Savings beginner with questions about the plausibility of the "rough" plan

"Calculating oneself 'poor'

So, according to Nettolohn.de, with tax classes 3+5, one child, and 20 hours per week (she), we have a net income of 4,450 euros.

That would be, if you consider my previous cost estimate, a perfect hit.
But, as I said, nothing has been planned yet for clothes, vacation, toys, etc. If the child someday is no longer in kindergarten, it would fit. But living on ultra-skinflint mode for about 6 years??? Hmm, we still have the bonuses...

Let's see... I need to talk to the lady of the house about it...
(We are not yet at the end of the salary increase ladder. There's still potential)

I think your income is here well in the average or slightly below. In my opinion, the problem is not the income. Your problem is the expensive location. That you do not want to put almost 50% into the house with about 4,500 EUR, I understand very well and wouldn't do it either. So basically there are only three solutions:

a) Increase income
b) Increase equity (factor time)
c) Build in a cheaper location

Regards, Steffen

I believe your income is about average here or slightly below. In my opinion, the problem is not the income. Your problem is the expensive location. I totally understand that you don’t want to put almost 50% of about 4500 EUR into the house, and I wouldn’t do that either. So basically, there are only three solutions:

a) Increase income
b) Increase equity (factor time)
c) Build in a cheaper location

Best regards, Steffen

That could of course be the case... The location is indeed expensive... And you hit the nail on the head. Putting about 50% of the income into the house is inconceivable for me at the moment.

I am working on solutions "a" & "b". As for "c", I have to see what is available in the region...

Let me explain once again why I cannot/would not want to afford a rate of e.g. 1,800,-:

Starting from e.g. 4,500,-

Loan repayment: 1,800,-
Additional costs: 300,-
Savings: 300,-
Food: 900,- (2 adults + 1 child, as soon as it’s here )
Insurance: 300,- (life insurance, legal protection, building, dental supplementary)
Car: 450,- (small car! Repayment, insurance, taxes, gasoline)
Daycare: 400,-
-----------------
Total: 4,450,-

Keep in mind that I have a company car. Imagine if I had to finance my own car?!
So, the money is already gone and I definitely haven’t made any “leaps,” no savings for vacation, no toys for the child, no clothes, hairdresser visits (wife), indoor playground, or whatever...

I also can’t imagine that a rate of 1,800 is affordable at this salary level.
We’re in a similar situation, but with 2 children, 2 cars, similar salary. We plan with a 1,000 € rate, the rest has to be paid via special repayments, otherwise the loan will just run forever. If you however start from the 375,000 € mentioned above, you can already get something for that in Schleswig-Holstein.
(I pass the fashion center every day at the moment, for example, there are semi-detached houses being built in “Schnelsen-Village,” it’s Hamburg, costs are only 341,000 there.)
Overall, my calculation is similar, plus or minus 100 here or there. Only daycare is 700 including food, for which food alone is only 550.

The indoor playground takes a while before it pays off, daycare costs are almost less again. And as soon as the kids are in school, 700 € will be free.

then you look at what the husband would suddenly have more because of tax declaration class III

The wording bothers me. The husband does not have more because of a different tax declaration class. Married couples form an economic community and are assessed jointly. There is a joint gross income and a joint tax. The tax declaration classes serve to roughly be correct during the year. In other words: if "HE" earns 80,000 euros and "SHE" 20,000, they have a joint 100,000 (taxable). If only HE earns, they have 80,000 taxable and accordingly less net. (The actual tax to be paid does not depend on the tax declaration class!)

You are right that work must also be worth it. Necessary expenses (commuting, childcare) can be claimed as work-related expenses. That doesn’t help if only minimum wage is paid ... You are also right, it is more efficient for a marriage if one earns 100,000 rather than both earning 50,000 (now one can arbitrarily shift the numbers and consider whether it is worthwhile). Nevertheless, one repeatedly reads such misconceptions about splitting in internet comments.

the state promotes an ideal that now rarely exists.

See above, the state does not promote anything here (with the spouse splitting). The splitting is required by the Federal Constitutional Court and gives married couples the freedom to decide how to arrange income issues internally. But our family income does not increase if my wife stays at home .

I also cannot imagine that a 1800 installment is affordable with this salary level.

If the disposable income is 4500 euros, then after an installment of 1800 euros, 2700 euros remain (five euros into the cliché piggy bank). Many people, including those with a house, manage with that.

The phrasing bothers me. The husband does not have more due to a different tax class. ... Nevertheless, one repeatedly reads such misconceptions about splitting in internet comments.

Of course, married couples form an economic community by law and I understand that one can take issue with the phrasing "The husband/wife has more." If both spouses earn the same amount, splitting actually changes nothing and the commonly chosen combination III/V or IV/IV also changes nothing under this premise. I agree with you that in this constellation it would be "unfair" to claim that the other earns more just because the worse tax class is chosen.

It looks different, however, when the partners earn differently (as in this case). Through joint assessment, the average tax rate on the total income decreases. If one earns 70,000 and the other 30,000, the one with 70k pays a total of 17,700 euros in tax (25.32%) with tax class I, while the one with 30k pays about 4,000 euros in tax (13.25%). Together, that is 21,700 euros in tax (21.7%).
With joint assessment, the salaries are now added, then exactly halved and the tax due on one half is paid twice. However, on an income of 50,000 euros, only 9,800 euros in tax are due (19.58%), and doubled, that results in a tax burden of 19,600 euros on the total income. The couple thus actually pays 2,100 euros less in tax due to splitting. The greater the difference in income, the higher the tax savings and in the "tax ideal case" only one person earns the entire income.

This does not mean that this saving must be "attributed" to the partner with the higher income (after all, he benefits from the partner’s allowance), but it does lead to the fact that a second income, within a tax jointly assessed marriage, only leaves a plus in the household budget above this tax saving.

And no, the family income does not increase if one stays at home. But nor does it necessarily (noticeably) increase if both work.

but it leads to the fact that a second income, within a jointly assessed marriage for tax purposes, only mathematically leaves a surplus in the household budget above this tax savings.

No, that is not correct. It does not matter for the family income whether my wife receives a salary increase of 100 euros or whether I receive it. It is completely irrelevant, precisely because we are jointly assessed.

Are you confusing tax classes with the actual tax due in the end? Or are you comparing married couples with unmarried ones?

But it also does not necessarily increase (noticeably) when both work.

Whether noticeable or not. It simply does not matter for the income how it is distributed within the marriage. The same applies to additional income.

Disclaimer: 1. Social contributions not considered. The low earner first has to earn enough for health insurance to come into play, see non-contributory co-insurance. 2. Theoretical borderline cases of tax progression with infinitesimally small additional income that fall into a new tax class can — in theory — lead to more gross resulting in less net (at least that used to be the case, I believe this is no longer so). In real life, however, more gross always means more net. This is independent of splitting, also applies to singles. 3. Income-dependent charges (e.g. daycare fees) can turn everything upside down. This is independent of splitting, also applies to singles.

in the "tax ideal case" only one earns the entire income.

This is not the tax optimum; the tax does not care whether both work or only one (with a fixed family income of 100,000 euros in the example). For the marriage, the hourly wage is optimal when one earns 100,000 euros (compared to the situation of 2 x 50,000 euros).

I think you made the comparison to unmarried couples above. Yes, they each file taxes separately. What is unfair about that is that even if they are a couple and live together, they still count as a needs-based community within the meaning of SGB II. In taxes yes, in benefits no. But no one stops them from getting married.