Switzerland is and remains the land of tenants. For many, the dream of owning their own home is receding further and further into the distance. Rising prices, higher interest rates and stricter mortgage regulations have made home ownership unattainable for broad sections of the population. Young families and people on middle incomes in particular are increasingly failing to overcome the hurdles of the system. Yet home ownership is much more than a status symbol. It is a form of retirement provision, a contribution to personal responsibility and stability in an increasingly uncertain time. Living in your own four walls saves costs in the long term and reduces the burden on the pension system.
The abolition of the imputed rental value is therefore not a dam break, but a necessary door opener. It puts an end to an injustice in which fictitious income is taxed that does not actually exist. The criticism that this would create “tax loopholes” falls short of the mark. It is crucial that the reform is implemented with clear and fair rules.
Will this turn Switzerland into a country of privileged owners? No, on the contrary. Only by reducing the imputed rental value will we create the conditions for more people to take the step into property ownership in the first place. The goal must be: property for the many instead of privileges for the few.
Support yes, nationalization no
The primary goal of a sensible housing policy must be the creation of suitable and affordable living space. However, the state cannot achieve this alone. Public building authorities are often cumbersome, inflexible and expensive. In cities such as Zurich, it can be seen that increasing nationalization of the housing market is leading to bottlenecks and an artificial shortage.
We need private developers who can react quickly and efficiently to the needs of the population. The task of the state is not to build itself, but to create the right framework conditions: faster approval procedures, flexible conversions and planning that allows rather than prevents innovation.
A modern instrument would be a change in the system of state housing subsidies. Away from subsidies for buildings and towards housing vouchers for people who actually need support. In this way, help can be targeted to where it is needed without distorting the market.
How much government does the real estate world still need and how much market can it tolerate? The answer is simple: the state should set frameworks, but not build walls. It should create incentives, not block them.
Looking ahead
The abolition of the imputed rental value is not an isolated step, but part of a larger development: towards more personal responsibility, fair opportunities for tenants seeking ownership and a functioning housing market based on trust and innovation, not bureaucracy.
Whether this becomes the first domino for further tax relief depends on political will. But one thing is certain: those who want to strengthen people in their own four walls are strengthening the foundations of our country.
