People like the thread creator come to the forum precisely because of the anonymity and especially because it is not a personal conversation. The thread creator deliberately did not ask the house bank, a broker, friends, or colleagues, but asked us here. Voluntarily and fully aware of his situation.
I wouldn’t seek a conversation in that position either. Most financing advisors have no interest in such cases at all. They want men and women without children with 6k net income and 100k equity to come around ideally. As soon as it gets even a little more complicated, they simply lose interest. I even understand this given the current market situation, but then please convey it directly and don’t raise false hopes.
Voluntarily and fully aware
Had he known how people would react to it, even though
even if certainly very direct, unpleasant answers come, which I do not want to hear...
P.S.: since I have also had bad experiences after writing / talking extensively about (soon) 5 children, some with care level as well as Schufa: comments about my / our lifestyle, responsibility towards children, "children only for child benefit," "your poverty disgusts me," "Schufa, there are only asocial people listed!" etc. are inappropriate. Nobody knows why and what for, only my wife and I...
these remarks were already made on his part, he probably wouldn’t have made contact at all.
Well, the OP portrayed the personal debts of himself and his wife as youthful sins. That implies to me very neutrally that it was not a stroke of fate but self-inflicted. The only stroke of fate is the need for care, but they obviously seem to manage that very well, the care level is even decreasing.
Care allowance for 3 of the children
Please keep in mind again the number "THREE." Plural... For me these are strokes of fate. Whether the youthful sins have something to do with it, nobody knows, but here it is conjectured and unfortunately ALWAYS in a negative way for the OP.
Most "mean" comments probably arise from the misunderstanding that unrelated children were taken into the family as foster children. Obviously, that is not the case.
I never read that from him. Here as well, a simple question asking if he could explain that again would be the most sensible thing. But no, speculation – again in a negative sense.
Best comment on this:
It is also intended to shape and maintain the living space in such a way that the disability can be cared for. If, for example, this means financing a single-story dwelling, then it may be used for that purpose as well.
Depending on the location, a new building with a lot of assistance allowance and little frills is not necessarily significantly more expensive than an existing house. The big difference is that the needs of the rooms and the children are certainly easier to meet with a new building than with an existing house. By the way, I still do not think much of that.
PS.: also get involved with the topic of "contraception" once in a while
How someone can bring such a witty comment I will never understand.
I find it strange, like many here, that there is still such a high savings rate. Because if care allowance is already being paid, then I would first assume that the children actually need higher expenses for care. I only know it so that the subsidies are not enough by far. Instead, a lot of money remains. And then the father still has time for internships in craft businesses on vacation? Aha. No offense, but the situation is already very unusual and presented in a very glossed over way.
I completely agree with you, but you can quite normally ask why someone does internships when they have children in need of care at home. If the OP then says that his wife takes care of the kids because he is not interested, I just think what an antisocial person and ignore the thread. However, that is when the angry mob here really gets going, the pitchforks are sharpened and the stake is lit first.