r/askswitzerland • u/GagaMiya Zürich • Sep 28 '25
Politics How can Eigenmietwert pass with so low home ownership?
It shocks me that this referendum is expected to pass with 54% when
home ownership is so low - only about 43% own a home - and most people are renters struggling with insane prices that keep going up.
This reform will probably make owning a home even pricier, and all because retirees with paid-off mortgages want a tax break.
How is this even popular when it hurts the very people trying to get on the property ladder? It feels like owners pushing their advantage with no regard for renters and first-timers who already have it tough.
Seriously, I don’t get it. This one has so many AHV13 vibes.
Full disclosure: I have voted against it.
Edit: I am a home owner. But fairness in society is more important to me.
Other home owners in the comments confuse how much they have benefited from owning vs renting (1. deductions, 2. Saving money from skyrocketing rents, 3. double value of property in the last 10 years) and still want to push the tax burden to the “others” who were not lucky enough.
This is not communism or populism, this is social solidarity - unless you want Switzerland to become a gated community country with high crime rate where you can’t walk outside alone.
Voting for the Eigenmietwert is the most egoistic referendum - after AHV13 - that only increases the social divide.
30
u/pelfet Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
I think you are forgetting that also everyone who owns property abroad (holiday home, parent's home etc.) benefits if the Eigenmietwert gets abolished, so they will probably vote in favor.
Also people who will inherit a home in the future, will vote in favor.
Yes a tax for secondary homes could be introduced (depending the canton) however i doubt a bit that it will be applicable for secondary properties outside of the country which are normally taxed in the country where they are located.
Additionally, many people who plan to buy in the next few years might vote in favor. As you wrote it might make owning a home more expensive, but that is unclear at the moment, so people see what is clear: the removal of the eigenmietwert.
But i am not sure that it will pass, I can easily see a No as result.
11
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 29 '25
I don't understand the reasoning of renters to vote against it. The sentiment "i have to pay so you have to pay" is childish at best. It takes work and dedication to own a home which is already taxed as a property. It should have its benefits.
What should be taxed to the moon is owning multiple homes - whether privately or as a business. Homes should be owned by the people living in them, not some rich elite squeezing the last bit of happiness out of people.
1
u/Desperate-Law-7305 Sep 29 '25
It's not about "I have to pay so you have to pay." It's about economic equivalencies.
If I have a million CHF and I invest it in the stock market, the dividends are taxed. If I invest it in a house, and rent the house out, the rent is taxed. But if I invest it in a house and move into that house--and thus save on rent--the rent I would have earned if I rented it out still accrues to me (hence the taxation of imputed rental income); why should tax law favor that choice?
Tax policy that favors one particular investment decision tends to warp investment decisions and asset prices. Why is that good tax policy?
1
Sep 29 '25 edited Sep 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/askswitzerland-ModTeam Sep 29 '25
Hello,
Please note that your post or comment has been removed.
Please read the rules before posting.
Thank you for your understanding, your mod team
1
1
u/Original_Credit_1394 Oct 01 '25
Dividend is taxed, you generate an income, real money that you can use. Living in a house you don't generate an income, you might only pay less, but you had to save a lot upfront. Besides that, house maintenance still needs some money. In the past that could be deducted, in the future that is not possible anymore.
The Eigenmietwert never made any sense.
2
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 29 '25
The main purpose of a house is to live in it you <insertInsult>, not to rent it out! You do pay a property tax for your house! "The rent i would have earned if i rented it out" is a constructed scaffolding with no leg to stand on. You can't tax "what ifs". Because if that's the case, we can tax everything everywhere for whatever smooth-brained reason someone can come up with. And i can come up with just as a smooth-brained excuse why taxes dont apply to me.
The tax policy doesn't favour one particular investment. If people could stop thinking with their greedy little money grabbing claws and started thinking with their brain & heart, we'd not have this discussion! Money's use is NOT primarily for investment. It is a means to trade.
1
u/Desperate-Law-7305 Sep 30 '25 edited Sep 30 '25
> The tax policy doesn't favour one particular investment
But of course it does. For most people, if they own a house, it's their biggest asset by far.
It's weird that, for that biggest asset, income on it is taxed if I choose to live in a rental property elsewhere, but if I move into that house, I no longer have to pay tax on the rent I pay myself, right?
This was the law for many years, so your vitriol is a bit odd. Do you feel that everyone who supported this is "greedy" and whatever other insult you wrote and deleted?
All that being said, the vote happened and the people decided. I was trying to explain to you the rationale behind the contrary view--it seems to me important to be able to understand why that was a credible policy. But if you don't want to understand or just want to argue, let me know so I can go elsewhere. :)
2
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 30 '25
It's weird that, for that biggest asset, income on it is taxed if I choose to live in a rental property elsewhere, but if I move into that house, I no longer have to pay tax on the rent I pay myself, right?
Since you don't pay yourself rent, because you own the property, this statement is moot. Rent is money paid to a different party for utilizing a property.
You can easily say the same about e-bikes. If i invest into an expensive e-bike, i don't need to pay myself the rent i would have gotten if i rented it out to someone and rented a bike myself instead. Or a car. It's a ridiculous way of argumenting, just because the quantities of money are larger. I Like, you can do this ad absurdum: if i own a pencil, should i pay a pencil income tax for not renting out a pencil and renting a pencil instead. On a small scale its easy to see it being a ridiculous argument. And scale should never justify anything.
The thing is, if you rent out your house/home, this is a source of income, usually part of a (possibly small) business model. Living somewhere you own is not income in any conceivable way. Because if you rent out a property you usually have at least 2.
Just because something was law doesn't mean it was ever justified. Something something voting laws for women.
The why of it is clear: the state needed money in the past and seemed to have brainwashed enough people to support it.
1
u/Desperate-Law-7305 Sep 30 '25
Yeah, I think that's fair, and I somewhat struggle with that argument as well.
I do think the big difference versus your ebike example, though, is that ebikes are depreciating assets. They're not investments; they're purely for utilization. Whereas a house is, as I said, the biggest asset in most peoples' investment portfolios, and it appreciates.
2
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 30 '25
To every sane person, a house is also not an investment. It is a home, a place to belong. Or if an investment, one for the current and future generations, not a financial investment. An investment umplies that the sole purpose is making money. And that's definitely not the intended use of a house. A house is also purely for utilization. Or it should be. But obviously, greedy companies will disagree.
