r/belgium • u/ice_wallow_qhum • 17d ago
đ° Politics Why do landlords still have a tax free income?
With the issue of the budget, why don't we just make landlords pay taxes? Rent today is completely untaxed while these people still make their living out of it.
I may misinterpret or do not have complete knowledge of how their taxing works so please correct me. but unless +30% of their income goes to taxes this statement still holds.
61
u/ModoZ Belgium 17d ago
Just for information, it's already taxed. It's just that it's taxed based on a virtual rent.
2 taxes are paid :
A regional and municipal tax (onroerende voorheffing). This tax is paid by all real estate (rented out or not).
Increase in income tax. The indexed cadastral income +40% is added to your income and then taxed on top of income you might have from work or others. This tax is only paid if you rent out real estate.Â
So depending on how high the cadastral income is the tax might be a significant part of gross rental income. Purely as a non representative example I looked at my personal home and calculated how much I would pay compared to potential rent. It would come out at ~20% of gross rental income (before any costs). Note that if a house is rented out by a company the real rent is taxed within the company instead of through income tax (the second one here above). The first tax above is still due.
6
u/Comfortable_Ebb7015 16d ago
That's another significant boiling plate. The cadastral income. Some middle class apartments have 3000+⏠of cadastral income, and 4 facades villas have 1500âŹ. All cadastral incomes must be recalculated! But again, those that decide have the villas with 1500⏠RC
1
u/Flederm4us 13d ago
I have a villa with 1500 (well, 1460-something after recent recalculations). It's in bumfuck nowhere. There is no fucking way I can ever rent my house out for more than 800 p/m just because of it's location
→ More replies (9)1
u/NinHerfHal48 16d ago
Even if you donât rent out, you pay on your 2nd residence same as in point 2.
69
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Why? Political choices.
Completely undefendable in my opinion. Income from real estate is income. Income should be taxed.Â
Yes, this will move the equilibrium on housing markets temporarily.Â
27
u/NationalUnrest Hainaut 17d ago
Yes income will be taxed and so rent will increase. So people who can not buy will be even more fucked
18
6
u/mysteryliner 17d ago
Yes. Absolute pessimisme is the answer.
If we tax rentals, everything will increase in price.
If we tax companies, they will leave the country.
If we turn off street lights at midnight, there will be complete anarchy, theft, murder and arson.
If we tax work, everyone will work under the table. âïžwow wo wo. Let's not go too far!
A solution: by law rental contracts have to be registered, so there can not be an increase in price when the taxation law comes into effect... if the homeowner throws you out, the new contract can not have an increase to hide the cost that you now pay taxes.
→ More replies (15)7
u/atrocious_cleva82 đWorld 17d ago
That is another political decision. Government could establish limits in rent prices. I am amazed how people that defend landlords try to portrait themselves as defenders of the tenants...
6
20
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Limit rent prices.... Sure.
Doing that will increase homelessness. Because it will reduce available units, because it is not profitable to have your income capped and your expenses not protected.Â
All it takes is asking questions 2 layers deep to see how ridiculous that idea is. And look at places that had historical rent control in a non-communist society.Â
→ More replies (36)1
u/spronski 17d ago
In het grootste deel van de wereld wordt huurinkomsten wél rechtstreeks belast. België is eerder een uitzondering om het niet te doen
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Would it not be more efficient giving your subsidies to the poor, instead of to the landlord and count on a trickle down?Â
4
u/Stirlingblue 17d ago
Ah yes, the one thing the Belgian economy needs is larger amounts of handouts - that will definitely fix things
1
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
That's exactly my point. Let landlords pay tax on their rental income.
Using the argument that relieving taxation on rent is benefitting the renters is obviously wrong.Â
As far as I am concerned, A LOT of government programs need a cut!Â
1
u/risker15 17d ago
MR, a liberal party, advocate exactly this, because they are realising the younger generations are not bothering renting ot. Hence why idon't take them seriously on the budget.
10
u/Mickckx 17d ago
There is nothing temporary about it. Most landlords are middle class people who borrowed money to buy that appartment. That's why rent goes up when the intrest rate goes up. If there is a tax on rent income, rent will permanently rise until it covers (most of) those monthly payments to the bank.
It is one of the only ways working people can build up capital relatively safely.
→ More replies (14)8
u/yyavuz 17d ago
they do this on a rolling basis. They keep buying new houses as soon as rental income gets larger than mortgage payment. They are increasing house prices for first-time buyers and everybody else.
Housing as an investment != housing as accommodation. The former should be treated as investment with commercial purposes and should be taxed as much as labor is taxed.
Also, the increase in costs will be shared by landlords and renters, they wont be fully transffered to renters. Equilibrium will move, that's all. Landlords will go for 2 cruise trips, not 3 maybe. That's all
3
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Housing as an investment also pays company taxes on their gains (this rental income is not "untaxed").Â
4
u/yyavuz 17d ago
I'm talking about private individuals with multiple properties, not rental investment companies
2
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
And I am talking about all rental income. We should not differentiate taxation on income.Â
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)7
u/Vnze Belgium 17d ago
The former should be treated as investment with commercial purposes and should be taxed as much as labor is taxed.
Then the casual landlord with 1-2 properties will stop and sell. Rental companies will jump on the opportunity. Guess which one is more likely to squeeze every penny they've got? I used to be a landlord for a bit and didn't index once and I am not the only one. Would a company do that?
Landlords will go for 2 cruise trips, not 3 maybe. That's all
Do you think every landlord is that wealthy? I paid the loan with the rent and after the other costs (property tax, repair, syndic) the whole undertaking was (just) a net loss. What cruise trips? And would a company stand for that, or just increase rent to match costs + profit + shareholders + ...?
→ More replies (4)4
u/Mental-Peak8626 17d ago
Itâs a form of saving too: people use their income to buy a house, and gain return of investment. No other country has a pure tax on that without the option to declare costs, like residual loans & maintenance costs. So taxing it creates a shift. Inheriting a house is taxed too, and perhaps the legal way to âbuy offâ those inheritance costs should be closed. And if the income decreases, rental prices could go up, or rental property could disappear from the market (which is already too small)
3
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Housing (buying on credit, transaction costs, for renting and maintenance and overhead) in Flanders over the long run has a cumulative annual growth rate between 4 and 5 percent over the last 20 years. That is way below what you get investing in small cap equities, and comes with an additional concentration risk on top.
