How to cancel Wohn-Riester for a home or how to proceed?

thank you for your answers. If two experts are already arguing here, then it simply isn’t a proper retirement provision. Another question: If we terminate the contract, do we simply get the investment costs, i.e. the payments, back?

I believe any type of use other than for the construction/purchase of self-occupied residential property means you have to repay the subsidies. So with Wohnriester we received an annual bonus on the contract, and in addition you could claim it in the tax return and then got a tax refund. As far as I know, you would have to repay both if you terminate it. We also had one (annoying thing, if only we had known beforehand...). Our advisor from the building society somehow arranged it so that he reduced the contract. The contract was already over 10 years old and had been regularly saved into. We then reduced the savings sum and the contract went directly into allocation.

thanks for your answers. If two experts are already arguing here, then it simply isn’t a proper retirement provision. Another question: If we terminate the contract, do we simply get the investment costs, i.e. the payments, back?

We did not discuss the meaningfulness of the Riester pension here.
I find it quite sensible for the individual in the right constellation (starting relatively young, taking all the subsidies over the course of life with marriage and children). And I am no insurance agent ;)

With my calculation, I showed that the "bogeyman of future taxation" is actually not such a big deal.
If you simply terminate the contract now, the consequences are as described by Kati. Your saved amount will be reduced by the subsidy and you also have to refund the tax benefits. The contract has already been running for several years.
Usually, these subsidies are far more than the tax payments in the future.
That’s where the paradox often lies. People complain about the pointlessness of the Riester pension lump sum. And get annoyed about the tax payments in the future. When calculating the termination, they get annoyed again that they now have to repay the subsidies.
But it shows: the subsidies and tax benefits are far more than the future tax payments. Which is actually an advantage.

But never mind. I digress:

I would definitely not cancel it.
If, like us, money is to be used for building owner-occupied property and will make up a good portion of the equity: withdraw and then possibly let the contract rest.

If the money is not urgently needed: keep it in and possibly let it rest.

But I like to repeat it: in the right constellation (especially family with children) a Riester pension has very good returns from my point of view due to the subsidies!
Riester has its bad image mainly from Maschmeyer and co., who back then talked 60-year-olds into such contracts.

My insurance agent can always explain the usefulness of Riester well, but he himself says that it is best to keep away from Wohnriester because of the subsequent taxation and the Riester-infected property. We excluded it from the financing. It may possibly be used later to repay a remaining debt at retirement. If you no longer want to Riester, it actually only makes sense to let the contract rest.

My insurance agent can always explain the sense of Riester well, but he himself says that one should preferably keep away from Wohnriester because of the subsequent taxation and the Riester-infected property.

Riester is (too) complicated. Unfortunately, this leads to quite a few pointless statements.
Whether one should keep away from Wohnriester depends on some factors that are independent of Riester. For example, whether one actually has enough equity to achieve a good lending value, etc.

You just need to be aware of the consequences. And not paint the devil on the wall with the subsequent taxation.
Just have the bank calculate to what extent the interest rate is reduced by the lower lending value with the additional equity through Wohnriester.
Out of sheer boredom, I wouldn’t pay anything out either.

Another problem is the currently enormously high inflation, which of course also devalues the balance. I think we will see it a little longer. That is why I am now tempted to use the funds for the property. I currently have 50,000 EUR there, which is a lot of unused and poorly interest-bearing capital.

My hope is that the capital can be transferred into a new pension model in the future. For example, as an ETF savings plan or something like that…

I have now heard "in Ruhe" left several times. But I don’t understand. If I want to take the capital that is now in there for the house, then I still pay 2% interest per year (to whom actually?) on it.