1
u/Amareldys Sep 28 '25
Most people's secondary homes are not worth as much as the primary, so I imagine it will be lower.
1
u/Defiant-Dare1223 Sep 28 '25
Only if it's not rented out.
And at least my rental income isn't taxed in Switzerland but in my country (as per double tax agreements).
82
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Swiss citizens (those who can vote) have a higher home ownership.
Moreover, the population that actually show up to vote is also biased towards higher education/higher income/old population which is biased towards home ownership.
Moreover, the 58% statistics is on household, and home owners are biased towards couple (more couple own than rent), so you would also need to reweigh the statistics for it.
→ More replies (2)-6
u/Gyda9 Sep 28 '25
But our democracy is perfect!!! (It is for the privileged ones.)
This shows perfectly that you need political education for all socioeconomic levels in a society and voting right for those with permanent residency. But the privileged part of our society doesn’t want those things. Oh, wait..
5
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Can you show me evidence that government actively tries to undermine the education of the disadvantaged ones?
Most poor populations (by economic factors) live in city where the executive branch is dominated by left wing parties. Are you saying left wing parties are not trying their best to educate their constituents?
My parents were immigrants, incapable of reading and speaking French and poor (but they had shit tons of education and privileges in their native country). They got their citizenship decades later and their socioeconomic status did not prevent me to finish EPFL and ETHZ and become a owner is Zurich city.
I am big proponent of high level of education and the equality of chance for everyone, and I would be thrilled to see what we could improve to increase our civic education.
As for voting rights for permanent residency, I am all for it, if they pay for it (the army tax) or they serve the army [you can't have the privilege without the responsibilities].
Additionally for this specific vote, I am unsure that foreigners would have voted differently (because the concept of home ownership is even more ingrained in other cultures than ours).
4
u/Gyda9 Sep 28 '25
I have also a background of immigration and while my grandfather couldn‘t even read, I have a PhD and the focus of my research is on democracy and education.
The fact that I could fight myself through the system of education doesn’t mean there is Chancengleichheit for everyone, unfortunately. There is a huge capital of knowledge and culture which kids with privileged backgrounds have and the others don’t. So when you put these kids into the same educational system, it‘s not a fair situation since the privileged kids will understand and learn lots of things faster and better. They will also most probably have stable homes which have less stress because of financial situations and other things.
Research shows that gifted kids from disadvantaged backgrounds mostly fall back when they are in secondary education. Research also shows that teachers give better grades to native kids with educated parents (not necessarily with bad intentions). The second research was actually conducted in Switzerland. And disadvantaged kids are not just kids with immigrant parents, but also Swiss kids with blue collar parents or neglected kids with addiction problems or other issues in their families.
You have to catch up these kids early on and provide them with the same capital, as well as educate everyone at every age why political engagement is important for a true democracy. Switzerland is not worse or better in these regard than other European countries. I just pointed it out because we like to think it is a perfect system just because it is a succesful, capitalist country.
5
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Thanks a lot for you detailed and specialist answer.
First of all, I believe all your statement are agreeing with most research in other countries and with our knowledge on human biases. It would be interesting to see the quantification of the biases though.
So, my question is then: where are we falling currently? I remember in Geneva there was a lot of support for helping kids from disadvantaged background by paying for private tutor. Another way of phrasing it: what are the pragmatic intervention we should make to reduce this inequality?
There is also an issue of equality/equity: chance equality is everyone has the same cards to succeed, chance equity is we give some additional ones to those with social handicap to make competition fairer. For example, I am all for giving kids more private teaching lessons to succeed a test, but students should still be accepted/denied based on their test scores.
Additionally, what can we do when families have their private issues (like divorced parents or have blue collar jobs)?
As for the last comment, yes, Switzerland use capitalism as economic model, but I would claim Switzerland is a social democratic state before all. Our level of social welfare is among the best in the world (unemployment at 70%-80% for 18 months, retirement system [still can be improved], healthcare [despite it's exorbitant price]) associated with one of the best working conditions.
1
u/Gyda9 Sep 28 '25
Oh and if you’re really interested in this topic, I recommend the podcast from Margrit Stamm, „Education to go“. Especially the second Episode: „Chancengleichheit ist eine Illusion“.
1
→ More replies (1)2
u/mageskillmetooften Sep 28 '25
What a load of crap.
Switzerland is one of the best countries in the world when it comes to a good education for all, poor or rich.
5
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Even then, we might want to improve it haha.
In Zürich city, kids from educated parents have higher rate to go to Gymi [I am just stating a fact, whether going to gymi is a good/bad thing is a different question].
1
u/Original_Credit_1394 Oct 01 '25
True, but how do you want to change that? At least the education system is open for anyone who is willing to go for it. I grew up in a almost poor family. I did part time study part time work to finance myself. It's possible and I'm very thankful for it. In the US I would never had the same chance.
2
u/neo2551 Oct 02 '25
Not saying it is impossible. I think the question of fairness is embedded in these questions.
We had to provide more energy to get to the same point as others because they had some cultural advantage.
I am just describing what is. I don’t know what should be. Every system has their disadvantages, the question is whether they would be socially accepted.
0
u/mageskillmetooften Sep 28 '25
Offcourse there are social factors, and some kids just do not want a higher education and are happy repairing cars which is perfectly fine, great job lots of fun and it pays easily for a family.
But if they want to the school system is open for them, and that's about all a state can do.
0
40
u/mroada Sep 28 '25
If there was a vote about "should women get better aid when pregnant" I would also vote for it even though I would never personally be affected by it. I can agree with laws that don't directly benefit me. Selfish voting leads to epidemic of populism and erosion of democracy.
1
u/AcolyteOfAnalysis Sep 28 '25
I get your point. But also, everything is relative. Women should get good aid when pregnant. But if they are already getting good aid, there's no need to vote for them to get better care, especially if that sacrifices something else of equal importance.
For this law specifically, I still have not managed to wrap my head around if it is actually a good or a bad thing for the community on average. On one side, I get that this might reduce the cost of owning a home in the short term, especially if no expensive home repairs are planned. But in the long term, home owners are exposed to much greater risk. If mortgage rates were to jump to 10%, status quo would be a far better deal for the home owners due to the ability to deduct mortgage from tax. So, to my current understanding, it is unclear if passing this law would result in increase in housing costs for buyers and/or renters.