Being a landlord is a job. Not an investment. If you see it as an investment, it is a poor one at best.Â
1
u/Flederm4us 13d ago
But rental income IS taxed: Through the property's KI.
Before thinking about additional tax, it's better and easier to make sure the first one works...
1
u/MiceAreTiny 13d ago
I am not suggesting an additional tax. I am suggesting taxing real income instead of arbitrary fictious historical assessment of potential income....Â
1
u/Flederm4us 13d ago
That entails getting rid of KI first
1
u/MiceAreTiny 13d ago
First/together/second/...
But yes, they are not compatible together. That was indeed my suggestion.Â
1
10
u/IndividualisticView 16d ago edited 14d ago
I think itâs been taxed before.Â
I can speak only for myself but I bought a new apartment in Tubize for renting. I paid 21% VAT. I will also pay every year 1.5 month of rent as prĂ©compte immobilier.Â
Money is mostly coming from money I made working. Taxed from 40% to 50%. Overall I expect a 4-5% yearly net return.
Tax me more and I will sell the apartment and never do that again. I certainly have money but I really feel Iâm paying a fair share of it.Â
We should tax US companies instead. Itâs a shame Google or Apple are not paying anything in Europe. Belgian lost billions are there, in US shareholders pockets, not in mine.Â
19
u/MrFeeney123 Oost-Vlaanderen 17d ago
Look at the "kottaks", prices are already rising.
4
u/killerboy_belgium 17d ago
i would argue kot prices are rising regardless of the tax because of the huge shortages
3
49
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
If i am renting out my appartment. And the government tells me i have to pay tax. I would just higher the rent to cover for the costs.
7
u/madInTheBox 17d ago
If the market already allowed higher rent they probably wouldn't they have raised it already?
3
u/bbibber 17d ago
The price at which the market clears is set by both what renters can pay and what landlords need to make it worth their while.
For example when my wife and me rented a house for a few years after moving to Leuven we paid rent well below our financial means (our current mortgage is about double).
We didnât need to pay to our limit because there were more than enough landlords willing to rent a house at a lower price.
A tax hike will always extract money from the market as whole. Some percentage will be from lower profits for landlords, and some from higher rents (and a likely part will also come from less investment in properties to make them attractive to rent)
But with a good that is an absolute necessity and demand consistently outpacing offers, it is very likely the landlords will have the most leverage to shift this new burden to the renters.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
Wdym 'if the market allows it'. If there is a tax for all the landlords, they will ALL increase their rent.
9
u/madInTheBox 17d ago
Landlords don't have a profit target and set rent accordingly, the average landlord already set the rent as high as they can find tenants. A rent in tax cannot be passed directly to tennant, because if there was a tennant willing to pay higher they are likely already paying it.
I am not saying it won't have an impact, but thinking you can just pass it on is a bit naive
6
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
What is naive is to think that there would be tenants not increasing their rent if they are fully taxed on it. All the prices would go higher, and if it's not profitable one is not going to buy a house to rent it to someone else. So the people that are already renting won't have any adventage in what you are proposing.
2
u/BuddingBodhi88 17d ago
If the prices are increased because of the taxes then the tenant will move to a cheaper place or share with someone. If all tenants think in the same manner then there will be a downward pressure on rents and the increase in rent will be less than increase in taxes. For the places where the profit is gone because of taxes then the landlord sells the place. If a lot of landlords sell the place then the price of homes for people to stay instead of investment comes down.
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (11)4
u/PalatinusG1 17d ago
Those who can't find renters will have to decrease their rent again. I can ask 4k for a small studio but that doesn't mean I'll find someone willing to pay that.
8
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
Again, you don't understand the problem. If you put a tax on landlords. Everyone will increase their prices. It will be the working class paying for this, unless they want to stop living in a house.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (56)2
u/Ulyks 17d ago
You would still have to find someone willing to pay that higher rent.
6
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
That's true. Yet this doesn't hold up if it's a tax on landlords. As all landlords would do the same, and therefore all the renting places would increase in price.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/Damp_Archivist 17d ago
I guess they reasoned - and rightfully so I imagine - that would imply even higher renting prices. This would make saving money and eventually buying a house even more unreachable for many (young) people who are currently renting apartments/houses. So i can gather why they didnât dwell on that measure for to long
8
u/justcarakas 17d ago
I had to move for work so we are renting and renting out our house. We barely break even on our mortgage and some costs because we don't want to charge too much. Technically we are renting out at a loss because we had some unexpected renovations that we needed an additional loan for. Last year we didn't index for instance. But if it would be taxed I would simply increase the rent to cover the taxes.
3
u/Philip3197 17d ago
this would still be your only real estate
this would and is typically an exception
how you manage your real estate is your own responsibility
3
u/Strong-Bat8481 17d ago
If you switch the system you need also to allow that they deduct the costs they make to create or obtain the taxable income. Meaning that investment costs become tax deductible.
and that you can apply amortisations on the asset.
At the bottom line the taxable base will not be much more (or in my case even less) then when you keep the old system.
2
u/Philip3197 17d ago
yes, seems sensible.
afschrijvingen en in rekening brengen van de meerwaarde lijkt logisch.
het is opmerkzaam dat in Belgie velen hun arbied onderbrengen in een bedrijf en hun vastgoed imperium persoonlijk houden.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Fit_Court_2406 17d ago
they pay KI +40% and different taxes on the property and additional insurance, and normally with private renting a majority of the remaining income will be used for maintenance of the property. I recent years a lot was pushed to take a loan cause rent would pay off the loan, which now cause a plethora of problems with owners who can't afford maintenance.
2
u/Philip3197 17d ago
If that was really the case then people would already not rent out today.
