Wait with the building application because of the child construction allowance

Instead of ranting, you should read carefully. The investor is the SELLER, that's where the money ends up.

You keep talking about the investor as a buyer who competes with families. No one else talks about that except you.

Mathematics is not really your strength now? The price is completely irrelevant in the equation. I only used it as an example so that everyone can really imagine it.

Then the apartment just costs 320k and an investor pays 320k. An owner-occupier with two children also pays 320k but gets 24k back from the state.

In the end, the owner-occupier is definitely (!) much better off compared to the investor. This is a subsidy that makes sense. Municipal apartments for owner-occupiers.

A 150sqm palace in the countryside should ideally be additionally taxed right away. The thing will be worthless in 50 years because no one lives in the countryside anymore. Economic madness, new construction in regions with shrinking populations. And please don’t list the last three years where the population numbers have risen everywhere because of refugees. It’s about the fact that many regions in Germany are structurally shrinking, not just the countryside by the way.

But you are aware that an "investor" enjoys completely different tax advantages than a normal employee with children. (e.g., depreciation of new build over 50 years at 2%, which would be 6,400€ annually on 320k).......

It should be clear that the ordinary citizen with children contributes more to the overall economy than an investor.
But that is too off-topic.

I find the discussion about the square meters that should be subsidized simply pathetic.
At the end of the day, very creative people will find ways to calculate the living space "differently." And then even the "palace" becomes eligible for subsidies.
Although I myself with 2 children have just under 160sqm, and that without unused rooms. I don’t want less.
But maybe one has to get creative by simply equipping the basement with daylight but declaring it as a technical room, laundry room, hobby room.... :_)

Who is supposed to check that again?

In my opinion, a means-tested consideration in combination with the number of children would be better....

Or a simple variant:
- Income-independent: basic amount X per child
- Income-dependent: special allowance Y per child
= Total subsidy "sum X + possibly Y" - done

Checking such a condition is surely much easier/faster than building plans, permits, random on-site inspections....

Our bureaucracy knows no limits anymore.

There was just a press conference of the CDU Presidium with Kramp-Karrenbauer. The CDU rejects the area restrictions; this was not the purpose of the Baukindergeld. The chairwoman of the Presidium (=Merkel) had made this clear again and reminded of the resolutions from Meseburg.

Wait and see.

Yippee, Merkel will fix it and I don't have to build a basement

Kauder has also publicly contradicted Scholz's draft, Klöckner as well.
Even Söder can be quoted, though with rather ambiguous words, as to whether a land use limit is generally to be ruled out.
What a theater

The depreciations already existed before, nothing has changed about that. It would be another topic, but one could of course now discuss whether these depreciations favor capital investors over owner-occupiers. On the other hand, the capital investor first has to tax the profit at a rate usually of 44.31%, while the owner-occupier does not have to tax the imputed rental value of the apartment at all. But as I said, another topic. The current topic: Compared to the situation so far, the situation of the owner-occupier improves by 24k, but the situation of the capital investor remains unchanged.

I don’t know whether you can’t understand it or don’t want to understand it. If the former: Apparently, you are not very familiar with the real estate market, but rest assured, the subsidy considerably benefits families who want to acquire housing centrally, within town, and sustainably. If the latter, then any further discussion is pointless anyway.

The current statement that it must be checked how the household budget is adhered to sounds like protracted calculations and thus probably a postponement until after the parliamentary summer break. At least if there is still a government then. On the other hand, I don’t think that Seehofer would let himself be interfered with there. Just for the border rejection, a topic that is politically a hundred times bigger, he denied the Chancellor’s right of directive authority. Such a regulatory detail as a QM upper limit for adhering to the household budget, however, has nothing to do with directive authority anymore. Seehofer would make himself completely ridiculous here if, because of the Chancellor, he changed or gave up this already widely publicized limit of 120 sqm. Because in fact, the Chancellor definitely has nothing to say here and it is the matter of the two ministries involved.