If the quotes below this meant to support the point… they don’t 
Everybody seems to argue for or against imputed rent, but haven’t seen any opinions about the proposal to finance it : special tax on secondary homes.
After all, this is what is suggested as being ‘different’ to the previous (failed) referenda on abolishing imputed rent, and it’s even the question on the referendum “Tax on secondary properties”.
– > Is it fair to slap an arbitrary special tax on secondary homes, to fund the abolishment of imputed rent elsewhere ?
Do not think it is arbitrary. In a country where getting a single residence is already a problem a tax on a 2nd residence will be more than fair. However enforcement will be the major issue.
2 Likes
A secondary residence is not a 2nd residence. It is one which is not the main residence, i.e one where you don’t live all the time.
In Geneva and Vaud, it is fairly common to rent the main home (in the city, as purchasing means commuting), but own a small holiday place chalet in Valais for ski as a secondary residence.
1 Like
But most of the mountain cantons say they don’t want taxes on the 2nd property.
Am quite aware of that. However, a holiday home is still a 2nd residence even if temporary.
1 Like
I don’t believe secondary residence owners contribute anything to their commune to pay for the infrastructure roads, lighting, sewers, sidewalks, rubbish disposal, etc. There is if they rent it, but not if they keep it for their sole use.
And is that fair?
Real estate is taxed locally, by the entity it’s part of, regardless of the owner’s residence. For example a house or apartment in Davos is taxed by Davos and Grisons. The basis is the rent earned, or (usually 70% of) the imputed rent, or a pro rata combination of the two.
Obviously that helps pay for all the infrastructure.
Secondary residence owners may actually pay more. Just an example in VS : electricity, sewers and garbage collection are taxed fully (the fixed amounts, ie not linked to consumption c 1500 chf/year typically), plus extra tax (taxe de séjour, 500-1000chf) taxed only to non-residents for simply being a non-resident. (Justification : if you went to a hotel, you have to pay taxe de séjour per night, so we will tax you that).
PS: that is the fixed costs, not taking account of what the commune receives from your income tax (tax return)
Which wouldn’t apply to a secondary residence.
?? There is income tax and wealth tax due and paid for secondary residences !
For wealth it is no different than primary residences, for income tax, you only pay tax on imputed rent, unless self-employed (The income tax on salary is only taxed in the canton-commune of primary residence). Federal direct tax on secondary residences is also calculated by the canton of primary residence, which makes the federal tax calculation on secondary homes different depending on which is the canton of primary residence (as some deductions at the federal level are equal to the cantonal ones, therefore canton-dependant).
Is it only me, or banks are really against this proposal? As a sector, they are the main beneficiaries of the current setup.
Currently predicting a near 60% yes vote. Big röstigraben split though…
2 Likes
It doesn’t look that good for either Federal vote. Double-majority required for tax vote.
In which tax year would this vote be effective? 2026 or later?
Estimates are in 2028, or later.
In theory the 2026 tax year. But the Swiss parliament has a history of dragging their feet.
Such a crazy system the Swiss have for home ownership. But typical Swiss!
Most countries have property taxation. In The USA paying 2% of market value is normal.
I don’t know of any other asset where the benefit in kind is not taxed, think Bank interest or Dividends.
1 Like