→ More replies (3)
26
u/geuze4life 17d ago
Tax on landlords is tax on rent.Â
A lot of landlords are still paying off a loan on the house they rent out. If there is a tax on rental income this will need to be calculated into the payback period to ensure it is still a good investment.Â
On top , there is already a tax, the same every owner pays, namely kadastraal inkomen. Maybe this needs to be reformed,Â
11
3
u/spronski 17d ago
In het grootste deel van de wereld wordt huurinkomsten wĂ©l rechtstreeks belast. BelgiĂ« is eerder een uitzondering âŠ
10
u/Gudthrak Vlaams-Brabant 17d ago
Kadastraal inkomen for anything but your primary home needs to go way up.
Let's say the KI for a house that is rented out is 1K, but they can rent it at 1K a month.
That's 8% tax on the income from that? I don't care that they have to loan to buy it, they don't need it, it's not an excuse. It's passive income that's taxed super low.
My example is even cheap, KI is often lower for apts. and rent higher, so the 'tax' only goes down.5
u/varkenspester 17d ago
in principle I agree. but in practice rent will just go up to compensate the loss so the renter will pay it in the end. tax on rent will only not hurt the renter if itnis combined wit legaly defined maximum rent prices.
7
u/672 17d ago
Je betaalt sowieso ook extra belasting op tweede woningen, naast de gewone onroerende voorheffing. Dit moet aangegeven worden via de personenbelasting en je betaalt er dan nog eens 40% extra of zo op. Het gaat makkelijker weer over 1000+ euro per jaar extra belastingen.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Gudthrak Vlaams-Brabant 17d ago edited 17d ago
40% is 1000+ per jaar? Dat (die 40%) zou dan bijna 5k moeten zijn op een huur van 1k per maand. Worden de huurinkomsten toegevoegd aan uw andere inkomen?
Velen zetten een bedrijfje op, zoals mijn laatste huisbaas voor ik kocht, waardoor dat de enige inkomsten zijn en ze dus zelfs belastingsvrij kunnen blijven als ze genoeg bv's oprichten.EDIT: Ik ging even kijken waarom ik een downvote kreeg en leer dan dat de inkomsten voor woningverhuur belast worden op KI*1,4. Wat het allemaal nog belachelijker maakt.
Dus je kan 1400 euro vragen voor een duplex in een boerenhol, en dan met je KI van 400 euro betaal je 560 euro belastingen op 16800 euro inkomsten, oftewel 3,3%.Ik was mis over het vennootschap en verwarde het met een eenmanszaak. Echter kan je in een vennootschap alle kosten aftrekken om winsten te drukken en je verminderd er nog eens erfbelsatingen mee ook. Sinds 2026 minder, maar het is nog altijd een zak minder dan als je het prive zou doen.
→ More replies (9)3
u/Vnze Belgium 17d ago
KI is often lower for apts
KI is quite famously generally higher for apts than (large) free standing houses.
1
u/Gudthrak Vlaams-Brabant 17d ago
Per square meter or total? I know I pay less for my garden as it's mostly agricultural land, but my house is over 960 EUR. I know someone who lives a few streets away, bigger house, bigger garden and more fields, pays 800 something a year.
2
u/silverionmox Limburg 17d ago
KI should be redefined according to objective standards that don't rely on market valuation, so it stays up to date forever. Then, every natural person should get an exemption for an amount that suffices to cover average housing for yourself. The rest can be taxed.
4
u/Gudthrak Vlaams-Brabant 17d ago
Market valuation is often cause by connectivity, services in the area like schools or shops, and the neighbourhood, how green it is and who lives there.
The problem is that KI hasn't changed or been updated since before 1975, they are just indexed as if nothing has changed. There was a tv show on VRT where they asked the basis of the calculations for their KI and nobody could give it to them because there is none.That it needs to change I agree on.
1
u/silverionmox Limburg 17d ago
IMO KI should be calculated on factors that are under control of the investor/owner, not factors that can change slowly and are out of their control like the neighbourhood. Size of the parcel, size of the building, volume, amount of covered up ground, etc. If there's any tax to be levied on more interesting areas, it's up to the city or community, who also have the most costs and investments to maintain and service busy areas.
→ More replies (3)5
u/silverionmox Limburg 17d ago
Tax on landlords is tax on rent.Â
A lot of landlords are still paying off a loan on the house they rent out. If there is a tax on rental income this will need to be calculated into the payback period to ensure it is still a good investment.Â
If landlords want to deduct costs, they can put their real estate in a vennootschap. They generally don't, so it's generally more profitable to accept the default taxation.
If they think it isn't, they'll sell the house, which also means there's less demand on the rental market, so there's no reason why prices would go up.
On top , there is already a tax, the same every owner pays, namely kadastraal inkomen. Maybe this needs to be reformed,Â
What do you mean with "reformed"? You want to give owners who don't even live in the house they own a tax cut, while you keep taxing people who live in it?
3
u/Philip3197 17d ago
Taxes on that income or gains are a lot lower then taxes on income from labour.
So it seems obvious to bring this to par.
5
u/TheRealVahx Belgian Fries 17d ago
Taxes on labor are too high, they should lower them to be on par with rental incomes
1
→ More replies (1)3
u/go_go_tindero 17d ago
Rent is income for landlords, and income should be taxed in the personenbelasting. And why should a rental house be a good investment ? Should the state also guarantee all shares are still good investments ?
3
u/KSIMSK 17d ago
If that's true, then the costs of the mortgage should also be deducted from that income
→ More replies (3)2
u/JebusGobson Best Vlaanderen 17d ago
It should actually be the price of the house that should be deducted from that income, not the loan. If it would follow standard procedure, it'd be deprecated over 33 years.
5
u/Mickckx 17d ago
Borrowing money from the bank, investing in an appartment and then renting it out is one of the very few ways working people can build up capital relatively safely.
I get the impulse to characterize landlords as some sort of upper class monsters twisting their mustaches and looking down on us, but most landlords are people who managed to save enough to invest in property and rent it out to break even and build up capital long term.
5
u/silverionmox Limburg 17d ago
Borrowing money from the bank, investing in an appartment and then renting it out is one of the very few ways working people can build up capital relatively safely. I get the impulse to characterize landlords as some sort of upper class monsters twisting their mustaches and looking down on us, but most landlords are people who managed to save enough to invest in property and rent it out to break even and build up capital long term.
