House Building Forum - Would you buy or build a house again?

Many people, however, have the goal of maximizing quality of life over their lifetime. For many, ownership is a crucial step towards this, as it (except for flexibility) enables a living comfort that one otherwise cannot achieve.

And those who are clear about this don’t make any mistakes.

I originally wrote my post because I didn’t feel this in every post in this thread.

However, one thing is not quite right:

It’s always a question of where you set your priorities in life: If you want to leave a large inheritance (which the next 2-3 generations then 95% squander), then you should certainly invest as well as possible

It’s not about inheritance, but about achieving financial independence. Surely, with this life plan, you can’t build a single-family house in your early 30s. But 10 years later, definitely, if you want to – then you have both. Just not as quickly.

It's not about inheritance, but about achieving financial independence. Surely, you can't build a single-family house in your early 30s with this life plan. But 10 years later, you definitely can if you want to – then you have both. Just not as quickly.

And at 40… yes, the children are often already 8-10 years old, and they didn't spend their beautiful childhood days in the optimal own home for that purpose. For that, you might lose a little money (difference between rent and buying, which certainly exists but is not gigantic...), but you have the own home during the period when you need it the most and when it delivers the most added value….

Okay, having children after 40 is also possible, but that's not my life plan, nor the life plan of most people.

Financial independence is nice, but if I only achieve it at 55 years old… I have “sacrificed” most of my life, and especially the part with (small) children, for that. Additionally: I also achieve financial independence, just compared to someone who doesn’t build/buy a house, a little later. But as I said, it’s all a matter of priorities.

Financial independence is nice, but if I only achieve it at 55 years old... I have "sacrificed" most of my life, especially the part with (small) children, for it. In addition: I also achieve financial independence, only compared to someone who doesn’t build/buy a house, a little later.

I don’t understand. By independent I mean being able to finance my standard of living without a fixed job and pension. Who reaches that simply a little later if they start early with a single-family house?

But as I said, it’s all a question of priority.

I completely agree with that again.

I don't understand. By independent I mean being able to finance my standard of living without a steady job and pension. Who reaches that just a bit later if they start early with a single-family house?
.

Financial independence = sum X, which lasts from the moment of financial independence until death (interest income + capital consumption). That is how I would define it for myself.

If you now assume that wealth building with a house (sum of all investments, including the house) is slower (I would agree with that), then it just takes a little longer to have the same total wealth.

The pure investor has, at time Y, say €1,500,000 in the portfolio.

The homeowner has, at time Y, say a house worth €500,000 and €800,000 in the account, so is worse off and reaches financial independence a bit later.

My grandma thought the same way. Better save a little longer, kid, and get yourself a house later. Back in the day, if you didn't inherit, you could only afford a little house around the age of 50. Yes, but then I would have easily missed out on 20 years in my house. And I completely agree with Tego12. Especially with small children, a house with a garden is worth its weight in gold. That was also the reason why we built now and didn't save for another 10 years. Because of that, we didn't have as much equity and therefore a less favorable loan, but I save myself a lot of time traveling to and at the playgrounds. So if I can use 90% of my net income completely as I please in my mid-50s (the remaining 10% are incidental costs), then I think I've hit the jackpot. It's clear that I could have saved more money in a rental apartment. But with a house, I save myself the gym and the bus ticket to the playground. Job security: I do think you can still secure a certain amount of job security for 20 years nowadays. Depending on the industry, you don't have to worry in the coming years anyway. I'm optimistic that I can grow old in my company, and I'm only 30! Long commute: Well, if someone sets their house so far out in the sticks that they have to drive forever through traffic jams (I live in the Ruhr area and know what I'm talking about), then it's their own fault. We built our house practically right next to my workplace. My husband also saves 15 minutes. For that, we're not in a trendy area but somewhat ... rustic.

Your arguments concerning children are understandable. No contradiction from me.

Financial independence = amount X, which is sufficient from the point of financial independence until death (interest income + capital consumption). That’s how I would define it for myself.

I don’t think so. Returns WITHOUT capital consumption + 100% buffer for possible crises. My personal definition.

Long commute: So whoever builds their house so far out in the sticks that they have to endlessly drive through traffic jams (I live in the Ruhr area and know what I’m talking about), is to blame themselves.

Good decision! I also live in the Ruhr area and know such people well enough. Working in Essen, living in Schermbeck and almost daily complaining about the traffic (which is indeed enough to make you cry).

Yesterday watched "Fack Ju Göthe." When I hear that again, I say: "Cry quieter, Chantale!"