Not paying off the house - dumb or sensible?

I would even basically agree with that. The problem is that the incidental purchase costs are relatively high here. So you need quite a bit of money for the model.

That was at a time when prices had not yet risen. None of us on the planet were around then. And unless you build/buy in a crappy situation, you will generally break even after 5-10 years. In my opinion, that will not change either, because prices will always somehow align with inflation.

Since you have not expressed yourself on the content so far, I interpret that you would consider it foolish not to pay off a property by retirement? Don't worry, I don’t advise anyone. The industry offers enough space for people who do not advise but through their work can better assess the significance of annuities, residual debts, special repayments/terminations, and the dynamics of interest rate markets than many other homebuilders. Without thereby wanting to say that they know where house prices and interest rates will be in 20 / 40 years and without wanting to say that some homebuilders have not also familiarized themselves with it

#7 is my opinion better to buy smaller according to what fits the budget!

In my opinion, this will not change either, as prices will always somehow be oriented towards inflation.

I think the depreciation due to wear and tear is significantly higher than the price increase due to inflation in the range of 1-2% p.a.
Especially new houses have, in my opinion, a "new car effect" as soon as they are first occupied. The location and features must fit buyer interest exactly 1:1 in order to resell without loss (purchase incidental costs and prepayment penalties in the five-digit range are lost anyway).

It's simply a matter of type. That's why there is no right or wrong.

Either security is the most important thing to me, then I have to bake such small rolls that I can definitely manage.

Or I say, I live now, I live nicely now (but really), and if I can't afford it anymore someday - well, then I have to sell the property again. And until then, I have lived exactly as I want.

Absolute security does not exist even for the security-conscious. They too can be hit by a stroke of fate, illness, separation, job loss without adequate follow-up. If at the time I need the follow-up financing, for example, I am seriously ill - who knows? No one is immune to cancer or something similar - then I will have a serious problem and probably won't be able to keep my property either. Should I therefore rather give up right away to say in 15 years, hey, everything went great, I wish I had?

"He who crawls does not stumble." (I think it's from Buddha) But he probably does not get ahead as quickly as someone who walks.

If the assumptions are not too far-fetched, those that rather justify optimism and thus bigger rolls, then why should one remain mediocre from the outset? If the OP says that he currently earns alone, but his wife can contribute (more) again to the income in the future - then that is serious. An inheritance will not be planned as fixed, yes, but as a "maybe" one can keep it in mind. Hopefully, the property itself will not be completely worthless in 30 years either - as long as more than the value loss has been repaid, it is okay.

Presumably, I would have been strongly advised against this here as well if I had disclosed my circumstances before acquiring the property. Please ask me in 25 years how it turned out. Here and today I get through the month decently with two children, car, horse, and winter vacation, there is still a little left over and we live nicely in our house.

If you work in the industry, the thread alone disqualifies you. Or do you advise your clients incorrectly?

Several coherent connections are missing here. Just two of them: 1. The willingness to take a personal risk knowingly has nothing to do with advising others. 2. Those who work in the industry do not necessarily have contact with clients ...

The question is ultimately how fragile the structure is. Without real numbers, the whole discussion is pointless. And the bank will have to be convinced. As long as the bank goes along, everything is allowed.

And in the end, everyone who takes out a construction loan is gambling.