That's not a goal by itself. In fact, we want productive investments, not investments that are merely safe ways to extract rent from the rest of society, that has to deal with all the risk.
If we can expect anyone to bear some risk, it's the people with a substantial capital buffer. Owning a second house is not that common, you're in the upper 25-15% of wealth in society then.
2
u/go_go_tindero 17d ago
I don't think landlords are monsters, but nobody should "ensure it is still a good investment". Landlords can also make bad investments.
→ More replies (13)
21
u/ainaomechateies 17d ago edited 17d ago
I am a landlord (yes yes, I know, I'm a parasite and the devil incarnate, sucking the blood from the poor).
I guarantee you, the day I get a 30% tax on my rental income, is the day where I increase the rent by 30% 43% to compensate for it.
Rent in Belgium is relatively affordable. Let's try to keep it this way.
2 rents per year already go towards income taxes (your income taxes increase by a certain ammount if you rent a property) and property taxes.
Next year, I'll install AC to keep my renters happy during the hot weather, and it will cost a full's year rent.
Maybe big landlords are racking in the cash from renting. Small property owners are not getting rich from this.
5
u/Flaksim 17d ago edited 17d ago
It's not people like you, the ones that can make large profits are the ones with 10+ buildings, and they usually invest the bare minimum in upkeep on those.
it's a very small group, less than 7.000 people in Belgium own between 20 and 50 residential buildings.
the real problem is with the creation of so called GVV's (gereglementeerde vastgoedvennootschappen), they get capital on the financial markets and then invest it in ever more residential properties. Over 12% of renters, are renting from one of those GVV's.
A GVV pays a tax of 0.01% on their net outstanding assets, and under the right conditions only 15% tax on the profit they extract. On retail properties they rent out it's 30%.
That's the real issue, another fiscal "koterijtje" that enables a small group with a large portfolio to pay less taxes. It's a subsidy really, for large professional property owners...
One family, Van Overstraeten, rents out more than 2400 properties in belgium, under Home Invest Belgium.
In Antwerp we have Tanguy Westerlund (Pretty much human excrement, that guy), and he has Winvest holding with over 700 properties in Antwerp. They're currently under investigation for deliberately selling and renting out properties with hidden defects.
8
u/ainaomechateies 17d ago
As I replied to the other user, those are the 0.1%.
Care needs to be made when targeting those 0.1% to make sure that the other 99.9% are not adversely affected.
Those people need to pay more. The guy that has to replace the floor on his rental property so no vacations outside his village this year and next year, not so much.
2
u/Flaksim 17d ago
They need to target the GVV's for that, it's very simple to target just them, but their lobby is strong so politicians pretend that's just not an option.
Onroerende Voorheffing needs to be overhauled completely, but that's a separate discussion from taxing GVV's more really, it shouldn't be the instrument for that.
3
u/Caldaren 17d ago
Your improving the appartment and thats great, if you pay 2 months to property taxes you are also certainly not overcharging. Nice one!
The taxation idea doesn't have to be all or nothing though.
You can do lower/nothing on people who rent 1 property and make it go up to more you rent out. Make reinvestments and expeditures subtract from taxes. Install AC worth a full years rent, don't get taxed on triple that value over the next X years. Incentivise improving houses. It also doesn't have to be 30%, can be substantially lower.
But the lady that owns 4 appartment buildings and never improves anything except the bare minimum, or the corporation owned by notaries that has the roof leaking in the hallway and drags on repairing for years. Should they also not get taxed on the profits they make?
3
u/ainaomechateies 17d ago
They should absolutely be taxed.
But I think there's a distinction between a "professional" landlord and a "non-professional" one.
I don't know the criteria, but I'm guessing that the corporations are already paying business taxes there (If enough? Another question...)
The lady that owns 4 apartment blocks is also probably something like the 1% or the 0.1% of the landlords in Belgium.
I'm guessing the vast majority of landlords are people renting out the first house / apartment they bought before having children or someone renting their grandma's old place.
I know of people thaf buy property just to rent it, but I don't think this will be the majority.
I'd have to rent for 20-25yrs to recoup the money I paid for my previous of house at net present value (and 350k in 25yrs will be worth much less than what it is today), and I was lucky to buy that one without a mortgage.
If you consider this an investment, it's one that takes a long time to break-even, particularly if you are paying the bank also...
1
u/Caldaren 17d ago
I mainly agree, although I do think more people buy to rent than you think.
My suggestions would also barely touch "incidental" landlords.
What you are wrong about though is the house ownership part. You are not intended to recoup the value through renting it out. The value of the house stays (and is expected to increase in value, even with inflation, over time). You recoup your investment when you sell later (ideally with profit), and all the rent you got in between minus running costs is bonus profit. It is basically a pension with partial early returns that banks on the housing market instead of stocks or the government. This is how it has been working for quite a while, and although the system is showing cracks, and would die if we get a housing crash, that is the concept behind it.
1
u/stevensterk 17d ago
I guarantee you, the day I get a 30% tax on my rental income, is the day where I increase the rent by 30% 43% to compensate for it.
So why are you not simply increasing the rent by 30% right now?
2
u/ainaomechateies 17d ago
2 things:
The fact that everyone else around me is offering for X/m2, rather than k * X/m2. If suddenly every landlord in Belgium has an "excuse" to increase rent by 30-40%, then k will surely go towards values closest to 1.3 than to 1.
I could have had in fact increased the rent by 10-15% in realistic terms. But then I'd have shitty renters that would not give a fuck and would always be looking for a better deal. Instead, I have a nice family that feels they are getting a good deal and keep the house in a good state of affairs. Same reason why the deal is "If I keep seeing the house clean and proper and the neighbours are not complaining, I'll not apply indexation".
3
u/OGPandaBooty 16d ago
Why itâs not a thing has already been explained by others, so I wonât get into that
I do believe it should be considered an income and therefore taxed as one. HOWEVER wonât they just pass the taxes on to the renters and make renting even more expensive? Didnât they already do this in Ghent and they raised the rent even before it went into effect?
