What do you think of the “99% initiative”?
Editorial note: following numerous reader contributions to this topic over many weeks, we have now closed this debate. More topics are open for comments here. If you wish to contribute feedback on this topic or suggest other ideas for debates, please e-mail us at english@swissinfo.ch.
On September 26, Swiss citizens will vote on the so-called “99% initiative” that aims to tax capital gains more heavily. Is it envy of the wealthy elite? Or an overdue redistribution of wealth? Tell us what you think in the comments below!
From the article Tax on capital gains targets Switzerland’s wealthy elite
The initiative, launched by the Young Socialists, wants capital income above a certain amount (the Young Socialists speak of 100,000 CHF) to be counted one and a half times when calculating taxes. They argue taxation today is not fair and redistribution is insufficient. What do you think?
From the article Tax reform: ‘There’s not much left to squeeze from this lemon’
From the article Tax reform: ‘It’s time to turn the tables’
Let's change the accounting plan and we will be able to avoid the embezzlement of money the frauds, socialist with the French does not go walk let us look at France how it goes very badly, to say you of the countries of the old countries which are ruined. but which enriches certain people let us not make the same let us keep our parts..work it is health our country with values let us be fidelity..
changeons le plan comptable et nous pourrons éviter les détournement d'argent les fraudes, socialiste à la française ne marche pas regardons la France comment elle va très mal, te dire des pays des anciens pays qui sont ruinés.. mais qui enrichit certaines personnes ne faisons pas pareil gardons nos parties..le travail c'est la santé notre pays à des valeurs soyons fidélité ..
Tax exile, this initiative made me smile...
It reflects the political party that initiated it, a party whose naive members are bent on cutting off the branch they are sitting on and who tend to forget that "socialism exists only as long as other people's money" [Margaret Tatcher]
Exilé fiscal, cette initiative m’a fait sourire…
Elle est à l’image du parti politique qui l’a initiée, parti dont les membres naïfs s’acharnent à couper la branche sur laquelle ils sont assis et qui ont tendance à oublier que “le socialisme n’existe que le temps de l’argent des autres” [Margaret Tatcher]
Switzerland has a good standard of living thanks to the existing tax system because it benefits all the people.
It is advisable not to provoke departures (see France at the time of the arrival of François Hollande in power and the taxation of the great fortunes which had for result the departure of these fortunate ones from the country).
La Suisse a un bon niveau de vie grâce au systeme fiscal existant car cela fait profiter tout le peuple.
Il convient ne pas provoquer de départs (voir la France au moment de l’arrivée de François Hollande au pouvoir et la taxation des grandes fortunes ce qui a eu pour résultat le départ de ces fortunés du pays).
If tax increases are used to target specific programs such as making healthcare, housing and/or education more accessible, they make sense. If they are used for handouts i.e. "universal income" they will be counter-productive.
Hallo TEXUSTERMER! Wieso denken Sie, dass ein Grundeinkommen kontraproduktiv wäre?
Giving people money without any expectation of effort creates a dis-incentive to work or to be productive. I see this with my own kids. If I give them money, they spend freely without considering the cost or the effort placed on how that money was generated/earned by their mother and me. If I don't give them money, they come to me for projects and opportunities to earn and they are much more careful how they spend.
For more on 'Zakat', the islamic wealth tax, see https://www.alislam.org/articles/zakat/
May be it is time to look at the Islamic way of looking at wealth. 'Zakat' is a wealth tax of 2.5 percent on all idle capital. The amounts gained as such are to be used for looking after the poorer sections of the community. Food for thought.
Zu schauen, wie es andere Kulturen handhaben ist ein sehr interessanter Ansatz. Vielen Dank für Ihren Input!
I am for taxing from 1,000,000 Swiss francs...so we will have to change the accounting plan for the smartest.
Je suis pour taxer à partir de 1.000.000 Fr suisse..donc il va falloir changer le plan comptable pour les plus malin ..
The rich people living on dividends can easily move to another country. Switzerland has a right social balance , do not break it. This country is an attactive place for wealthy people, it is an advantage.! Many businesses will suffer, the restaurants, boutiques, private schools, house services, think about the consequences.
