kathimerini.gr
Greece to Hike Tax on Bank-Owned Properties to Boost Housing Supply
The Greek government proposes a 30% ENFIA increase on approximately 9,000 bank-owned residential properties acquired via foreclosures to incentivize faster sales and alleviate the housing shortage, potentially implementing the measure unilaterally despite bank objections.
- How will the 30% ENFIA increase on bank-owned properties impact Greece's housing market?
- The Greek government plans a 30% ENFIA (property tax) increase on bank-owned residential properties, impacting roughly 9,000 homes acquired through foreclosures. This aims to pressure banks into faster sales, addressing the housing shortage. The measure might be implemented unilaterally.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this policy on the Greek banking sector and housing affordability?
- This initiative could accelerate housing supply but may face challenges. Banks cite lengthy regularization procedures (1-2 years) as a bottleneck, involving legal complexities and bureaucratic hurdles. The success hinges on streamlining these procedures.
- What are the main obstacles faced by banks in disposing of foreclosed properties, and how does the government plan to address them?
- This policy targets banks holding properties due to slow sales, hindering housing supply. The 30% ENFIA hike is intended to incentivize quicker market disposal. The government is also considering additional measures concerning transaction fees.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the government's actions as necessary and beneficial, highlighting the housing crisis as justification for imposing penalties on banks. The headline (if any) likely emphasizes the government's initiative and its potential positive impact rather than a neutral approach. The introduction focuses on the increase in ENFIA and the pressure on banks, setting a negative tone towards the financial institutions.
Language Bias
The article uses language that subtly favors the government's position. Phrases like "penalty" and "pressure" towards banks create a negative connotation, while the government's actions are described more neutrally. The description of bureaucratic delays as a "Golgotha" is emotionally charged. More neutral alternatives would be, for instance, 'financial disincentive' instead of 'penalty,' 'encouragement' instead of 'pressure,' and a more descriptive account of the bureaucratic hurdles instead of 'Golgotha.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the government's perspective and proposed measures, giving less weight to counterarguments or alternative solutions. The views of affected individuals (homeowners, etc.) are absent. The challenges faced by banks in processing properties are mentioned, but a balanced analysis of their arguments is lacking.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as solely the banks' responsibility to quickly sell properties, overlooking systemic issues like bureaucratic hurdles and lengthy legal processes that affect both banks and funds managing distressed assets. The solutions presented by the government seem limited, ignoring other potential solutions that may mitigate the housing shortage.
Sustainable Development Goals
The government aims to alleviate the housing shortage by pressuring banks to sell properties faster. A 30% increase in property tax on bank-owned residential properties is intended to incentivize quicker sales, potentially increasing housing affordability and reducing inequality in access to housing.