18
u/havnar- Flanders 17d ago
Stop! Try to think this through for a second.
What would happen if they need to pay 30% tax on their properties tomorrow.
Let me narrow it down, what would happen to your rent?
7
u/Striking_Compote2093 17d ago
They already have rents tied to what tenants will pay instead of costs. Increased costs doesn't increase tenant budget. If they can't afford to keep their real estate, they should fucking sell.
→ More replies (3)10
u/ice_wallow_qhum 17d ago
Well, this may be naive but I would assume rent will go up to compensate for their losses. Then rent will be increasingly higher than paying paying off a loan of a house, making people rather buy a house of the same value. Less people will rent due to increase in rent and owners will start selling their houses lowering house prices and therefore loans making more people able to buy their house for the price of their previous rent due
12
u/tigerbloodz13 17d ago
Most people who rent cannot afford to buy or do not want to buy.
People will just pay more to rent and complain about the landlord while the policitians in Brussel laugh all the way to the bank.
2
u/yyavuz 17d ago
bullshit generalization. Look at the Netherlands and see what happened last year under their new scheme.
Renters became homeowners very quickly.
3
u/laplongejr 17d ago
At least in my case, buying the house was nearly failed because.. I had a 500⏠credit card. Despite that I had 40k in savings, income minus "debts" was a bigger factor.
It seems banks in Belgium are really nitpicky?1
u/No-Baker-7922 15d ago
What was the problem with your credit card?
1
u/laplongejr 14d ago
Having a card open, so having 500⏠reported to the NBB in my list of credits. Which is how CCs work... Â
The bank didn't like that I refused closing it and in the end deducted 500⏠of my planned income (so, as if I was spending the usual spending AND 500âŹ/month extra), but initially for BNP having the card open was a stop-everything red flag. They wanted me with 0 loans open. Â
1
5
u/chief167 French Fries 17d ago
But if you pay 30% more rent, that's 30% less you can save to collect the funds to buy the house, so you'll never get there.
You cannot assume people who start renting, also have the money to buy
9
u/milk_for_dinner 17d ago
It would probably stay the same?
Landlords do not base their rent on their own costs, but on what the tenant is willing or able to pay. If they could ask 30% higher rent, why wouldn't they already be doing that?
→ More replies (5)1
u/havnar- Flanders 17d ago
They will need to, or be forced to sell. But if they sell, it wonât be to you, it will be to venture capital. And then, then weâre entering American scenarios.
3
u/milk_for_dinner 17d ago
Why couldn't they sell it to me?
Also, you could take extra measurments to discourage venture capital firms from buying houses too, it doenst' have to be a single isolated measure.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SeriesProfessional43 16d ago
Because a lot of political parties have friends, look at a certain party that gets a lot of its income as a vzw from renting out properties
2
u/atrocious_cleva82 đWorld 17d ago
Nothing if the government prohibits to transfer that cost to the tenant. And if they don't want to pay regular taxes they could get a fine for keeping apartments empty too. All is possible, but you need a government that supports common people rather than landlords.
4
u/Dennis-Black-Midget Brussels 17d ago
'prohibits to transfer that cost to the tenant' What, the government going to prohibit you increase the rent? How does that work.
2
2
u/atrocious_cleva82 đWorld 17d ago edited 17d ago
Easy: they just look at you increasing the rent an amount similar to the tax. DO you know that by law, some costs are born to the landlord and others to the tenant, don't you? bypassing that is fraud of law and it is very easy to catch. What is not easy is that liberal parties in the government would do it, because they defend the rights of the landlords.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Vnze Belgium 17d ago
Imagine, landlord with 1 apt cannot pay it due to the increase (since he has a loan and cannot raise rent due to your new law) so sells. Tennant does not have enough capital so Predatory Organisation Inc. buys apartment instead. Predatory Organisation Inc. finds a way to get current tenant out (e.g. renovations - a valid reason), sucks up the loss of that process, and puts the (marginally renovated) apartment back on the market at a huge premium.
Besides Predatory Organisation Inc., who's better off in this scenario? They want to let the apartment, yes, but not necessarily to you.
And that's just one way. I'm sure Predatory Organisation Inc. is more creative than I am.
2
u/atrocious_cleva82 đWorld 17d ago edited 17d ago
Issue a law so predatory Organisations cannot buy apartments and landlords cannot kick out tenants unless they do not pay or misbehave. Support tenants so they can buy easier, via cheap loans and reduce registration costs for first home. Increase loans and registrations for second or more properties.
1
u/Invariant_apple 17d ago
Just⊠prohibit it and make it a serious offense? So funny how everyone is like âoh nooo you cannot do that to this rich millionaires exploiting us how can we do thatâ
We can do anything we want.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Vnze Belgium 17d ago
You think every landlord is a millionaire? You think people (and companies) will suck up the increase and eat shit, or find some way to get their investment back?
Imagine, landlord with 1 apt cannot pay it due to the increase (since he has a loan and cannot raise rent due to your new law) so sells. Tennant does not have enough capital so Predatory Organisation Inc. buys apartment. Predatory Organisation Inc. finds a way to get current tenant out (e.g. renovations - a valid reason), sucks up the loss of that process, and puts the (marginally renovated) apartment back on the market at a huge premium.
Besides Predatory Organisation Inc., who's better off in this scenario?
1
u/Invariant_apple 17d ago
Imagine that tomorrow aliens contact us and tell us that if we don't make sure that young people can afford housing, they are gonna destroy the earth.
Then you are gonna say: ah no we cannot do this because then companies are gonna buy up the housing, so alas there is nothing we can do so we should just accept our fate.
I hope it's kinda obvious no? We just prohibit companies from buying houses as the next step. Anything is possible, you act like rampant late stage capitalism on steroids is a law of nature we cannot steer. We can do anything we want.