Don't worry, this won't last long. All western countries are in declining demographics and the East is not far away. Soon there won't be any new migrants and, as the cost of living gets higher and higher, the gap between an aging population and the lack of young willing to work will be bigger and bigger. That will pretty much put an end to the Swiss model, in addition to most of the immigrants taking their savings and going to other more foreigner friendly countries. That will cause this process to go exponentially wrose for CH.
Let the wealthy lose half of what they own to pay for me as well. I'm young and I refuse to work for them, but just like my parents I was born here so the social system owes it to me. The rich caused all the inequality so let them pay.
Come on the western world goes killing their golden egg hens, the problem is poverty or inequality? Equality is the enemy of freedom, if it continues like this in the future everyone will be servants of the state.
Vamos lá o mundo ocidental vai matando as suas galinhas de ovos de ouro, o problema é a pobreza ou desigualdade? Igualdade é inimiga da liberdade, se continuar assim no futuro todos serão servos do estado.
If this bill passes i can guarantee that none of this tax money will reach the people it was claimed it would help. I came to Switzerland with nothing. in fact i even owed 3000 chf to a friend. I delivered werbung i washed dishes in a restaurant for the first five years. I then had a break in finance. I worked for eight years in a trading back office. I then bought my first house because i saved in my 3rd pillar. Things don't just drop in front of you. It takes time.
maybe that was the case 30 years ago. Today the first family house cost on average 1.6 million CHF, so no young person will be able to pay it in their life time... so there is not much of a reason to have a family, children or to work... why work long hours when you already know you will never have much of antyhing.... let the old sell their homes and get back in their work force... I have no reason to work to pay taxes for their pension or medical bills
History is not filled with “young socialists” creating great policy nor success stories of young radicals shaping countries by forcing big structural changes. Buyer (or voter) beware.
Sadly history is completely and without error full with all politicians who just take away from the 999999 to give to the 1 who sponsors them and owns the big companies.
That being said, as a cycle we are a at point where there is literary nothing to take from milennials and gen-z who will not own anything, So, all of them are perfectly happy with taking anything and everything away from the rich and middle class who created the broken system we have today.
If the new generation could only think of passing money from A to B as a solution, pity them. They MUST come up with much better solutions with the information and knowledge access level they have.
It is not the 1%, who made things work for themselves, create the issue; it is those inactive and passive ones that expect governments to take actions on their behalf or expect these 1% or others to give them, create the problem.
We are all born with one brain, 2 eyes, 2 legs. It is a matter of choice and working hard. I am part of middle class too, but I can see none of those rich people come to where they're by just chilling and expecting other to give them. Watch the AliBaba founder (or hundreds of other "rich" people stories), his colleagues see him more than his wife for the best years of his life and youth. Would you guys be willing to sacrifice all these? If no, then you have NO right to blame those who do and have NO right to ask their money!
The initiators are right about one thing – the wealthiest persons in this country are getting richer while especially the lower middle class increasingly finds it harder to make ends meet.
In the voting material one argument mentioned against is that Switzerland's taxation is comparable to other European countries. This is partly true. However, a closer look into the maximum income tax rates will tell you that 17 countries apply maximum rates well above our 40%. For example: France, Germany and the UK 45%. Finland leads with 57% followed by a bunch in the 50% range. Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-tax-rate?continent=europe. Apparently, they just considered the averages of the EU and Euro area which are indeed close to ours.
The wording of this proposal would leave a lot of room for interpretation to our lawmakers, if it was to be approved by the voters. Many will probably see it as a “beggar thy neighbor” plan because it is indeed unclear how many feathers they would lose. So, chances for this initiative gaining a majority are slim. However, an important minority support would mean a kick into a hornets nest. The establishment apparently is happy with our current system because it works for them. They just forget about those who are not so lucky.
Just tax all stock market, bond market and money market transactions at 30 percent of value. That will give everyone a lot of funds and remove a lot of the less than legal activity happening in those markets
Stock markets are heavily regulated and everything that happens there is pretty legal and controlled. It is true that there are loopholes in legal systems that make wrong things possible, such as billionaires paying no taxes, but it's all by and large legal. Evading taxes is not legal, bit that has nothing to do with the stock market. And taxing transactions or capital gains is not going to fix the loopholes in the legal systems, so billionaires would still pay no taxes.
