Let us briefly recall that a private real estate investor pays, on the one hand, the property tax and, on the other hand, a supplement to the tax of natural persons. For example, for an uncompromising cadastral income of 1000 euros, the full owner or the usufructuary will have to pay between 950 and 1,600 euros in taxes this year, depending on the total of his income.
Multipropers could build up a real estate assets with a lower taxation.
Until 2024, the multiple owners could neutralize this second taxation by the interest they had paid on the credits funding their buildings. They could build up a real estate assets with a lower taxation. Well or badly, it was an opportunity. Some bought goods over their reimbursements. Investments in renovation, rents, any discounts to new tenants took into account this non-bank non-bank.
Three lessons
Seeking to plug a few financial holes from the federal state that needs it, the coalition supporting the Arizona government wishes to remove this deduction from banking interests. This measure will not only strike the credit to come but also, except last minute amendment and from 2025, the current credits. The Council of State has also moved in recent days.
The latest tax advantage for the benefit of “multi -owners” has just disappeared: “This will exacerbate the current shortage of housing”
Everyone will approve or not the opportunity of this measure from which we learn three lessons.
The first is that the State is on a measure that taxpayers rightly thought of the time of their loan. Refusing them the deduction breaks an agreement, further reduces confidence.
The second is that the non-deductibility of interest on mortgage credits will increase the cost of targeted investments, will reduce its profitability, sometimes even feasibility.
Finally, this may make a few letters of nobility to real estate in society.
The new tenants’ right
On the other hand, he will not have escaped any reader that rents are now legally supervised in Brussels-Capital, for such purposes that two Eurocrats, whose revenues are not imagined, have complained to the joint rental commission of the amount of their rent. This is the new law of tenants when the housing rent exceeds the median rent in the neighborhood by 20 %.
Two Eurocrats, who consider paying too high rent to Etterbeek, attack the owner: “From the big one”
However, the very simplistic assessment grid which dates from 2018 does not leave room for criteria that can influence the up -to -date rent: the standing of the accommodation, the quality of the materials, a heat pump, hyper insulating chassis … All this has a significant cost, whose owners must take into account in their investment so that it is not at a loss. It is by adapting the rent to the market that they do.
What is shocking that a long-term high-end high-end is reflected in a higher rent, even more than 20%, than the median?
What is shocking that a long-term high-end high-end is reflected in a higher rent, even more than 20 %, than the median? Everyone will be able to realize, on the Internet page allowing the calculation, the simplicity of the reasoning.
Taken alone, this limitation of rents on the rise, with the ban on the cost of investments in rents, will rule out some real estate investors in Brussels. Not to mention the risks and costs of any legal proceedings that the region now puts on the shoulders of investors when the tenants go to court. This provided that this regulation was confirmed, since the real estate sector has decided to attack in court.
Three ways of improvement
Each of these two measures taken separately will have a negative effect on the energy and functional level of the oldest Brussels housing. When a lease ends after 18 years or that a owner decides to improve it, is it not normal for him to recover his investment?
Together, these measures will put real estate profitability under pressure, between the jaws of the tax and regulatory vice.
Since it is more constructive to propose a remedy to the disease than to stop at criticism of anachronistic measures, here are three avenues for improving the situation.
First, it is unworthy of a modern democratic state that it changes the rules of the game during the game. If the choice of no longer allowing the imputation of banking interests on real estate income is assumed, intellectual honesty requires it to do so only on new files, certainly not for the year and current credits.
The well-being of the population and the improvement of the housing stock go hand in hand, they go through positive and non-coercive public authorities, being aware of economic constraints.
Then on the side of the Brussels-Capital Region, which may one day have a government, it will have to be less dogmatic, more precise and practical, by reviewing its ideological model for calculating rents: it would be necessary at least comfort criteria, renovations, year of construction … We can not see the leg of property owners in the belt in place.
Finally, rather than making decisions that will degrade the quality of the housing stock, why not aim for the development of the economy and average income per person in Brussels? The goal should be that the inhabitants live in more comfortable accommodation even if more expensive. The well-being of the population and the improvement of the housing stock go hand in hand, they go through positive and non-coercive public authorities, being aware of economic constraints.