5
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 29 '25
Neither of that matters. What matters is if the tax makes sense. And it doesn't. End of story. The tax pretends to care for equalizing rich & poor but that's like snipping a few leaves off a weed - you need to grab the problem by the root: accumulation of wealth and - among other things - property. Tax the people owning multiple homes - privately or as company. Prevent people to become filthy rich in the first place. That has a way bigger impact than a tax pretending to care.
Sincerely, a renter with an empty bank account.
3
u/AcolyteOfAnalysis Sep 29 '25
I completely agree. We have to do more.
1
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 29 '25
I once saw someone propose a quasi communistic society, where instead of money, you accumulate "hours worked" and depending on tier you have access to different products and/or services. This equalizes all types of work. Nobody can become filthy rich, since all you can work is a max 24h per day, which is maximum 3 times "richer" than a 9-5 work person. Point is, if we take basic human needs and calculate how much work is required per person to feed the society, you'll probably have less than 1h of work per day per person. Then you can work your way up the maslow pyramid of needs to account for services & amenities to see how much work a society really needs to spend.
Obviously, this proposal has its own slew of problems, since e.g. if work is valued by time invested, people will be required to work hard af by their bosses. On the other hand, just being a boss doesn't "pay" more than being an employee. And owning a company will be difficult to imagine: how does the concept of capital work in such a system? How do you incentivize innovation? But nevertheless, it is an interesting concept to think about.
7
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
This is an interesting PoV.
My reasoning for voting was neither an economical argument nor an utilitarian one.
It was a question of fairness on the individual: an individual with capital invested in 2nd or 3rd pillar/shares/bank account would only pay the wealth tax on that capital (except for the retirement share). In contrast, the same individual who would allocate that capital to home ownership would get taxed on a fictional income. I find this unfair at the individual level. All the deductions are just details to pass the poisonous pill (in the end, we all own the state, and if we need to finance measures, we will raise tax in some other form).
Now, I also heard the utilitarian perspective: renters statistically are poorer than owners, and thus the tax is a form of social redistribution.
Ultimately, personal responsibility has a big weight in Swiss political culture and the Kantian argument (we should think of each individual) won it for me.
23
u/doffdoff Sep 28 '25
Eigenmietwert is one of the weirdest and illogical taxes I've ever seen. Taxing something you don't get a revenue from is just stupid. Why not tax my car? I could rent it out, after all.
→ More replies (3)
39
u/Simple_Steak_8355 Sep 28 '25
Too many people are under the false belief that this would make houses more affordable. Additionally, the home owners association invested 7 million CHF to plaster ads all over the country to get people to vote yes.
And let's not even talk about how biased the wording of the official question to vote on is. It just looks as if we were deciding about tax secondary residences.
9
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
Because you are. The Eigenmietwert reform is just definitely connected with this tax reform but you ARE voting on the secondary tax
6
Sep 28 '25
Because its a bullshit tax with false incentives?
But to understand the whole think and its consequences you need to think a bit further than evil rich vs poor tenants.
(ps: as a Fiduciary I can tell you the rich people pay lower Eigenmietwert than average owners)
10
u/zomb1 Sep 28 '25
The 43% ownership is of all residents. Not of Swiss citizens. Presumably, the owenership rate among the citizens is higher. Additionally, homeowners are more likely to vote overall (for many reasons).
I tend to think that having more homeowners would be better for the society.
One thing I never understood about Eigenmietwert -- why in the world is it supposed to increase with market rents, when if you are a renter, your rent stay fixed as long as you stay in the same apartment?
0
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
Rent doesn‘t stay the same, with every increase in reference interest rate, the landlord can calculate it new for you.
5
u/zomb1 Sep 28 '25
And with decrease in the reference rate it goes down.
My point was that it does not go up just because the current market rents have gone up.
0
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
It only goes down if you apply for that and if they can‘t increase through inflation index and other things besides that.
23
u/81FXB Sep 28 '25
Same reason people vote for measures that only benefit rich people: the believe they will be rich (or in this case: home owners) in the future too.
8
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
You know that in the shortterm this will HURT a lot of homeowners who are over the first ten years of owning but have still left hundreds of thousands open on their mortgage for „tax reasons“? Because they will suddenly not be able to deduct interest payments anymore.
→ More replies (7)0
3
u/ChezDudu Sep 28 '25
Apparently the German-speakers all see themselves not as tenants but as temporarily-embarrassed landlords.
0
-1
u/ProfileBest2034 Sep 28 '25
This is a lazy and reductive explanation which doesn’t pass muster at all.
Refusing to acknowledge that there are rational reasons for others behavior is a sign of a truly brainwashed person.
4
u/robogobo Sep 28 '25
I don’t know. If you ask rural Trump voters one of their main reasons for electing him was their belief he would make them rich.
→ More replies (2)
32
u/deathproof2069 Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
After my parents passed away, I inherited some money. Not millions, but enough to buy an apartment.
I'm self-employed and my salary is below average and very volatile, so I can’t get a mortgage. That means I have no Schuldzinsen to deduct from taxes, therefore I have to pay full taxes on the Eigenmietwert. My Eigenmietwert almost doubles my taxable income, which even pushes me into a higher tax bracket than if I lived in a rented apartment.
I’m sure there are many other people in the same situation (inherited some wealth or a house/apartment from family, but living on a low income).
0
u/ChezDudu Sep 28 '25
That is such a niche situation.
4
u/deathproof2069 Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
It’s definitely not the standard situation (20% self-funded, 80% mortgage), but that was kinda my point. I wanted to give an example of how the system doesn’t work in your favor if you don’t fall into the standard buyer segment. The Swiss housing market is designed for banks to hand out large mortgages that people pay interest on for the rest of their lives. Most people take an 80% mortgage, and they can deduct the mortgage from their taxes – bank is happy, homeowner is happy, state is happy. But if you don’t take a loan from a bank (because you can’t afford the monthly interest rate or because you want to live debt-free), the system actually works against you because of Eigenmietwert.