You only pay capital gain taxes when you sell at a profit. If you are super wealthy you just own stocks, you do not sell them, and then you take a mortgage for the whole value of your portfolio, using your portfolio as a guarantee. You then spend some of the money from the loan, and you pay no taxes because your income is actually negative. The next year, you renegotiate your loan with the bank, as in the meanwhile your portfolio is worth more money. And voila, you make a living without ever having to sell a stock. Note that this only works for people with assets in hundreds of millions or billions, who will NOT be affected by this proposal.
How about if you see a stock exchange crash, or just a bad one?
Good question, @SNOWMAN. In countries where there is capital gain tax, it is generally the case that if you sell at a profit, then your taxable income goes up accordingly, but if you sell at a loss, then your taxable income goes down accordingly. A mechanism that asks you to pay if you are lucky, but does not relieve you when you are in trouble is twice unfair.
(I see "twice" unfair because, as I already said in some other comment, the vast majority of investors are not billionaires. They are normal salaried workers (like myself) who already pay a lot of taxes on their salaries. Taxing the outcome of their investments is like taxing their income twice.)
@STEGO legal does not mean fair or correct. Let's not remind people of all the dictatorship genocides where everything was legal because they wrote it in a law
Also, no company pays even close to what the people pay when you look at their total taxes. So, surely they can pay a 30 percent per transaction tax the same way we pay VAT and import taxes.
In your previous comment you had written that in the stock market there are "less than legal" things happening. I was replying to that. As I also wrote, "legal" does not mean "right" or "fair".
99% initiative, a new tax
everyone is affected, indirectly or directly, including us so-called 99%. we are already paying today:
- federal income tax (progressive; half of the taxpayers pay nothing, the other half pays everything),
- cantonal and communal income tax (progressive, also on property income; 10% taxpayers pay 60% tax income),
- wealth tax (also on self-saved wealth, already taxed as income; progressive; tax eats away part or all of wealth income; nowhere else except switzerland, norway, liechtenstein),
- ahv-premium contributions (amount unlimited, but pension then maximum 28'680 francs; direct redistribution from top to bottom),
- income tax on pension income (although previously saved via payroll deduction),
- full ahv contribution obligation for ahv pensioners continues for all additional income (former exemption amount eliminated),
- obligation to pay ahv-premium for younger wives on pension fund pension of husband (!),
- radio and television tax,
- VAT,
- taxes and levies, etc.
no bitch licks this, a new tax is demanded! even more taxes, even more bureaucracy, even more state intervention! pure socialism! and mercifully, who will then distribute this windfall?! again the bureaucrats. therefore NO!
https://www.fdp.ch/fileadmin/documents/fdp.ch/pdf/DE/Kampagnen/99_/ARG_lang_99__FDP.PDF
99%-initiative, eine neue steuer
alle sind betroffen, indirekt oder direkt, auch wir sog. 99%. schon heute zahlen wir:
- einkommenssteuer bund (progressiv; eine hälfte steuerzahler zahlt nichts, andere hälfte zahlt alles),
- einkommenssteuer kanton und gemeinde (progressiv, auch auf vermögensertrag; 10% steuerzahler zahlen 60% steuereinnahmen),
- vermögenssteuer (auch vom selbst angesparten vermögen, dieses bereits als einkommen versteuert; progressiv; steuer frisst vermögensertrag teilweise oder ganz weg; nirgends sonst ausser in schweiz, norwegen, liechtenstein),
- ahv-prämienbeiträge (betrag unbegrenzt, jedoch rente dann maximal 28'680 franken; direkte umverteilung von oben nach unten),
- einkommenssteuer auf renteneinkommen (obwohl via lohnabzug früher selbst angespart),
- volle ahv-beitragspflicht für ahv-rentner weiterhin für alle nebeneinkommen (früherer freibetrag gestrichen),
- ahv-prämienbeitragspflicht für jüngere ehefrauen auf pensionskassenrente des ehemannes (!),
- radio- und fernsehsteuer,
- mehrwertsteuer,
- steuern und abgaben noch und noch.
