Is a single-family house in the Stuttgart metropolitan area still affordable?

to pass on part of the inheritance while still alive

There is also this saying that it is better to give with warm hands. In my family, it is also the case that parents/grandparents are very happy to give some of their money to support children/grandchildren.

I can basically understand that: if the parents have enough money and enjoy participating, you can do that. One thing is to ask for it and build your financing on it. Another is voluntary support from the parents.

And now the big but: I think many (not all) people here generously ignore the issue of later nursing care needs for the parents!

Feel free to calculate what a care place costs monthly and how high the personal contribution is. You can’t even look quickly enough to see how fast money is burned there. And then it quickly goes to real estate assets.

Then the parent who is not in need of care has to sell the house. And that is for the fact that you yourself have paid off your own property in 15 instead of 20 years.

So I would accept support if the parents offer it and in addition to the given money still have higher six-figure amounts liquid.

And now the big but: I think many (not all) are generously overlooking the issue of later need for care for the parents here! Feel free to calculate what a care place costs monthly and how high the personal contribution is. You can't look fast enough to see how quickly money is burned. And then it quickly comes down to real estate assets. Then the non-care-dependent parent has to sell the house. And that, despite the fact that you yourself have paid off your own property in 15 instead of 20 years.

That is why many real estate and bank assets are transferred to the children while still fit (mid 50s, early 60s). The 10-year period is considered very low risk in this context. This is a common practice and rather the rule than the exception. If you then have to go to a nursing home at an older age, there is often not much left to cover the costs. After that, the state pays the costs. After a change on 01.01.2020, parents are only obliged to provide support from an income of over 100K, and only their own income counts, not the household income.

Right. The 10 years are decisive.

But is that really common practice among people in their mid-fifties nowadays? Not a topic in my family.
I also don't feel that it's a topic among acquaintances. Mid-50s is the new 40. Nobody is thinking about needing care yet.

That is why many properties and bank deposits are still transferred to the children during fit (mid-50s, early 60s) lifetimes. The 10-year period is still considered very low-risk in this context. This is a common practice and rather the rule than the exception. When one then has to enter a nursing home at an older age, there is often not much left that can be used to cover the costs. After that, the state pays the costs.
Since a change on 01/01/2020, parents are only obligated to provide support if their income is over 100K, and only their own income counts, not the household income.

Reminds me of insolvent companies where the owners then transfer everything to their wives so that no one else gets anything. I find the "common practice" just as disturbing. Here, the state is deliberately exploited. I partly feel like an alien on a planet where parents live off others as long as possible and exploit the state as far as possible—"common practice."

Well. Basically, I understand you Ybias. But who likes to give money away to the state? Especially since, in the case of nursing care, it is really extreme. Money disappears in the blink of an eye that you have saved for months before. With that way of thinking, you shouldn't even file an income tax return and claim advertising expenses there. But of course you are right in the overall context. This leads to wealthy families cleverly stashing their money aside, calculating themselves as poor, and then falling into the social safety net. This in turn leads to tighter social funds. Which in turn will eventually lead to stricter maintenance rules. And that often hits the wrong people as well. From my point of view, the aspect that the children's assets are only looked at from an annual income over 100k is questionable. The family may be sitting on huge treasures of gold or similar, but the individual children only have an annual income of 99k. And then nothing is touched.