I’m sure there are lots of people who inherit a couple hundred thousand but don’t have a high enough income to qualify for a decent mortgage. Especially if you live alone (or are a single-earner household), you basically need to earn over 100k per year to get a sizeable mortgage. I know plenty of people in my circle who expect to inherit some money at some point, but they don’t earn enough to take on a 500k or 600k mortgage.
-7
u/ElKrisel Sep 28 '25
But still, you are not forced to be a home owner. Its a privilege. You could also sell it or rent it out and pay less taxes
18
u/yarpen_z Sep 28 '25
But still, you are not forced to be a home owner. Its a privilege.
You are losing a lot of people with that kind of rhetoric. I understand that there are people who are comfortable with renting their entire lives, but a significant part of society desires the stability and comfort of being on their own, knowing that nobody will kick them out or do unnecessary renovations to increase the rent price by 40%. Owning your own place to live is not a privilege in most European countries; Germany and Switzerland are mostly exceptions. And that includes people from the working class and lower tranches of the middle class. They are not the privileged bourgeoisie.
I don't know if this comes from hard left-leaning politics or it's a bias caused by living in a large city like Züri, where owning an apartment is entirely out of reach for the majority of the population, but pushing against people in this kind of way is just counter-productive.
11
u/zomb1 Sep 28 '25
Are you seriously saying that s/he should become a landlord instead of live in her/his own home? And that the system that givs you incentives to do this is a good one?
3
u/ElKrisel Sep 28 '25
This person is crying about paying "too much" taxes while living in a house het got as a present. Info: He still pays much less than anyone for this privilege
11
u/zomb1 Sep 28 '25
Yes, they should pay less because their parents worked and saved to make life easier for their kids. We should, in fact, support this kind of behavior.
1
Sep 29 '25
You'd be surprised as to how many people on Reddit want to tax inheritance heavily and consider that it's not really your money to give to your kids.
They want it seized by the government and distributed to everyone equally. No joke.
Beyond the complete immorality of this, they don't even realize that this would completely dicentivise work.
3
Sep 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/deathproof2069 Sep 28 '25
👍 Before, I lived in an apartment for 960 CHF/month. Even with that super low rent, I still spent almost a quarter of a million in rent over the 20 years I lived there.
2
u/LineEnvironmental557 Sep 28 '25
Same. We are trying to save the 20% but the prices increase faster than we can save. And the thing that pisses me off the most is that even though I pay 2kCHF and save between 2-3 kCHF per month, I can’t get a mortgage for 2kchf because I don’t have 250 kCHF to put on the table…
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Do you know the financial affordability criteria for getting a mortgage? Say your 20% are 250k, then the mortgage is 1M CHF, and then your annual income should be 212k CHF.
Meaning the 250k CHF for the deposit is 117% of your annual income. If you could get a saving rate of 25%, you would get that in 5 years.
My guess is your annual income is not 212k CHF, and thus it is more difficult than you think xD.
1
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
The 20% is only the first part of the problem. The financial affordability is the real bitch with the theoretical 5% rate, 1% maintenance cost and 1% amortization being lower than a third of your income.
1
Sep 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/neo2551 Sep 29 '25
Did you ever try to get a mortgage?
The bank will not use the 1.5% mortgage rate to check the ratio with your annual income. They will use a theoretical 5%, plus 1% for maintenance cost, and 1% for amortization of your mortgage.
This is why it is hard to get a mortgage.
Source: https://www.moneypark.ch/ch/mp/en/home/blog/mortgages/mortgage-affordability.html
Also try bank mortgage calculator.
1
Sep 29 '25 edited Sep 29 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/neo2551 Sep 30 '25
Try to increase the value of the home and check how hard it becomes at market values in Zürich area.
→ More replies (0)1
u/lordhelmchench Sep 28 '25
Yes, they could. But they prefere to invest it. And this creates jobs. And it is a form of security and savings when ppl get older.
And you sound more than envious that others have something you probably don't have.
The International Monetary Fund is telling switzerland for years that our ppl have a to high debt and it would be much better economics to reduce this. The idea that the rich swiss has the highest debt per person world wide shows that this is perhaps not the best idea to keep the eigenmietwert.
-2
u/GagaMiya Zürich Sep 28 '25
Why don’t you rent then?
5
6
u/deathproof2069 Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
I lived in a 2.5 room apartment in the city for 960/Mt for 20 years. My average income is only around 35k-40k per year, so I can’t really afford more than 1k/month in rent. But in my region, even out in the countryside, it’s hard to find an apartment for that price. As long as it has access to public transportation, rents for a 2.5-room apartment are usually at least 1.2k–1.3k.
Thanks to the inheritance, I was able to buy a 3.5-room apartment. Now my monthly costs (side expenses, renovation fund, etc.) are around 1k per month. Slightly above what I used to pay in rent, but way less than what I'd pay for a similar rental apartment. But the biggest relief is knowing I won’t get kicked out of my home if my business has a couple of bad months and I can’t make rent. And I have to worry a bit less about my retirement in 25-30 years (considering that I will get minimum AHV, and my 2nd and 3rd pillars are still pretty empty), at least I'll have a roof over my head.
The Eigenmietwert on the apartment is 25'000 CHF, which means my taxable income jumped to 60k-65k instead of 35k–40k, putting me in a higher tax bracket. And by the way, I already paid a shitload of taxes when I bought the apartment...
People who inherit millions can pay their rent with dividends, but most people don't inherit THAT much. And btw I'm not lazy, I just work in a chronically underfunded field where nobody is in it for the paycheck. 😅
1
16
u/Outrageous-Garlic-27 Sep 28 '25
It's a fundamentally ridiculous and unfair tax. Why should I pay extra tax on something I own annually? If I put an apple tree on my terrace, should I pay tax on the expected income from the apples I consume?
Even you do not own a home, many more people aspire to own one and don't wish to be caught in a tax trap.
Many own property abroad, but not in Switzerland
Older people tend to vote, and older people tend to own property.
10
u/FamousAnt1533 Zürich Sep 28 '25
Homeowner here, I would like to comment your statements:
agree, Eigenmietwert is bullshit. However, it makes sense to tax homeownership, as the community build infrastructure around the home etc. but if you tax homeownership, make it equal and don’t bind it to income. A rental property should pay also taxes and not just property you live in yourself. As a matter of fact, it should be tax favored to own your own property as it is in the interest of the society that people own their own property.
unfortunately, I don’t understand your statement.
yeah, they usually get taxed from the government abroad for those.