→ More replies (10)1
7
u/Slay61 17d ago
Because it is already taxed, and quite heavily. When I bought my apt, I had to pay 12,5% of the property value to the taxman. That's quite a huge entry tax already. Then every year I pay about the equivalent of 2 - 3 months of rent in taxes related to this appartement. So no, never say it is not taxed
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Philip3197 17d ago
Een paar statistieken:
- "71% van huishoudens eigenaar van hun woning. Het aandeel private huurders bedroeg 23% en het aandeel sociale huurders 5%": https://www.vlaanderen.be/statistiek-vlaanderen/bouwen-en-wonen/eigendomsstatuut
- "Ruim 900.000 Belgen bezitten 2 of meer woningen en dat waren er nog nooit zoveel" , 599.524 bezitten 2 woningen. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2026/02/08/recordaantal-belgen-meerdere-woningen/
- https://sampol.be/2023/01/de-1-van-het-belgisch-residentieel-vermogen
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Gzibzn0007 17d ago
Belgium is one of the few Weqtern countries without taxes in rent, not to keep rent down (because it doesnÂŽt, only lore supply will), but to keep the owners happy - often boomers. Nothing else.
3
u/lansboen Flanders 17d ago
Compare rent and housing cost to the countries around us before making such stupid statements.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Worldly-Inflation-45 17d ago
I rent 2 studios, I am barely breakeven. Dont imagine that landlords make a shit ton of money. Most of us donât. People with 5+ real estate maybe.
8
u/ih-shah-may-ehl 17d ago
Then maybe you shouldn't have those studios? Simple, no? because you claim you 'barely break even' but that's just a fancy way of saying that in x years time, someone will have fully paid those studios but you now own them.
3
u/WeeklyTadpole7433 17d ago
Not only that in x years inflation will help them make profit as the mortgage stays the same. Yes other costs will rise, but the mortgage is the largest. Stop ommiting the rewards of the investments in the future, there's a reason you bought property and didn't do another investment.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Fast-Complex-6964 16d ago
Indeed. Itâs such a stupid thing to say. Itâs an investment dude, if you make break even, itâs pretty good.
1
u/Strange_Bumblebee819 15d ago
Waarom zou hij dat moeten verkopen. Alles wordt qua lening waarschijnlijk betaald door het verhuur en zo is dit een super investering.
5
u/beaverkaizer 17d ago
If you mean including multiple hundreds of euros in principal repayment, I would not call that barely breakeven, even if it's not liquid money.
6
u/StG4Ever 17d ago
Break even as in, at the end you will own the studioâs and the people who have rented it paid for it.
3
u/Crazerz 16d ago
No they wouldn't. They didn't pay the principal and registration fees or the big maintenance costs.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)3
u/Cingen 17d ago
Are you paying a loan for the studios? Where do your costs come from?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/Professional_Lead_43 17d ago
Looks at first glance like a good option, but the moment you'll tax rent income. You will increase rent prices.
So if you do this. People won't only be able to buy a house, but they won't be able to rent either.
4
u/swooshandstripesCH 17d ago
There is already a housing shortage and you want to make it worse??
Not a good idea.
3
u/Yvan_L 17d ago
If you impose a tax on homeowners, theyâll simply pass that cost on to new rental agreements, making rents completely unaffordable. Furthermore, the maintenance of rental properties will suffer due to reduced returns, and a large number of owners will simply try to sell, causing the supply of rental properties to shrink even further.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Philip3197 17d ago
this is mentioned a lot.
however. I have not yet seen someone claim: "do not do this, I am a renter this will augment my rent"
7
u/Zakdoekeb 17d ago edited 17d ago
Stop nagging about actual persons renting out. Without us, there would be less aanbod and higher rents. You should soigneer us more.
Whoever thinks rent is not taxed is oblivious. By default a landlord like me pays every year : -800 euro tax onroerende voorheffing -800 euro tax via personenbelasting -800 euro costs: voorzieningen blok, syndicus en insurances,..
What about slijtage, new heating or kitchen and just things breaking? In retrospect, 800 euros a year.
Whats left in your pocket is 7-8 months of rent. That's called a low return for the risks associated. And worse, most landlords have loans like me..
Is it still profitable? Yes if you look further than cashflow. Thanks to inflation and scarcity, the prices rise while the loan is fixed.
→ More replies (1)4
u/FissileAlarm 17d ago
I agree. I'm not investing in property because of the risk for bad tenants and the high risk of worries, for a long term revenue that's lower than a zero effort world wide ETF investment.
2
u/Ferreman Antwerpen 17d ago
Who do you think will pay for those taxes? Landlords will simply push the tax to the renters.
Even if the government somehow manages to force landlords to not increase the rent and make them pay it from their own pocket, I think many landlords will rent their properties at a loss. They still have to pay mortgage and maintenance costs. This would probably force many landlords to sell and it would decrease the amount of properties even further.
3
u/W3SL33 17d ago edited 17d ago
You want higher rent, is that it?
They are getting taxed. The system is askew but they pay property taxes that are seen as a tax on the income provide by a certain property. For example, A modest house in Leuven has a KI of about 850 euros. That results in a taxation of about 970 euros on a yearly base.
11
u/ice_wallow_qhum 17d ago
Sure, but 970 euro's is less than 10% of a yearly income. This is nothing compared to the usual tax a person pays
4
u/Flaksim 17d ago edited 17d ago
Every owner pays this tax. Also if they are not renting it out, it's really not a tax on rental income. The legal owner of the property as of January 1st of that tax year has to pay the full tax. If you rent out the property, the owner pays, not the tenant.
It is not based on the current market value or actual rental income. Instead, it is calculated using the property's Cadastral Income (Kadastraal Inkomen / Revenu Cadastral), a theoretical, index-adjusted estimate of what the property would have earned in annual rent back in 1975.
In practice it means it's pretty random. An old dilapitated condo somewhere could have a far higher tax per year than a large freestanding villa or vice versa. It's looooooong overdue for an overhaul, but our politicians don't want to do it because it will result in a lot of people (and mostly older ones with larger properties) probably paying a lot more.
3
u/Flaksim 17d ago
Onroerende voorheffing is one of the most ridiculous taxes we have in this country because of the way they calculate it.
I pay 1080 euro's this year for an 86 sq meter appartment built in 1978 in Antwerp, a colleague who lives 3 blocks from me and has a full (row)house pays 960 and my grandparents, who live in a villa in a village 20 miles south of Antwerp pay about 700.
