Before I go into the various critical comments, it is important to note that there is a broad consensus that the state needs to act. Over the past 15 years it has become increasingly difficult for lower income households to find housing at a reasonable cost and with a secured contract. In particular, this applies to households that are new on the market. It is time for the parties to act – and there are a number of good practice examples from other european countries to learn from.
On the other hand, companies such as BoKlok (who have projects that caters to the groups with lower incomes) for many years complained that they do not get access to land on reasonable terms.
What we can say on Hemnet is that the villa plots in the outskirts of larger cities often costs around 2 million, and it indicates in all cases that the municipalities do not plan sufficient land for the type of building. There were a large number of development rights would the prices not be so high. There are of course municipalities that take a housing-policy responsibility, but we can also read about how vågmästarpartier supports the block that promises to stop some housing projects. A little more self-criticism from the SALAR's page is probably justified!
There are lines of examples where local authorities wanted to build, but where it is stopped by the state rules, not the least of a shoreline protection which can be interpreted to mean that every single dikeskant is a beach.
Lena Micko has, however, absolutely right that the state must revise its own rules and processes, which are also included in my proposal. There are lines of examples where local authorities wanted to build, but where it is stopped by the state rules, not the least of a shoreline protection which can be interpreted to mean that every single dikeskant is a beach. A thought in my proposal was, however, that more precise such requirements from the municipalities in the state may come up in the dialogues proposed. State promises in turn to make the adjustments necessary for local authorities to be able to get more zoned land, particularly projects with a mixed construction.
If a household moves from a rental apartment and borrows a larger sum of money to buy a condominium or house, will pay the household in general, less tax, after the move than they did before. The value of ränteavdragen is greater than the property tax. Particularly great is the difference, if you buy an expensive home and the difference is slightly larger if you buy a condominium.
My proposal was, therefore, a careful stepwise reduction of ränteavdragen (from 30 to 20 percent over a five-year period) and a limited increase of the fastighetskatt for condominiums (from 1.300 to 2.500 sek per year if the value is less than 2 million and to 4,000 sek per year if the value is higher). For home owners proposed an increase from 7.800 sek to 11.000 sek per year for a house worth more than 4 million. Fastighetskatt and interest deductions need to be discussed together, but the villa owners do not mention even ränteavdragen.
I completely agree with the villa owners that we are not to return to a property tax that is a certain percentage of the market value. No one should have to worry that your property taxes will rise substantially just because the market goes up. In my proposal, which at this point is similar to the so-called Kalifornienmodellen, it does not change the tax for the current owner even if the property passes 4 miljonersgränsen, for example, due to a general upturn in the economy or that the owner is building the house. A new owner may, however, pay the higher tax.
the villa owners worry that this will lead to lock-in effects, but the risk is small. If I move from a house that is under 4 million for another house in 4 million, or from a house, which from the beginning was worth more than 4 million to another worth more than 4 million, so there will not be any higher tax. Such an effect only occurs if my house passed 4 miljonersgränsen and I move to a house worth more than 4 million – and then it's a matter of an increase in round figures of sek 250 per month. For those who can buy a home for more than 4 million, this is reasonably a moderate cost. In my packages of measures is also a gradual reduction of the reavinstskatten, so helhetseffekten becomes reasonably a clear reduction of inlåsningseffekterna compared with today.
Lennart Weiss comments on my op-ed piece in a news article in the DN mean that I put too much weight on the supply side and neglects the demand side. prices and rents in new housing starts higher than can be justified by the underlying costs, it is, in my opinion, the right to mainly emphasise the supply side. A general increase of the demand risk only to consolidate these high prices and rents. Demand-side measures should be targeted to specific groups and in my proposal are such measures in terms of ownership, in the form of tax-bosparande which can then lead to the state guarantees for the purchase of a relatively inexpensive housing.
basically, I think that a relatively large down-payment and mortgage payments are good, but one can always discuss the details of the current rules. Perhaps it is sufficient to amortize the 1.5 per cent on loans over 70 per cent of the prices and maybe it is enough if you amorterar down to 60%.
When there is a difficult situation on the housing market, it requires sensible compromise and not a continued trench warfare.