House construction and sale - current residential property

... and you still have the work with it.

It would only be an option if significant value increases (from 10% p.a.) are expected. However, that depends too much on the region and the property.

Now the blows are coming from all sides...

Why? What advantages would it have? For example, when the property is debt-free, to tax the rental income at the marginal tax rate and add the operating costs on top?

At the time the property is actually debt-free, the situation must be reassessed. Nobody knows how the rental income will develop until then – the tendency is that it will continue to rise... Depending on the location, even disproportionately compared to the operating costs.

Incidentally, nowadays unfortunately almost all (attractive) private retirement provision options are subject to deferred taxation.

In my opinion, the situation should be reassessed at the earliest when the property is debt-free or at the latest at retirement.

Aside from the financial side, I simply do not see myself as a landlord, for example. I just don't feel like dealing with the stress that can arise, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone as a better alternative – and certainly not without advice from an expert.

I am not recommending anything here. It is a question of mentality that everyone has to answer for themselves. But in my opinion, one should at least think about this alternative once.

Renting out a single property with a single residential unit is risky. Rental defaults, renovations, repairs, etc. really hit you hard.

Rental risk? Is factored into the rent. Otherwise, location, location, location applies... We have acquaintances who own a condominium in a really lousy location and still have not experienced a month of rental default in 25 years. If you don’t completely let the place run down, you will always be able to rent it out.

Regarding renovations and repairs, you build up a reserve – just as you would for your own single-family house. Since the semi-detached house is currently owner-occupied, it will certainly be in good condition and will not require high investments in the next few years.

What advantages would it have?

For me, the clear advantage is that wealth accumulation is possible without a significant own contribution. Furthermore, I believe that one should diversify their retirement provision as broadly as possible. In my opinion, everyone – who has the financial means – should have, besides the statutory retirement provision, also a company pension plan, a pension fund savings plan, and owner-occupied as well as rented residential real estate.

If the thread starter already writes that the sale of the semi-detached house is necessary to buy/build a single-family house, then this can only be due to an insufficient monthly surplus. And here can rental by others help (depending on the residual debt, initial amortization, possibly future achievable rent, etc.)...

It would only be an option if significant value increases (from 10% p.a.) are to be expected. However, that depends too much on the region and the property.

That, in turn, is pure speculation and, in my opinion, really risky.

Currently selling or renting owner-occupied condominiums/semi-detached houses or owner-occupied single-family houses is always a case-by-case decision and strongly dependent on the individual circumstances!

Since condominiums/semi-detached houses are always easier to rent out, I would tend to keep them rather. With single-family houses, on the other hand, a sale usually makes more sense. For this reason, by the way, the income values of condominiums/semi-detached houses are usually higher compared to single-family houses, or the asset values of condominiums/semi-detached houses are correspondingly lower compared to single-family houses.

If the thread starter already writes that the sale of the semi-detached house is necessary in order to be able to buy/build a single-family house, then this can only be due to too low a monthly surplus.

... and thus the OP would have to finance significantly more if he doesn't sell the house. Which he might be able to do thanks to the rental income, but his situation is identical to the option where he sells the house. How a bank evaluates this when taxes and management costs are deducted from the rental income is another topic. Apart from the rental risk.

Since condominiums/semi-detached houses are always easier to rent, I would tend to keep these.

There is practically no difference.

On the other hand, a sale usually makes more sense for a single-family house.

A semi-detached house and a terraced house are also single-family houses. They are generally cheaper because the plot of land is smaller. It is not due to the value of the house itself.

Incidentally, this is also why the income values of condominiums/semi-detached houses compared to single-family houses are usually higher, or the asset values of condominiums/semi-detached houses compared to single-family houses correspondingly lower.

???

Are in the same situation as you. The bank has offered us bridge financing for the portion we want to contribute as equity after selling the semi-detached house. However, the interest rate for the bridge financing is correspondingly higher.