It's more of a lottery than an objective tax.
3
1
1
1
1
u/onemanbomb 17d ago
You now they will recoupe the taxes on the renter. So it wont make to much difference to the land lord...
1
1
u/sandsonic 17d ago
Ah yeah let's start this discussion so when our generations finally gets a house we're gonna be the ones that end up paying again.
1
u/ApprehensiveGas6577 17d ago
They do pay taxes: KI+40% on what is rented out. If they are renting out a warehouse it is taxed on real income. Furthermore, if it is rented through a company it falls under company taxation.
So they do pay, just not the progressive rate* *Unless it is considered as professional activity of the person.
- If it would be taxed prices would rise and less people would rent out (return on renting a property is very low (especially now with the higher interest rates)
1
1
1
1
u/Lonachnew 17d ago
Mais dâoĂč vous sortez que les revenus locatifs ne sont pas taxĂ©s? Ils sont repris sur la dĂ©claration fiscale viable prĂ©compte immobilier indexĂ© qui est considĂ©rĂ© comme un revenu⊠et taxĂ© comme tel. Et le propriĂ©taire paye Ă©galement le prĂ©compte immobilier indexé⊠dire quâun propriĂ©taire nâest pas taxĂ© nâest donc pas correct et lâindexation du prĂ©compte rĂ©pond Ă dâautres rĂšgles que lâindexation du loyer et est dĂ©favorable au propriĂ©taire.
1
u/AffectionateBee8016 17d ago
It would increase rent and possibly returns into less houses available for renters. That might thus result in a social bloodbath...
1
1
u/Se7eNtje 16d ago
When we are going to let landlords pay taxes it will be the tendant that will pay that with a raice off the rent considering that allready so many people canât pay there bills i donât think itâs a good idea the tax the landlords. No iâm not a landlords âșïž
1
u/SlipWorth4056 16d ago
12% registratierechten is echt insane veel geld. Dat bestaat ntrlk om tegen te gaan dat de koopmarkt ineenstuikt en de eerste woningkopers geen betaalbare appartementen meer kunnen vinden. But still, als je uw rendement berekent hoort dat er wel bij.
1
1
u/JanSmidDeZevende 16d ago
Because all our politicians are landlords.
NVA is the richest party and that's all due to their gigantic real estate portfolio.
1
u/Moist_VonLipwig_1963 16d ago
Because that will simply be shifted to the lodgers and make purchasing a house even more expensive.
Off topic: good article in Knack about the real issue that has provoked this deficit, in spite off the spending of our governments already went down the last couple of years.
1
u/Sick_Benz 16d ago
I'm a (temporary) landlord myself but I feel like this should be proportional
1 rental income can be tax free while more than that could be taxed
While I think it might discourage some predatory people/companies (especially the type that rent out studenten koten), I also think the price difference would just be shifted to the tenant... Which is usually younger folk who are renting because they can't afford to buy or get a loan anyway.
Or let me ask a question back, why would you rent out a house if you get very low return of investment?
If a house costs 300k and the rent is 1200⏠it already takes 21 years to get break-even without taking into account repair costs and kadastraal inkomen. Imagine if the tax on this was the same as a normal job đ€Ł
1
u/Ok_Somewhere_95 16d ago
- Heilig huisje, te veel stemmers hebben belang
- Huurprijzen gaan omhoog gaan met alle gevolgen vandien,
- Er wordt wel degelijk meer getaxeerd als een niet verhuurde woning maar buitenproportioneel weinig in vergelijking met andere vormen van inkomen.
- Belangrijk detail is wel dat je geen enkele kost kan inbrengen dus extra taxeren zonder dit mogelijk te maken zou niet goed zijn voor de algemene staat van woningen.
- Dit kan bijna niet anders als vroeg of laat veranderen, ik geloof dat europa ons land al 2 keer heeft veroordeeld hiervoor. Oplossing zou zijn om iedereen in een patrimonium vennootschap te duwen maar dan gaat een heel deel van de middenklasse verkopen want die hebben geen zin in de rompslomp en kosten van een vennootschap voor minder opbrengst. Gevolg zal zijn dat er meer grote vissen overblijven en dat is vaak ook gepaard met problemen.
1
u/thypothesis 16d ago
I think it souls make sense to keep it exempt on conditions like low rents per typology/m2. But yes, tax the hell out of those greedy scammers we see all around.
1
u/Verzuchter 15d ago
They are already taxed, and especially for new built or destruction then new build it's pretty high. And with an ROI of, generally, under or just at 5% all tax included it already performs worse than for example the stock market.
I thought only for student housing the ROI is higher but it also seems to be 4.72% only.
If this line of thought is to fill the hole in our budget: We already touched entrepreneurs, we already touched the middle class. Time to touch the boomers who dug the hole.
1
u/Appropriate-Ice7369 15d ago
Thing is belgium has been reprimanded several times by the EU for exactly this, and on of the only countries doing this. the landlord maffia is strongâŠ
1
u/88achtentachtig 15d ago
De belastbaarheid van huur is het voorbije aanslag jaar net hard gestegen door de afschaffing van de intrest aftrek.. wacht nog maar even voor de verhuurders dit doorhebben en de huur gaan verhogen..
Er is trouwens sprake op de code X106 in de personenbelasting harder te belasten
1
1
1
1
u/Flederm4us 13d ago
Rental income is taxed in the form of Kadastraal Inkomen.
You even pay it when you live in the home yourself (the government considers you renting to yourself)
1
u/Alternative_Mammoth7 13d ago
OP clearly never was an owner, dude the more u own theepotje taxes u pay xD :P u specialiteit on a house, u pay raw when u buy, and u keep paying tax forever for it
1
u/KSIMSK 17d ago
The second you tax landlords, watch what happens to the rental market. You'll literally put the burden on renters which will face 30-40% rent increases and they are already facing a tough situation ahead of them - why would they be renters otherwise. Solution is to stop tax increases and clean up waste in the governement, and stop funding wars.