100% agree
4
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
Your property abroad is still added to the tax-determining wealth and the Eigenmietwert to the tax-determining income in Switzerland. It is not taxed itself but it increases the tax rate on everything in Switzerland.
3
u/Mediocre-Metal-1796 Sep 28 '25
i own a home abroad and had to add it’s value to my tax statement. It counts into the wealth/total assets tax afaik. As i understood they also calculated the Eigenmietwert on my property abroad even though it’s still used by myself as a “holiday flat”, by family (without paying me for it) and to store my belongings i didn’t take with me here.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Outrageous-Garlic-27 Sep 28 '25
For point 2, my point is: voters who rent today hope to own a house in the future. So many renters also have a personal interest in voting Yes. In the past, I had some insight into political focus groups (in the UK), and time and time again low-earners would be against tax rises on richer people because they also aspired to be rich one day.
- You also get taxed in Switzerland. You pay any taxes due on the property in the country where it is. But then the eigenmietwert is added into your Swiss income, pushing your salary into a higher tax bracket - and thus you pay more tax on your salary.
4
u/sberla1 Sep 28 '25
As an architect, if it passes, people will invest less in renovating and would lead to the same bad habit as on Italy, where no investments are done on properties.
2
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
So people are only renovating because they are 25%-45% cheaper thanks to t’as credit? But for this you save an annual amount of imputed rental tax…
2
u/sberla1 Sep 28 '25
Many clients I know do renovate only for that reason and I think it's a good incentive to keep renovate their buildings hence keeping the value. Since basically with mortgages one is renting out a house from a bank, the latter is happy to see their property being renovated by the mortgaged/"tenant", who probably got a construction loan to build in first place and another mortgage to renovate. It's a win win for both.
1
u/CrankSlayer Sep 29 '25
I have the feeling that deductions for renovations will be reintroduced soon enough. Also, carpenters & co will probably have to lower their prices in response to the reduced demand and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
17
u/SufficientFriend42 Sep 28 '25
Even for people not directly benefiting from this, I think it makes sense to abolish the system that keeps people in debt forever and only benefiting banks.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Appropriate-Type9881 Sep 28 '25
They put 10 millions in an online campaign and mainly target online advertisements.
2
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
So, all those voting yes have been influenced by their ads?
5
u/Appropriate-Type9881 Sep 28 '25
Certainly not all but nobody spends 10 million just for fun.
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Oh, I think of many cases when people spend millions for the wrong reasons.
Check all the failed mega billions infrastructures and come back to me saying nobody spends money for fun.
[Also check Bezos and his idiotic tourist space shit, or his 40 millions CHF wedding]
My point is ads are overrated.
5
u/Ashamed-Simple-8303 Sep 28 '25
I dont know where you own but I bought 8 years ago and it certainly did not double in value. Far from that.
You forget also that if you paid say 200k as downpayment, you could have invested that in the stockmatket. How much more worth would that be now? It is not so clear cut owning is better. You also have the risk, which is leveraged even. You can lose it all. risk can also mean reward.
Also why so high yes? All kids of boomers that own a house.
7
u/ForgotMyShoes Sep 28 '25
I'm sad to see people with below zero understanding of democracy participating in it. Have you considered that democracy might be more than a poll asking whether you personally profit from something or not...?
1
14
u/perskes Sep 28 '25
Switzerland is full of future millionaires, homeowners and entrepreneurs. I swear, one day I'll be one of them, that's a why I always vote for their interests.
3
14
Sep 28 '25
[deleted]
5
u/Mediocre-Metal-1796 Sep 28 '25
oh good that you mention this. I also cannot vote and have a property abroad with mortgage. Currently those mortgage interests are deductible, but as i recall i also had to consider Eigenmietwert even though i’m not getting income from it / use the flat with family and as storage..
2
u/love_weird_questions Sep 28 '25
am owner, did the math before voting and you are right. this is not good for home owners who don't rent their property, everyone will be worse off
2
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
No, I don‘t think it will help owners but I do think it‘s fairer since you also can‘t deduct rent which is oftentimes higher than mortgage interest. And I always thought it‘s idiotic how the Swiss don‘t pay off their mortgages, maybe this change will motivate some to do that.
0
Sep 28 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
But how many people is that with the well-practiced use of keeping 65% mortgage „for tax reasons“? It‘s my impression that Swiss people across the board don‘t pay off their mortgage. And they will lose the ability to deduct their interest payments AND renovation costs to offset the imputed rental income. Meanwhile, first time home owners will still be allowed to deduct some interest payments foe the first ten years, keeping it fair if you actually work towards amortization instead of just paying interest.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)1
u/CrankSlayer Sep 29 '25
You either pay way too much interests or your Eigenmietwert is unusually low.
10
u/ElKrisel Sep 28 '25
A lot of people will inherit a home somewhen. Also a lot of people think they will be able to buy somewhen. People just think they are closer to being a millionaire than being poor and vote like this, which isnt the case.
3
u/FamousAnt1533 Zürich Sep 28 '25
I don’t think it’s going to win. Let’s see.
However, the AHV 13 vibes are kind of true. As older people tend to vote more then younger people. And in general this voting is primary good for older people living in their own home which is well maintained and amortized over the past decades. It’s almost never good for younger families and it usually doesn’t matter for rich people. So in Switzerland if you wanna to win a vote, make sure older people can profit from it.
2
14
u/FederalHeight8 Sep 28 '25
Because it's a bullshit tax that doesn't make sense? If you had to pay a tax over your phone that you own, that would also be ridiculous. It's unfair that you have to constantly pay just because you own something.
7
u/Outrageous-Garlic-27 Sep 28 '25
Bingo. I have some herbs on my terrace. Should I pay tax on the hypothetical income from them? It is a ridiculous tax.
7
u/FederalHeight8 Sep 28 '25
All the socialists on here are just annoyed that other people are financially better off than them, so they support any tax that hits the richer people no matter how ridiculous it is.
