Wait with the building application because of the child construction allowance

Sorry, I am easily €30k over. So either you started with too little equity or your savings rate is not high enough. We have worked hard to save everything over the past years, nothing was ever given to us, in case you think so.

Sorry, I'm easily €30k over. So either you started with too little equity or your savings rate isn't high enough. We've worked hard to save everything over the past years, nothing was given, in case you think so.

Why should I believe that something was given to you?
As for equity: it is exactly 40 percent, also hard-earned.

What annoys me is that a fictitious "high earner limit" is constantly being discussed and people above it are then supposed to pay everything or receive no subsidies.
In Germany, you are punished for diligence. But that's how it is in a socialist country of redistribution.

I doubt that exactly. Current market prices result from (low) supply and (high) demand. So if I boost demand in cities by giving money to buyers, what happens then?

Part of it ends up with the sellers through higher prices, the other part with the buyers. It is never 0% or 100%, always something in between. Moreover, only owner-occupiers receive it and not investors, who increasingly also buy apartments in cities, so it tends more towards a 0% take-up effect than a 100% take-up effect. It only flows to families with children, not to investors, singles, couples without children, couples with adult children...

There is no need to argue long that this is more a political issue than real support against the housing shortage. But if you get young families to build in rural areas, then you relieve the housing market in cities and support rural areas from dying out. Certainly only marginal effects, but the direction is basically not wrong.

On the contrary, the goal is exactly that sparsely populated areas continue to shrink in terms of population. From an economic and ecological perspective, it is much more sensible if everything concentrates on urban agglomerations including large commuter belts. Rural exodus is sensible from a spatial ecological perspective. This has long been scientifically established, and the specialist politicians of all parties are probably in agreement. Of course, populist statements can always be made now and then for a few votes about supporting the rural population, but basically the direction is clear.

[...] Rural exodus makes sense from a spatial ecological perspective. This has long been scientifically established, and experts from all political parties would likely agree on this. Of course, one can always throw in something populist for a few votes in support of the rural population, but basically, the direction is clear.

What terms should one search for to find the related scientific reports?

What terms do you have to search for to find the related scientific reports?

well, spatial ecology because densification in cities is totally great ecologically

...Moreover, only owner-occupiers and not investors receive it,...
...It only goes to families with children, not to investors...

And I, fool that I am, really thought that condominiums in metropolitan areas are sold by large investors who could determine the prices at will.

You are absolutely right. Let the villages die, everyone into the big cities. After all, it saves travel if everything is nearby.


<-- Irony tag to be added by yourself