Wait with the building application because of the child construction allowance

I basically see it the same way, although the discussion does not always have to be limited to extremes ("in Munich that is not enough") or to single-family homes. A family can also live in a condominium for 250,000€ and only a fraction of the population lives in the top 5 cities where normal people cannot acquire property. Conversely, not everyone buys from the developer, so phrases like "better reduce the real estate transfer tax" do not help either. I bought land for 270€/sqm, which is not exactly cheap, and despite a 6.5% tax rate I have to pay significantly less real estate transfer tax than what the Baukindergeld would now bring. Real estate transfer tax is also a matter for the federal states, and it is unrealistic to change it quickly. If there is political will to create housing, this can be forced by law or supported with money. If one wants to resort to the latter means, I fundamentally consider it not wrong to address this subsidy to the citizens instead of directly to companies. The latter is actually the normal case. And there are always windfall effects with subsidies. There are also loopholes; there is no perfect procedure. Better a few too many slip into the gold pot than to create bureaucratic monsters. I consider any kind of backdating absolutely unnecessary. These are pure voter gifts.

those who earn close to 75,000 EUR or 90,000 EUR or 105,000 EUR could have afforded to build a house even without the Baukindergeld.

Yes, that’s true. We are exactly in that situation and didn’t know anything about the topic until February. The loan was finalized in January and the submission planning will be handed in at the end of May/beginning of June.

And those who couldn’t afford it so far still can’t with the money now. The money is already spent before the first groundbreaking is done.

Conclusion: It serves only the good middle-class incomes,

That the whole topic is unfair, there’s no need to discuss. But one must also consider that for all those who are now starting with the building idea/planning, this will be factored into financing and the construction industry.

A real help would have been to generally increase child benefits and reduce or even abolish fees for daycare centers. Then families would finally have the money in their pockets that is needed for building a house, completely without earmarked cross-subsidization.

Here I cannot agree. What do you think, how much of the 400 million would actually remain as child benefits? If it is now 100€ per child/building project per month.

That would be a pathetic increase of what... 5€ to 15€ per child? You can consider how well the child benefit increase in January was received.

...And yes, our 7-year-old Passat must last at least another 10 years. Still

This would then be a pathetic increase of what... 5€ to 15€ per child? You can consider how well the child benefit increase in January was received.

It is also pointless to discuss this further. But overall 12,000 EUR more child benefit for each child would be something. That would be, converted over 18 or let's say 21 years, about 50 euros per month per child. Important here, NOT to adjust the advantage of the better-off.

Whoever wants can (or must) spend this money anyway on the rental apartment or on property. Only the conversion into addictive substances must be prevented.

There is no point in arguing about that either. But overall, 12,000 EUR more child benefit for each child would be something. That would be, converted over 18 or let's say 21 years, about 50 euros per month per child. Important here, NOT to adjust the advantage of the better-off.

Whoever wants to can (or must) put this money anyway into the rental apartment or property. Only the conversion into addictive substances must be prevented.

Sure, that would be something, but how is that supposed to work?

The 100€ per child/month refers only to about 300,000 families with statistically 1.48 children, meaning 444,000 children benefit from it.
In contrast, we have 15 million children entitled to child benefit.

So my gut feeling was not all that wrong.

So, if you distribute the Baukindergeld pot to all children entitled to child benefit (i.e., the 12,000€ per child), then there would be a child benefit increase of under 3€ per child per year for the next 10 years.

Yay...not! If anything, it would have to be ten times that amount (i.e., 30€ per year in child benefit increase per child) and we are talking about 44 billion € spread over the legislative period (i.e., 4 years).

Too much!!!

The whole thing is such a farce...

Of course, I’m happy for those who are now getting it (despite having already bought/built anyway) and also for those who can now afford it because of it.

But: The whole thing is lobbying, because those who earn close to 75,000 EUR or 90,000 EUR or 105,000 EUR could have afforded to build a house even without the Baukindergeld.

And those who couldn’t afford it before still can’t with the money now. The money is already spent before the first foundation stone is laid.

Conclusion: It only serves the upper middle-income earners to be able to buy/lease a new car every third year, while otherwise they might have had to drive the car for 14 instead of 4 years.

Real help would have been to generally increase child benefits and to lower or even abolish fees for daycares. Then families would finally have the money in their pockets needed for building a house, without any purpose-bound cross-subsidization.

Yes! Exactly my opinion!

Too much!!!

Licking ass (not you). Too less. Much too less.

Germany is hostile to children.