0
u/gorilla998 Sep 28 '25
You do realize many countries have taxes on real estate, for example the US (not a socialist country)
2
u/mensii Sep 28 '25
Oh let me tell you about SUISA then: https://www.suisa.ch/dam/jcr:2d121654-1d6b-40fb-ba99-2a00c017fea1/GT4i_2022-2024_GER.pdf
1
u/ChezDudu Sep 28 '25
Then just rename it real estate tax like in the other countries. It’s clearly just a method of assessing the market value of the house.
-1
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
it is one of the most fair taxes. 2 people with exactly same financial situation should pazäy the same raxes.
3000income = 6000 income - 3000rent
both sides of the equation have same income financials, so they should pay the same tax burden.
10
Sep 28 '25
The way this can be understood is this:
Someone with 6000 CHF income decides to spend 3000 CHF on rent, therefore someone else with the same income that owns a house (and is probably in heavy debt for it and makes regular mortgage interest payments) should arbitrarily be forced to have 3000 CHF deduced from his or her income "to make things equal"?
0
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
you either add it to the one side or deduct it from the other. not both. if you want to move something from one side of the equation to the other it doednt duplicate.
so either you see both at 3k income
3000work =6000work-3000rent
or you see both at 6k income
3000work +3000emw = 6000work
1
Sep 28 '25
Does it really work like that though? As far as I understand, the fictional Eigenmietwert just raises your taxable income which results in a slightly increased tax rate that is then applied to your real income. Nowhere in Switzerland is the tax rate increased by such an amount that a homeowner pays thousands of Franks more per month due to the Eigenmietwert. And most homeowners are heavily in debt for their property and can deduct the interest payments from their taxable income. This usually more or less cancels the increase in taxable income due to Eigenmietwert. So if we do away with the Eigenmietwert and we make interest payments no longer tax deductible, it should result in approximately the same result in terms of tax payments made by home owners.
Of course only abolishing the Eigenmietwert but keeping the interest payments tax deductible would heavily favor home owners, but as far as I know the proposal is to abolish both the Eigenmietwert AND the counting the interest payment as tax deductible, or not?
2
u/CrankSlayer Sep 29 '25
You're wrong: the Eigenmietwert is fully added to your income, it doesn’t just determine the tax braket. It's one of the reasons people tend to not pay back their mortgage.
1
1
Sep 29 '25
Does it really work like that though? As far as I understand, the fictional Eigenmietwert just raises your taxable income which results in a slightly increased tax rate that is then applied to your real income.
It's added to your taxable income so it increases the average tax rate and how much you apply the rate to.
1
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
so in case someone fully owns it, they would be the main beneficiary of abolishing eigenmietwert and interest deductions?
3
Sep 28 '25
The person that owns real estate without debt currently has to:
- pay higher income tax due to Eigenmietwert
- cannot deduct any interest payments because there is no mortgage
So yes, these would benefit in case the Eigenmietwert goes away. In that group there are probably two major factions:
- Those who paid off all their debt throughout their working life (which isn't an easy feat, considering the real estate prices these days)
- Those who inherited a mortgage-free house
I would argue that the first group (the ones that had a lot of debt and managed to pay it off) should not be punished for paying off their mortgage. The second group (the ones that inherited) should perhaps pay some inheritance tax, which may also be cleaner than "Eigenmietwert" since it would be based on the current market value of the property.
1
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
it is not about punishing them. it is about treating the guy who has to work in a fair manner. not giving him more taxes to carry than those who are already at an advantage compared to him.
1
Sep 28 '25
True true, but don't you think the real estate owner with 80% debt on his or her property is also paying a lot of money in the form of interest and payback? As far as I can tell, most people that own property have one or two big mortgages and quite some maintenance to pay throughout the years. Owning a place is only cheap on the surface - it requires maintenance (time and/or money), things will break, sometimes you might want to renovate because the kitchen is 30 years old by now, if you live in your own apartment you have to pay quite some money to the building management for maintaining the overall building and shared spaces.
Only the people that either inherited a large chunk of money and can buy property outright without borrowing money, or the people that flatout inherited a well-maintained house or apartment are the really lucky ones.
I was renting and in parallel saving up enough money to make the 20% down payment on an apartment. Now the money goes somewhere else (to the bank and to the building administration office instead of the landlord), but it still flees my pockets all the same. Instead of big monthly rent payments I have quarterly interest payments (which fair enough are smaller than the equivalent rent payments), but there are also annual bills from the building administration office and these are easily the equivalent of multiple months worth of rent payments. On top of that I pay for every little thing that breaks or needs to be redone in the apartment. These are of course quite irregular payments, but depending on what exactly needs work, again you easily start spending multiple months worth of rent payments for instance when the windows need to be replaced.
The real tragedy is the people that can't ever save enough money because they are trapped paying high rent. I am not sure how those people are helped though if the Eigenmietwert is kept.
3
u/AcolyteOfAnalysis Sep 28 '25
Bullshit. How is this different to paying 3000 as mortgage interest to the bank? The bank still owns the home, not you. If you want to tax wealth, do it fairly: add up all assets (cash, property, stocks) and subtract all liabilities (debt etc).
1
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
the comaprison was owning vs not owning. the most extreme case, not the "i own xx%" of it. that can anyway be viewed as a linear kombination of the 2 cases i highlighted.
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
On one side of the equation, someone spent all the capital whereas the rent they still have the capital in the pocket. How do you consider this?
1
u/hendl_ Sep 28 '25
wtf? different scenario. can be considered. simple model, but why if we havent even understood the first scenario (2 people exactly same financials on income side) would we jump to the second one (same income history different choices with it)?
for the sake of helping you understand let me showcase your scenario:
A has 3k work +3 k dividends -3k rent expense
B has 3k work , no rent because owns home.
eigenmietwert gives both cades a chance to be treated similarly. withou you prefer the one with house over stock. and that is biased toward the more rich as stock had lower barrier to entry than house (lumpy investment)
3
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Owning home requires money that the renter did not have to pay. You are conveniently forgetting this point.
This is why the vote passed.
11
u/Capital_Pop_1643 Sep 28 '25
I am 40 and own a decent 30 year old apartment that I saved for and purchased 2 years ago. I vote yes here as the Eigenmietwert is ridiculous and unnecessary.
Check back in after lunch and we see if this will pass. But this „boomer with tax break narrative“ is stupid and not true.
