In my German-speaking community, there is a widespread belief that the imputed rental value is an unfair tax. And whenever this referendum came up, it was always about finally abolishing an unfair tax. There were never any further discussions about other topics that also come with it.
I think in German-speaking Switzerland it was simply a blunt “Abolish imputed rental value? Awesome, finally! 
” at every Stammtisch without giving it any further thought.
But I can only speak for my own circle.
There is always a trade-off. No freebies.
I’ve read an article (from UBS I believe) a few days ago, evaluating that new construction and recent appartement/homes would see a price jump of +13%. Not sure how realistic it is..
4% CAGR on property price is not sustainable if inflation remains below 1%. This will lead to even higher distortion of asset price and wage increase
Long term I think expectation should be max 1% REAL increase after adjusting for inflation
Form what I can see, over the last 20 years, real-estate prices rose by 3.12% CAGR in Switzerland and 4.3%/4.5% in Geneva/Zurich (source: Realadvisor). And during the same period, inflation was at 0.57% yearly on average (Source: Claude).
So after inflation it’s been well above 1% for some time already.
There is also no income tax for companies in Switzerland. Companies pay a tax on their profit and so do Baugenossenschaften.
Yes.
So it’s even more a cause of concern. Isn’t it? prices cannot keep going up and up. Someone needs to be able to afford these things too
This situation has existed in many cities across the world for a long time. Often it IS sustainable if there is a market for external buyers where affordability is not limited by local wages. Think London, Vancouver, Manhattan.
I would not be surprised, given the scarce housing situation, if cantons like Zurich bring in an empty home tax or under-utilized home tax now that EmW doesn’t provide this ‘nudge’.
It should be noted that EmW is not a property tax, it is a tax on imputed rental.
There is already a law about what % of apartments can remain empty within a Gemeinde. I think that would take care of empty apartment situation
right now Zurich city vacancy is very very low. Last time read it was 0.07%
Sure. It is possible. but Zurich is not really London or Manhattan. I think rental yields in Zurich city are not really interesting anymore and this should put upside cap.
But you are right if new buyers keep showing up, prices can keep going up
I know but that’s how I find some logic myself, this is about taxing your RE in the end, because I will never ever understand the logic behind imputed rental income of something I use and own (and not rent to or from someone), be it a home or something else.
Tax does not have to be logic though, it has to feed a common system, also supporting the economy somehow, and maybe it worked better that way. Time will tell.
Property tax exists in Switzerland in some places, in addition to the imputed rental income, though.
Exactly as you would expect it: percentage of property value, not related to wealth or income, no deductible.
https://www.moneyland.ch/en/taxes-real-estate-property-switzerland-guide
Property taxes and real estate
There are 12 cantons in which property taxes are levied on houses, apartments, and other properties. In six of these cantons, property taxes are only levied by some municipalities. The terms used to describe property taxes varies between cantons. In every case, property taxes are levied on an annual basis.
Like wealth tax, property tax is a tax on the value of your property. But unlike wealth tax, you cannot deduct mortgage debt.
There are 13 cantons that do not have property taxes. These are Aargau, Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Basel-Landschaft, Glarus, Luzern, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schaffhausen, Schwyz, Solothurn, Uri, Zug, and Zurich. The canton of Basel-Stadt does not have a property tax for private individuals, but does levy a property tax on properties owned by other legal entities.
I find find the ‘two people own the house they live in vs two people rent from each other’ not very easy to understand although it has been repeated here a couple of times.
I prefer the following: Person A holds a one-million-CHF house and pays no income tax. Person B holds one million CHF in stocks and pays income tax on dividends.
From this angle I found the tax fair.
Just for the fun of it, and because I really don’t get it: Person A generates no income with that house, so there shouldn’t be an income tax on it. They do have opportunity costs on their capital and face market risks. Person B generates income, instead and are taxed on it. Ok, B also faces market risks, but then capital gains are not taxed, either.
It’s income in kind. There’s precedent for this.
Still don’t get it. If my employer pays my rent or gets me car, that’s income in kind to me.
Me saving money and then getting a mortgage for the rest to buy something is different. Well, I am heavily biased, but we might agree it’s a rather obscure concept 
You have capital (real estate) producing a widget (housing).
Yes but then you are occupying your home so it is as if you were renting it to yourself. 
Today I was stuck though. I wanted to use my own pen at my desk and as everything I own and use, I wanted to sign the lease between me and myself beforehand, but how could I sign since the pen was not leased at the moment of signing.
Whether it’s fair and functional is one question, it’ll never be logic imho.
Something you have bought and own is not something you rent to yourself, it’s something you’re free to use.
So I fully agree.
Well it happened to me that a home you buy comes with the housing feature in the price.
Otherwise income capital is due on writing, programming, driving, sleeping with respective “capital” tools providing it. What about the kitchen producing meals. Income capital on feeding…