keine geiss schleckt das weg, eine neue steuer wird verlangt! noch mehr abgaben, noch mehr bürokratie, noch mehr staatsinterventionen! reiner sozialismus! und gnädigst, wer verteilt dann diesen geldsegen?! auch wieder die bürokraten. darum NEIN!
https://www.fdp.ch/fileadmin/documents/fdp.ch/pdf/DE/Kampagnen/99_/ARG_lang_99__FDP.PDF
The whole proposal is based on a lie. It is not true that this tax would affect only capitals north of 3M. It would affect any investment that returns at least 100K, for example, 1M at 10%, or 500K at 20%.
Many investors are salaried workers who saved their salaries (already taxed) over the years and that decided to take the chance of putting their savings in the stock market for lack of better alternatives. Banks and bonds pay little or no interests, real estate is a prohibitively expensive bubble that most cannot afford.
I am quite sure that, if passed, this bill will cause an exodus of middle class people that don't want to have to pay a disproportioned tax on top of the risk that they already take investing their capital in the stock market. A capital gain tax, in comparison, would be much more equitable and effective.
Even better, I would focus on strategies that really target the super wealthy and the huge concentrations of capitals, instead of populistic initiatives such as this one that will end up affecting the wrong slice of the population.
Danke Stego! Was für Strategien könnten das sein?
I am not an expert of the Swiss tax system, and I am not a legislator. I am not qualified to make a counterproposal, but I am qualified enough to understand that this proposal is bogus. Either the objectives are different than publicly stated, or the people who are pushing this agenda didn't really understand what they are proposing.
If the idea is to tax those that have more than 3 millions in stocks, I would start by putting this parameter in the text of the proposal. If the intention is to tax also those who have only 500K and had the bad luck of having a good year with returns of 20%, then they should say so.
If the idea is really to tax the super wealthy, as the endorsers of this proposal claim, then they should address the loopholes that allow multi billionaires to pay 0 taxes on their immense wealth, and to do so legally.
In addition, I would suggest that any reasonable taxation ought to be progressive. It makes no sense to apply the same criteria to those who make 100K from their capital gains as to those who make tens of millions.
Danke Stego! Die Initiative ist tatsächlich vage formuliert - aber das ist absichtlich so gemacht, wie die Initianten und Initiantinnen gesagt haben. Der Prozess sieht ohnehin vor, dass nach der Annahme einer Initiative diese vom Parlament konkretisiert und in ordentliches Recht übergeführt wird. Da gibt es also durchaus Spielraum für das Parlament, nach der Annahme den Rahmen anzupassen.
"Vague wording on purpose" is just a blanket excuse for lack of competence and shallow thinking. The proposal is vague, it is because the idea behind it is just a vague populistic notion, as the catchy "99% initiative" title already suggests.
If the wording is so irrelevant, they could just ask people to vote for the introduction of a capital gain tax, and let the parliament sort out the details. That may have more support than this. If we are supposed to vote *regardless* of what is written in the proposal, what is the point of voting at all?
Taxing capital gains is the way forward. It will be even more important if financial transaction taxes are levied. Then the neo-liberal opponents of this initiative will be able to carry out their financial transactions in peace and the federal government will be able to ensure a basic income for the people who work hard every day. Therefore a full YES for this innovative initiative.
Kapitalgewinne zu besteuern ist der Weg in die Zukunft. Noch wichtiger wird es wenn Finanztransaktionssteuern erhoben werden. Dann können die neoliberalen Gegner dieser Initiative in aller Ruhe ihre Finanzgeschäfte abwickeln und der Bund kann der Bevölkerung, die jeden Tag hart arbeitet ein Grundeinkommen sichern. Darum ein volles JA für diese innovative Initiative.
I agree with quite a lot of the people here. As a Swiss woman and mother of 2 in addition to being a millenial, I can easily say that my generation will never afford to buy a home. My two sisters have lost their jobs a few times over the last 15 years because outsourcings caused by the last crisis and now again with this crisis.