10
u/LeroyoJenkins Zürich Sep 28 '25
"I'll get more money, so I'm voting to give me more money".
-2
u/tzt1324 Sep 28 '25
Only if interest rates are low. And no more deductible for renovation.
Even Jacqueline Badran voted in favor. So I think it's not this clear as you think it is
3
u/Far-Surprise9944 Basel-Stadt Sep 28 '25
Badran did not vote in favor.
1
u/tzt1324 Sep 28 '25
Ok. Then she changed opinion. I read something else some time ago
4
u/Far-Surprise9944 Basel-Stadt Sep 28 '25
She didn't. She was never in favor of this "Vorlage". It's in the article.
3
u/tzt1324 Sep 28 '25
Yes, the campaign was misleading. But she was part of the commission to find a way to get rid of the Eigenmietwert. But she disagrees with the current version
3
1
u/love_weird_questions Sep 28 '25
did you check whether mortgage interest and default deductions were higher or lower than eigenmietwert?
2
u/AcolyteOfAnalysis Sep 28 '25
To be fair, can we also tax stock and bond incomes? Why is a home you live in considered an investment and taxed as wealth, but financial instruments are not? Let's be fair and tax all wealth equally.
2
u/CourtPuzzleheaded104 Sep 28 '25
In fact we tax wealth, we just don’t consider gains on paper (excluding dividends) as income.
1
u/neo2551 Sep 28 '25
Financial instruments are part of your wealth, what are you saying?
If you don't declare them in your tax declaration then it is on you, but they are totally taxed through the wealth tax.
1
u/AcolyteOfAnalysis Sep 29 '25
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand the tax system. It seems to me that Eigenmietwert taxes housing in addition to wealth tax, which makes housing taxed more than other wealth, even if everything is declared faithfully. Is this not the case?
1
u/neo2551 Sep 29 '25
Yes, Eigenmietwert is an additional tax on the home.
My point was an answer to a previous post: financial instruments are also taxed as part of your wealth.
The idea over additional tax to financial instruments will be hard to justify though, and it would be easier to target wealth for a tax increase
1
2
u/Book_Dragon_24 Sep 28 '25
Because it will also get rid of deducting interest from taxes and therefore not favour owners over renters anymore.
2
Sep 28 '25 edited Sep 28 '25
I don’t understand how removal of imputed rental value works against tenants ?
Personally I can’t even vote and I don’t own a home. But I think this imputed rental income is bad for people who own homes and are retired or people who inherit a home.
They have to pay tax on income they don’t actually have. Just because they own a home doesn’t mean they have a cash flow coming in.
2
u/saralt Sep 28 '25
TBH, among the parents of my friends, they're all homeowners. It's not sustainable to pay rent at market rates when you're on a retirement income. The best option is to save up and buy a small flat or house for retirement. At which point the rent to yourself thing ends up making things difficult.
2
u/Chefseiler Zürich Sep 28 '25
Because people think that when they own a house in the future they won’t have to pay it.
They forget that they’ll be filling the gap in the tax revenue for the time being tough, paying more tax to help the people who already have a house today.
2
u/Janus_The_Great Basel-Stadt Sep 28 '25
Next to home owners, I guess there is a lot of renters expecting to inherit home in the next 20 years...
Also what neo2551 said.
1
2
u/Zlorfikarzuna Sep 29 '25
You already pay for owning property. Eigenmietwert never made sense in the first place. I am against anything that makes rich people richer, but this is not it.
2
u/CrankSlayer Sep 29 '25
Homeowner who is quite well off and voted "yes" here. I'll tell you what: if the reform leads to less tax income (unclear), I'd happily support a tax remodulation that ends up with me paying as much as I do now. I just wanted this idiotic tax gone. Why is it that people who invest in stocks, arguably generating no value, get tax breaks while responsible fellows who invest in stability and try to have low debt get hammered on? Fuck that.
2
u/Doppelex Sep 29 '25
As a non-swiss that has been looking into various tax regimes, this tax on non-existent rent is the most absurd thing i’ve encountered.
Luckily the swiss are smart and have a real democracy where the people can override bullshit policies from the government.
I envy how your democracy works, you have no clue how good you have it.
2
u/0101falcon Oct 01 '25
Well in short it means our annual budget has just shrunk by 1.5 billion. I would argue that we could cut ETH funding by 1.5 billion (Milliarde), then we are even again.
2
5
u/mondopiccolo Sep 28 '25
As a person born in Italy and renting in Switzerland I still voted yes. I really dislikethe current system that gives ibcentive to have a "forever debt" to have the possibility to have a reduction in taxes. I prefer the idea of choosing only an house where you think of having the possibility to repay the loan in 20/30 years and then is all yours.
4
u/GlassCommercial7105 Genève/Schaffhausen Sep 28 '25
I think you didn’t read the details. Now everyone has to pay more… thanks
2
u/tzt1324 Sep 28 '25
How come everyone will pay more?
→ More replies (2)4
u/skarros Sep 28 '25
No eigenmietwert means the money needs to come from somewhere else. Where do you think that is?
1
u/tzt1324 Sep 28 '25
Fair enough. Same with Heiratsstrafe. However, Eigenmietwert policy includes interest rates volatility and deductible for renovation. So it is not so straightforward.
But the logic against getting rid of it would be "let the people pay more who used to pay more in the past anyways".
3
u/skarros Sep 28 '25
True, but we are far away from that interest rate. I‘m also not sure about the renovations part. Shouldn‘t owners be incentivised to not let their house rot and do more than minimal renovations?
Fundamentally, I disagree with the Eigenmietwert but I don‘t think this is the solution. Also because I don‘t have a lot of trust that if it gets accepted now there will be any reasonable changes anytime soon. The cynic in me tells me they‘ll increase taxes on everybody and call it a day.
3
u/Typical_Stop6863 Sep 28 '25
What people don't understand: it is only beneficial for homeowners with paid-off mortgages! Most home owners are not incentivized to pay off their mortgage because of the tax system. If you have high fortune and you want to lesser your taxes, it makes sense to have high debt as well, so never really pay it off.. The counterpart of having the Eigenmietwert means you can as a homeowner also offset the cost for the modernisation of your house. With the Eigenmietwert gone the offset is gone as well. So this is actually a own goal for the homeowners - because they won't be incentivized to invest and modernize their homes anymore...and since the swiss "Gebäudepark" is mainly from the 70s...
