House buying - No idea what one can afford

That pay gaps due to, for example, parenting and caregiving periods more often affect women but can also affect men is something we do not need to discuss in detail here.

Che, you can also gladly point out that such cases should be considered in one's personal life and financial model. What you should, however, refrain from is presenting your experience as the only true and legitimate one. Everyone is free to consciously choose a relationship and parenting model. It is different, however, when it comes to caring for disabled or ill relatives, as one often no longer has a choice.

Sure, all well known!

Second or third child, big garden and therefore no time to work full-time ...

I just want to point out additional risks besides a 120 percent.

It would be a shame if the thread opener loses the house in the foreclosure and, as a high earner, has to file for bankruptcy. But that is a real risk!

That's nonsense. This risk is equally high for both partners. Just have more children yourself and work only part-time. Or do you have trouble finding a new partner with your attitude?

It looks different when it comes to caring for disabled or sick relatives, as you often have no choice anymore.

You always have a choice. I would never care for my parents; they didn't do that for me as a child either. In my case, the courts would surely see it the same way. Caring for parents-in-law is out of the question. Given the high income threshold that must first be exceeded before you are required to pay parental support, caring personally is truly an entirely voluntary matter, and then I think it simply depends on the relationship you had with your parents beforehand—or didn't have. No one can force you to provide care. Most would probably choose in favor of their parents, but as I said, the choice exists. I see absolutely no risk concerning financing; as far as I know, parental care has also not been included by banks since March 21st, whereas children already are, whether you have or want any or not. The banks simply impose them.

Care can also affect one's own children. Or the partner. Whether it is a congenital disability or an accident with severe consequences.

That’s nonsense. This risk is equally high for both partners. Just have more children yourself and work only part-time. Or is it hard for you to find a new partner with that attitude?

10 or 20 years ago, I would probably have argued similarly at this point and interpreted posts like mine as unrealistically negative.

By now I know that a bitter divorce battle is the common form of dispute when assets have been accumulated during the marriage.

I don’t want to take anyone’s rose-colored glasses away, but a divorce rate of 30 to 50 percent is the social reality.

With a property that is almost 100 percent financed and maintenance obligations towards an ex and several children, a man can no longer get away with a self-determined life. No matter how much he earns.

That is in these cases the social — and hardly believed — reality.

Perhaps to read up on AMIGA syndrome: but mine is completely different ..

I have to agree that when the divorce comes, it is usually the man who is left with ... And the property has to be sold. Unless the man earns significantly more and can manage it alone. Rather the exception. It is sad, however, that the discussion goes downhill like this, otherwise one has to deal with illness, death, etc.