I lost my job when the lockdowns started and at this point I will no longer apply to any new jobs. Let the old generation come back to work and pay for their pension and for me. I will not work to pay for them to stay in their big homes when I cannot afford a home. I am done. I worked for 16 years and I will not work again.
I already discussed it with some women friends in a similar situation and we'll just get married to each other. That way we'll afford a large genosenschaft apartment or government housing as between us we'll have 6 children. A far better deal than working and never affording a home.
That is excellent! I hope it will be voted through
Ottima cosa ! Spero che in votazione passi
Hier geht es um ein grundsätzliches Problem. Es geht nicht darum, ob die Jungen den Alten oder die Armen den Reichen etwas weg nehmen wollen. Nein es geht darum, ob die Menschheit überhaupt eine Chance zum überleben hat. Der GRUNDFEHLER in allen Steuersystemen ist der gleiche: Die Besteuerung der Arbeit! Das ist der größte Schwachsinn den es gibt. Man muss die leistungslose Geldvermehrung besteuern, den Onlinehandel des Geldes und der Waren, und zwar mit genau 25%. Dann hört das Elend auf der ganzen Welt schlagartig auf.
Danke Kedros! Wie kommen Sie auf genau 25%?
The increase of money, or inflation of money is never a bad thing. All the bad side effects come from the same 1 getting it and using it to buy everything away from the other 99999. You can mate 1 trillion per person tomorrow and it would not be bad if each person actually gets that trillion..
Das entspricht in etwa dem Mittel der MwSt. der EU Mitglieder (Ungarn 27%, Luxemburg 17%).
Übrigens:
Ich habe original geschrieben "die leistungslose Geldvermehrung" ... jetzt lese ich dort: "die machtlose Geldvermehrung" ... das ist ja wohl was völlig anderes. Automatische Übersetzung ist eben auch ein Problem...
Ich sehe gerade, dass es noch mehr Übersetzungsfehler drin hat.....
Schade, so macht es keine Freude.
Danke Kedros, wir sind gerade daran nachzuvollziehen, wie die Übersetzung zustande kam. Haben Sie bei der englischen Seite Ihren Kommentar auf Deutsch geschrieben? Ich glaube dort könnte das Problem liegen.
Auch was das Wort "machtlos" angeht: Vielleicht wurde so Ihr deutscher Kommentar direkt auf Englisch übersetzt und Ihnen dann die Rück-Übersetzung angezeigt?
Auf jeden Fall sind solche Fälle wichtig für uns, damit wir das Übersetzungsangebot verbessern können. Vielen Dank!
I am not surprised by this initiative from young socialists. If they could not work or be civil servants, that would be an ideal life for them. Unfortunately, since time immemorial, one has had to work to survive. It is true that capitalists have practiced a kind of slavery on the majority of workers, but from there, to tax to the maximum, it becomes injustice. My father, an unskilled worker, worked hard to put me through school and leave me a small inheritance to give me a better start in my adult life. It's not to pay people who don't want to work, to do jobs that are a little more difficult than sitting behind a desk or an administration counter. Utopia!
Cette initiative venant des jeunes socialistes ne m'étonne guère. S'ils pouvaient ne pas travailler ou être fonctionnaires, ce serait un idéal de vie pour eux. Malheureusement de tout temps, il a fallu travailler pour survivre. Il est vrai que les capitalistes ont pratiqué une sorte d'esclavagisme sur la majorité des travailleurs, mais de là, à taxer au maximum, ça devient de l'injustice. Mon père ouvrier non qualifié a travaillé durement pour me permettre de faire des études et me laisser un petit héritage pour mieux démarrer dans ma vie d'adulte. Ce n'est pas pour payer des gens qui ne veulent pas travailler, faire des métiers un peu plus difficiles que celui d'être assis derrière un bureau ou un guichet d'administration. Utopie!
Thank you Niblas! However, the initiative does not target inheritance, but gains from capital assets. Do you also disagree with this?
Danke Niblas! Die Initiative zielt jedoch nicht auf das Erbe, sondern auf Gewinne von Kapitalvermögen. Sind Sie damit auch nicht einverstanden?
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here . Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.