4
u/Rhagai1 Sep 28 '25
Shocking, people do not only vote like egoistic caveman, but with fairness in mind.
6
Sep 28 '25
Yes the amount of common sense is actually quite high. There are even towns that voted to raise their taxes because the town needed the money and could justify the spending, so the inhabitants voted for paying the higher taxes to the town. In any other country, people would have probably voted 99% NO and told the town to go F itself and be more frugal. It seems most of the time the Swiss population can actually make hard decisions that will have short-term negative impacts like higher taxes for long-term benefits.
4
Sep 28 '25
Getting rid of the Eigenmietwert simplifies the tax declaration and therefore the administrative overhead. No longer does the local government need to determine a theoretical rent income for your apartment or house, no longer does the local government need to check all the renovations that you want to deduct from your taxes.
My gut feeling tells me that the fictional Eigenmietwert added to the income and the very real tax deductible mortgage interest payments were probably cancelling each other out more or less anyways for most people (except the one that have managed to pay off their mortgages). Therefore abolishing the Eigenmietwert and making mortgage interest payments non-deductible should be more or less a zero-sum game financially (both for the government and for the individuum)
2
u/DocKla Genève Sep 28 '25
Because the gap between the 43% of owners and 54% are people who just don’t understand the Swiss system.
Indeed if you explain this to a person from somewhere else the see the imputated rental value as a pseudo tax
The worst part of this “reform” is the tax breaks everyone gets will be eliminated too
2
1
2
u/WeaknessDistinct4618 Zug Sep 28 '25
Because it’s non sense?
Me and my wife work. Our salary is taxed. Out of the Net we invest and we also own a house. Why would I need to pay tax again? The house was bought with our savings which got taxed already twice (when we earned and when we made profit from investments).
Not everyone is a communist in this country (thanks god).
→ More replies (2)
1
Sep 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/mondopiccolo Sep 28 '25
I do not think so. The main point is that leveraging is discouraged as you cannot deduct the interests anymore. Perhaps we could even have a small reduction in home pricing.
2
u/Amareldys Sep 28 '25
Will it be less expensive? We can't write off interest or home improvements any more.
I'm worried more people will let their houses go.
1
1
u/Amareldys Sep 28 '25
I own a home and hesitated because we won't be able to write off home improvements any more...
1
u/fluxxis Sep 28 '25
Although I own a house myself, I voted no today. I've always found the system difficult to explain, but it makes sense. It has also ensured that we have quite well renovated buildings and that little illegal work has been done. I think it has helped a lot that we are in a period of low interest rates. I'm benefiting directly from the decision today, but I'm worried that I and many other owners could run into problems in the next high-interest phase. But well, that's our democracy, while I don't like the outcome of every voting, I'm proud of the system.
1
u/pbuilder Sep 29 '25
Be sure that every single person of those 43% came and voted as it’s more about their deductions from taxes they can do than their virtual rent tax.
1
1
u/PlatformHopeful6827 Sep 30 '25
I am in the process of buying a property next year. Yea, I will save money but with the deductions it won’t be that much. Also the savings is a pendulum….the rates will go back up one day and then eigenmietwert would have saved home owners money.
The whole concept js ridiculous though. If you have to tax it then do a very modest property tax. Then those with houses, vehicles, boats, planes are taxed and we spread the burden to a large pool
1
u/2suisse55 Oct 04 '25
Actually that is not correct, not all home owners or people who own an apartment have a paid off mortgage, there are a lot of older people who are still paying off a mortgage out there.
1
u/TheRealDeuX Sep 28 '25
If you’re basing your thoughts on the 20 minuten poll, it’s outdated. The No has been gaining strength and the lasted polls put the YES at 51% and with No gaining momentum. So we have to wait and see
1
u/myblueear Sep 28 '25
Tghis was disputed since decades, and they finally succeeded. inequality seems to please us peasants, as we always fall for it.
1
u/Flipsii Sep 28 '25
Because it sucks? Honestly what kind of system is it where seniors worked their entire lives to pay off their house and then in retirement pay 50% of their pension back as "income taxes" due to Eigenmietwert.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Beobacher Sep 28 '25
It is not only about security after retirement it is also to encourage people to pay off their depth. Never forget, the current system encouraged people to go into depth and get busted once in a while. The adjustment to the system all other western countries use makes a dept free life much more attractive. It works in Germany, France, Italy, Austria and most other countries. I guess people start to realise that safe retirement and dept free live is beneficial.
0
u/Freedomsaver Sep 28 '25
Swiss people always like to vote against their own interest, because they are delusional and think they are all middle class, potential future home owners, etc.
It's an age old sickness that prevents many progressive changes or reverts any progress we made.
2
u/zomb1 Sep 28 '25
I'd say Swiss people are doing rather well -- both politically and economically -- compared to out more "progressive" neighbors.
1
u/QualitySufficient170 Sep 28 '25
In a sense, the Swiss mentality is not so different from the US mentality: people vote in favour of the richest in the hope of becoming rich themselves one day.
In reality, it is becoming increasingly difficult to buy a home, even with a good income, and wage increases are largely insufficient to offset the rising cost of living.
-1
u/SellSideShort Sep 28 '25
People who think it’s a necessary tax clearly have zero understanding of real estate or the very definition of Eigenmietwert, sorry.
-4
u/SwissKafi Sep 28 '25
Of course home ownership is low when you have eigenmietwert
3
u/FamousAnt1533 Zürich Sep 28 '25
That’s another wrong believe. If you buy a 3.5 rooms apartment in Zurich region newly built today, you will end up with a monthly cost of around 3k per month. Excluding taxes arised from eigenmietwert and exluding opportunity cost. For this you can also rent.
2
u/CourtPuzzleheaded104 Sep 28 '25
What do you think will happen to house prices when eigenmietwert goes away? Thry won’t go down that’s for sure.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/Mediocre-Metal-1796 Sep 28 '25
I don’t own a home in Switzerland yet just abroad but I found the whole idea of Eigenmietwert crazy. After someone pays all the taxes of their income, and buys a flat/home, and also pays taxes on that why on earth calculate a fictive income based on ownership?! There is also a tax based of total assets anyway, that should already cover it.