge" is one where medium (whatever that may mean), unexpected expenses cannot be handled. If that is possible, then it is no longer a financing sewn close to the edge.

Referring to this, I would return to the starting point once again. Now, regardless of the fact that the OP now has more money available, don’t you think that a financing where 53 € remain at the end of the month is still a bit too close to the edge?

Oh yes. I think so too. That’s why my contribution was more general in nature and hijacked the original post, which hopefully no longer plays a role by now.

My concern is more about the very reluctant and ever-present skeptics. It’s clear that the hardened readers don’t let themselves be bothered by it, but it does feed their own fears quite significantly. After all, the fact is that one would undoubtedly not ask here in this way. More objectivity would be appropriate. Basically, the questions here in the forum simply cannot be answered. Some people are just too quick with ... “that won’t work like that.” When I look at the incomes, I often wonder who else would be able to do it, if not the questioners. Many well-meaning comments always focus on equity, which must absolutely be present. With all due respect ... that’s sometimes quite nonsense.

Equity is indeed an indicator of a possibly existing savings rate and may have come about that way. But maybe not, but rather inherited, won, received from parents, generated through a house sale, or otherwise available. In addition, it is overlooked that equity is only relevant for the amount of the monthly payment. The more equity, the lower the installment. If the installment can be easily managed even without equity, the requirement often loses its significance. It’s nice to have some, but it’s not necessarily as indispensable as is often propagated here. That takes away people’s confidence and their view of reality.

In the end, an individual assessment will be unavoidable and the many (yes, I really do mean destructive) comments should neither be ignored nor given any special importance.

I wouldn't call it destructive. Rather realistic. A financing should always be designed in such a way that it also works in the worst case and does not fail immediately.

The worst case for me is a longer period of unemployment. I do not base either a rental apartment or a house financing on this case (nobody could ever build a house in that situation).

Nice if you have some, but not necessarily as essential as often propagated here.

Well, it determines the loan-to-value ratio and, in the WORST CASE (!), i.e., if the house has to be sold, it then determines the question of whether there is any residual debt or not. In my opinion, the whole project is well planned if, in the forced sale, there are virtually no residual debts left (so either a great location or a lot of equity, ideally both or extremely secure jobs/income).

In the end, individual consideration will be inevitable

Exactly!

Alright, it determines the mortgage lending value and in the WORST CASE (!), i.e., if the house has to be sold, it then determines the question of whether there are any residual debts or not. In my opinion, the whole project is well planned if, in the case of a forced sale, there are virtually no residual debts left (so either a great location or lots of equity, ideally both or extremely secure jobs/income).

I agree with that.

The worst case for me is a longer period of unemployment. I don’t base a rental apartment or a home financing on this case (otherwise no one would ever be able to build a house).

I do see that a bit differently, though. Of course, everyone has their own sense of security here. I also don’t know what you mean by "longer" unemployment? For me personally, it’s important that at least a certain period of unemployment of one partner can be bridged. Let’s be honest: unless you are a civil servant or actually work in one of the few industries where the job is almost 100% secure, there is simply the risk of becoming unemployed at some point. Especially in the private sector, that risk exists. An unlimited work contract or many years with the company don’t help much. If the economic situation doesn’t allow it or you miscalculated, the employee is out. And of course, it can happen that you have to bridge a few months with unemployment benefits.
It could just as well be illness. And no, that’s not a worst case but reality. In the last three years, I had 3 colleagues who had an accident. You quickly “enjoy” receiving sick pay. One of them was unable to work for almost half a year.

And yes, I don’t necessarily count on being able to keep paying rent on an apartment during unemployment or longer sick leave, but usually I can terminate within 3 months and find another place. But do I really want to lose my house at the first stumbling block?
It’s clear that in the event of a total loss of income or unemployment/sick leave/disability of both partners, most people will eventually reach a breaking point. But at least some leeway should remain so that the house still exists even if life doesn’t go exactly according to plan. At least I have the (maybe naive) idea of building a house only once in my life, not 2, 3, or 4 times. Of course, no one knows if that will actually happen, but I would wish to live in this house for the rest of my life. Accordingly, I try to exclude as many risks as possible from the outset.
Of course, not everyone can do that, so it also applies here:

In the end, one cannot avoid an individual assessment

I don't know how you structured your calculation, but I have also factored in vacation, depreciation of a vehicle, and monthly reserves.
If things get really tough, then the vacation in the year of unemployment is canceled, the contributions to long-term reserves are reduced, no special repayment is made in that year, or the tax class is changed. Then you can live with 65% unemployment benefits. In the case of long-term unemployment/long illness, you might still have the option to get rid of the second vehicle. Usually, you also have 2-3 months' salary as short-term reserves.
At least we have so many levers to turn that you can easily bridge something like that for a certain period of time.
Worst case for me is therefore not short-term unemployment, because you can offset that by cutting costs.
Worst case for me would be long-term loss of income or loss of income by both partners, and long-term few people can cope with that.

: Was the question directed at me now?

We also calculated like you did. They were just examples to show that certain scenarios should be played through in advance, so that in case of emergency you are not immediately backed into a corner. There was so much talk about destructive and negative posts that I wanted to point out that life does not always go as planned, and that is precisely why concerns are indeed justified. How one then deals with that as a prospective builder or buyer may be left to each individual.