Yes, at least Zurich will adjust those in 2026.
Here’s a ZKB analysis in German on the effects, including a link to an interactive map.
As far as I understand, it’s a done deal and will mainly impact owners of older homes as those basically get re-evaluated closer to today’s market values.
Which will then become obsolete after this passes (which it more than likely will). Also swings people even mor ein favor of voting yes there.
Wow, they have a map showing the change of every individual house. Mine says 5-15% more expensive. That is not so bad, still much better off with the imputed rental value and debt interest.
But I wonder about the timing. They seem to want this to go through…
This made me wonder, are the proposed rule changes only at the Federal tax level, or also for Cantons i.e. will cantons also be required to scrap Eigenmietwert taxation?
Cantons as well as far as I know.
It also made me wonder: what happens to those cantons with large number of 2nd homes? Presumably they lose their EmW income and will not be compensated by the other changes.
Along with the change, there’s a new law that cantons can tax secondary residences.
Details: https://www.efd.admin.ch/fr/votation-reforme-imposition-propriete-logement
That’s coincidence.I didn’t find a good quote, but the requirement for new rules or updated values go a few years back and were mandated by court orders.
So IIUC, also the replacement of fossil-fuel based heating systems will no longer be tax deductible (though I assume direct subsidies will remain). That would slow down the transition to net zero. Anybody heard Kantons/Gemeinde promising to keep such deductions at least for every improving renovations?
Not if they eventually force everybody to do it.
Plus, heating units have a limited lifespan and eventually break.
What do you think will happen to property valuations if the law passes? I.e. should I buy a Swiss real estate fund before the vote? If it gets rejected, I don’t expect any negative impacts on valuation.
Apologies if this has been discussed before, I searched but couldn’t find.
I don’t think there is any change. For institutional owners nothing changes, just for private owners living in their own house.
For canton of Zurich the valuation of the property will be adjusted in any way, independend from the voting: Neue Steuerwerte für Liegenschaften – Regierungsrat beantragt Härtefallregelung | Kanton Zürich
You will find here an interactive map by ZKB how the valuation is expected to change: ArcGIS Web Application
What consequences this will have on the prices (in ZH)? I think like @cubanpete_the_swiss, there will probably be no to a very small change.
Can’t find it anymore, but there was a recent UBS report that they expected prices to rise if it passed.
Not entirely convinced, their main argument I believe was that people would have more money due to lower taxes, but I don’t think it has really an impact on affordability.
Cedric Wermuth (?) yesterday in NZZ:
Die Preise werden auf jeden Fall steigen, wenn der Eigenmietwert abgeschafft wird – die Spezialistinnen und Spezialisten rechnen mit Preissteigerungen von über 10 Prozent. Das ist Marktwirtschaft, Steuererleichterungen werden in die Kaufpreise einkalkuliert.
Not sure how he gets there. I will look for that UBS report.
But yes, the argument that mainly privately owned property (which by definition I cannot buy) will be affected sounds quite compelling.
You’re 100% right in my opinion and this message struck a chord. Let me compares olives and gruyere here for a sec, and despite the overall Banana (or olive, or grape), home-of-a-fundamentally-undemocratic-population Republic that Greece is, our constitution is very specific about this:
- Referenda
The President of the Republic shall by decree proclaim a referendum on crucial national matters following a resolution voted by an absolute majority of the total number of Members of Parliament, taken upon proposal of the Cabinet.
A referendum on Bills passed by Parliament regulating important social matters, with the exception of the fiscal ones, shall be proclaimed by decree by the President of the Republic, if this is decided by three-fifths of the total number of its members, following a proposal of two-fifths of the total number of its members, and as the Standing Orders and the law for the application of the present paragraph provide.
No more than two proposals to hold a referendum on a Bill can be introduced in the same parliamentary term.
And the reason for this is exactly what you wrote: people can’t be expected to understand fiscal matters, the litigation involved, the broad, deep and long systemic, societal and political effects they can have.
That said, and before the forum pillories the third world foreigner, as it is a Grape Republic with a non-functional judicial system, this rule has been trampled on many times in our history, last time in the farce of the 2015 referendum. Please don’t bother relaying the systemic and cultural differences of the two countries, my point is simpler than that: the average Kostas or Felix cannot understand and hence should not have a direct say on these points, in my opinion. That’s why there are the supposed representatives of the people (politicians) whose job is to distil for people what these really mean, and if they make a good job at it they may be voted to implemahahahaha what they said.
He’s just talking his party’s book, that’s all.
TL;DR: Every nation needs a king.
(It can be a smart, caring king).
Edit: more seriously, you’re right, in theory, but politics don’t work in general. Having people vote in Switzerland may look like asking the wrong population to decide, but the outcomes look better, given the state of the country.
Or maybe that’s just because we have a long story of holding intl criminal activities finances that sustain Swiss economy
UBS would lose a lot of money, I mean a lot, a shitton. I for myself for example would pay back my mortgage and I am sure I’m not the only one. So, what should they write?
I don’t understand whether you’re being funny or serious.
Anyway I have no valuable contribution to make in this thread as it’s irrelevant to me.
Well, I haven’t decided myself where power should be assigned for more efficiency, justice, wellbeing, peace, etc.
So just exploring ideas. Depends a lot on culture and history.
This one idea (king) can’t work in Switzerland. Switzerland must not change.
Could that lead to UBS and other banks to lower their margins to push the lending volume (or atleast arrest the fall) - better for borrowers?
Secondly, if renovation is not tax deductible, does that lead to general worsening of quality / upkeep over time (10-15-20 years) potentially slowing the growth in prices?
I am a 40 year old tenant looking to probably buy within the next 10 years.
Difficult to say, but my personal feeling is no change or lower prices, based on my (possibly wrong) understanding of all changes:
so 1. might generate a tax increase for everybody to compensate the fiscal loss, 2. will benefit older people who will have anyway less interest to re-invest the windfall, 3. will reduce the attractivity of regular maintenance, 4. will seriously reduce the attractivity of buy-to-let for private people and 5. will steer people to reduce their indebtness.
Overall, I would think the amount of money removed from investments (of any kind) will be higher than the money freed, but perhaps somebody else has better numbers or better studies…