KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

Voting Green must be something you can afford was once said... Many young families have felt the smallest part of what is coming to us in the next few years since yesterday...

And your argument that taxpayers are supporting those who can already afford it is also far from the truth... I claim that a large part of people simply have little desire to throw the money they earned with 2 full-time jobs into a landlord's pocket when, for a small monthly additional burden, their own name can appear in the land register...

Who should be allowed to own a home? The top 10%?

I personally like the idea of linking it to income - similar to [Bafög]... Those with a household income of 150k per year can do without it or pay for their children's student apartment without having to live on just toast and cheese from the 4kg block...

I see it like many others here in the forum, that without the subsidy it will be tight.

Rather not, because the KfW money is only available after the completion of the construction. It is then used to finance things like the garden, garage, or the ETF. The house will still stand.

Therefore, I share the assessment that this subsidy scheme really sets the wrong incentives.

I am sure that in the next few days and weeks there will be at least statements about the direction in which the subsidy will be relaunched. In the meantime, perhaps just keep quiet before reflexively calling for lawyers. And in the very last consequence, you might have to postpone your construction for a few weeks until everything is clarified.

Choosing green must be something you can afford, was once said... Many young families have been feeling the smallest part of what is coming to us in the next few years since yesterday...

Green can’t be blamed for the current construction prices, can it? The subsidies in their previous form only ensured that an already high energy standard had to be built EVEN more efficiently in order to receive this money. I dare say most builders only considered KFW40EE instead of KFW55 BECAUSE there was the subsidy.
But what would be much more important than even more efficient new buildings would be to get rid of the old oil heating systems and the like.
I can understand that there is redistribution. To build a brand new house you simply need more capital than for an older property. Accordingly, the old subsidy for new buildings benefited people who already have relatively much.
The new subsidy, which is supposed to be more for renovations, thus redistributes—quite justly—in favor of families who don’t have as much. Exactly as one would expect from red/green.

The idea of tying it to income I personally like - similar to Bafög... Those who have 150k per year as household income can do without it or pay for their children's student apartment without eating only toast and cheese from the 4kg block...

So that the upper class has no incentive to build energy-efficient? Sounds not very sensible. I generally dislike fixed limits. The most sensible would probably be a standard comparable to KFW40+ or passive house for everyone. That would ensure that all construction companies compete at the same standard. This leads to reasonable prices and high quality. I would rather optimize the homeownership rate by abolishing property tax and real estate transfer tax for owner-occupied property (if necessary also with progression to tax luxury properties again ;) ).

And your argument that taxpayers are funding those who can afford it anyway is also far off... I claim a large part of the people simply have little desire to throw the money they earned with 2 full-time jobs into a landlord's pocket when for a small monthly additional burden their own name appears in the land register...

Phew, the statement is now very strongly reduced and neglects several aspects. I have read several reports and studies that buying is not necessarily cheaper than renting in the long term. You forget that owning a property causes costs for maintenance besides the bank installment, which are certainly negligible in the first years but increase over time and partly exceed the owner's financial means or simply overwhelm the owner. In another thread, several pages were filled on this topic and I see numerous really rundown houses in our town whose occupants have no money for renovations.

If it's purely about money, the best combo is: live yourself as a tenant, rent out a property and invest the monthly household surplus in ETFs.

The new funding, which is rather intended for renovation, is therefore distributed - completely fairly - in favor of families who do not have much. Exactly as one would expect from red/green.

Fair in the sense of making renovated living space more expensive for tenants? This happens frequently in my circle of acquaintances. A multi-family house in private ownership is renovated with substantial support from the state, and the apartments are subsequently rented out at market price + 25-30% surcharge to those families “who do not have much” and now face even higher costs regarding homeownership.

I share the assessment that renovation in existing buildings should be subsidized—but only for direct personal use. Otherwise, there is the redistribution you mentioned... but this has nothing to do with being just and socially fair!