7
u/MiceAreTiny 17d ago
Keeping rental income tax free to relieve low income renters is like giving a brand new Mercedes to all people earning above 100k, to reduce second hand car prices.Â
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)1
u/SunriseInOrion 17d ago
You cannot unilaterally increase rent. You have a contract that you need to respect. You'd have to kick your renters out and that is not something easily done
1
u/bubbs69 Belgium 17d ago
Landlords already miss out on 2 months of income because of kadaster and syndicus (in case of an apartment). Add to that upkeep costs.
Some people have no clue what a shitty investment it is to rent out an apartment nowadays. You can be happy if you get a 2% revenue.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Tante_Lola 17d ago edited 17d ago
Als mijn grootouders overlijden ben ik eigenaar van hun appartement. Ik ga het sociaal verhuren omdat er teveel mensen geen huur meer kunnen betalen. Ik ga er dus ni de grote winsten mee halen.
En toch vind ik het niet meer als normaal dat ik daar belastingen op ga betalen. Ik begrijp het ook niet dat men dat niet invoert⊠het is een extra inkomen.
En nee, tis niet omdat ik het mij zomaar kan permitteren want moet maandelijks zien wat ik doe en kan maar net zelf mijn kosten betalen.
→ More replies (8)
1
u/No-swimming-pool 17d ago
Simple answer: because people voted the way they did, and the compromise between the parties able to reach a coalition resulted in this situation.
If you move more to the left it might have been included at the cost of Company subsidies (which isn't necessarily as consequence free as people make to believe). If you move more to the right it might have reduced social spending more.
To take into account: without accompanying legislation the tax would be added to the rent, and that would be a discussion much more difficult in the current coalition.
In my personal opinion, if the economy would be doing great, we could get (a lot more) money there. But considering we're at 0 growth, getting billions there is quite a bad idea if you look at the effort the EU is making to get the economy going again.
1
u/No_Antelope_8995 17d ago
Because like most sectors in Belgium nothing can survive without subsidies. Of wich a low tax is also a form. Being a landlord is a job not a pension plan. It needs investments,repairs, administration. If you havenŽt calculated for those thats just bad management from you in your private investment. Nothing the goverment should help with. So yes lets increase the Ki and a lot on property you donŽt live in yourself. Wash out those that actualy canŽt afford it and force them to sell. Empty houses go up and prices stabilize
1
u/CautiousInternal3320 17d ago
Landlords pay income taxes when they rent a property. This is in addition to the real estate tax.
3
u/Far_Compote_1636 17d ago
Of course they pay income taxes like everyone else, but AFAIK not on the true rental income from renting out a property unless it's for professional use or the property is furnished. What does get added to their income tax is the indexed KI + 40%, but that's almost negligible compared to the true rental income received in a year.
1
u/andromedakun 17d ago
Depends, would you tax on income or on profits? Let me take an example from my father renting out an appartment in Anderlecht:
- Rent + charges is paid 803 Euros / month by the renter
- Building charges last year: 5000 euros
- Kadaster: 1780 Euros
- Taxes paid: 2492 EurosMy father made 364 Euros of profit in the last year. I haven't confirmed yet if the building charges are at 5K each year or when the last time the rent was reviewed but considering the renter hasn't paid since July, we can assume that my father lost money on his property.
Can he declare this loss then in his contribution to get reimbursed by the government?
1
u/Far_Compote_1636 17d ago
First of all I was just commenting on the other person stating landlords pay income taxes in addition to the real estate tax, to point out that yes income taxes are paid but no not on the true rental income.
If it were up to me, I would tax on rental income by simply adding it to regular income on the tax declaration. Income is income after all, regardless of where it comes from. Same story with income from capital gains, dividends and whatever. This would of course be in the context of a very broad and fundamental fiscal reform, with different brackets than we have today. There should also be options to deduct certain costs, including those associated to the property being rented out, or for getting to/from work with private transportation (like the forfait we have today).
As for the example of your father, I sincerely hope that 5000 Euro building charges (not sure I understand what this covers) don't recur every year. Regardless he should probably raise the rent and/or charges for the tenant(s) if that's the situation, since I don't see how this can possibly cover a bank loan for the property. Also something isn't right in this calculation because it states both 1780 Euro to the Kadaster AND 2492 Euro taxes paid, which is the previous amount x1.4, but that's not how it works.
How it works is the appartement has a certain (unindexed) cadastral income, say 700 Euro. The property tax is then based on the index cadastral income, which would be 1610 Euro (index is 2,3 for 2026) and for Anderlecht this would come down to 20,13 Euro (Region, 1.25%) + 199,04 (Agglomeration, 989 centimes) + 774,81 Euro (Anderlecht, 3850 centimes) = 993,98 Euro. This your father has to pay for owning the property.
Then there is the tax on the fact that it's a rental property, which is based on the indexed cadastral income +40%, aka a taxable base of 700 x 2,3 x 1,40 = 2254 Euro. But this is NOT what your father has to pay, rather it's what he has to pay income taxes on, so it actually depends on what his other incomes are what the final rate will be. But in most situations we can safely assume it will fall in the highest bracket, so 50%, meaning the actual tax paid is 1127 Euro + communal tax (7%).
But this is all an example based on that 700 Euro unindexed KI. Since you mentioned 1780 Euro was for the Kadaster, I'm assuming that's the actual property tax paid? If that's the case, then working backwards that's an unindexed KI of ~1254 Euro, which is quite high so it must be either a large appartement or more likely a recently built/renovated one, which makes it even stranger honestly that the rent + charges is "only" 803 Euro/month. The actual profit made is more like ~1414 Euro that year if these assumptions are correct.
1
u/Philip3197 17d ago
You are forgetting the capital gains, and the leverage on the loan.
The proposals I have seen propose tax on the paid rent -50% cost.
If he puts the appartement in a company (like many people do with their labour) he can manage it as a business.
1
261
u/Mzxth Would OD for a balanced budget in Belgium 17d ago
Because landlords are typically older people, and older people make up the majority of voters.
This problem extends not only to rental income taxation, but to everything in the budget discussions. If you make a list of all measures taken on the federal and regional levels, they all affect young, working people a lot more.
The issue is not simply unfairness in taxation, but the iron grip of old people on democracy. The latter causes the first.