But is isn’t. We literally confirmed that we want to be taxed, with 84.1% yes vote no less. You are not being robed, you simply represent very extreme minority views.
Even the mentioned Libertäre Partei is much less extreme in their views. And ironically their president is a captain in the tax-funded Swiss army; you sure you really support them?
Nope. That’s actually exactly how Switzerland’s direct democracy works. You can either accept that or leave the country, but claiming that this isn’t how it works is just ridiculous.
And yes, that would even go as far as killing someone. We could reintroduce the death penalty by public initiative, and consequently executions would be entirely within the boundaries of the law, i.e. legitimate. Again, you may not like it, but you can’t redefine words as you like.
To be clear: I in no way would like you to leave the country just because you have a different opinion. I simply tried to point out that you disagreeing and still choosing to stay is a form of acceptance.
Nonetheless, your use of the word legitimised defies all dictionaries.
Yes, literally, by definition. Making the example absurd doesn’t change the meaning of words.
Are you desperately trying to leave Switzerland but can’t? Then yes, that is not acceptance.
One more thought about the initiative. Initiatives like this one ruin plans that you’ve devised years ago.
Over the years I studied the “rules”, worked out a life plan, and was gradually implementing it. I decided to live frugally, save and invest my money, so that eventually this money can work for me. Now some people, out of envy, laziness, entitlement, want to change the rules and make it harder to reach financial independence.
Oh and don’t tell me about the thresholds. First you implement a law, then you can move the threshold, when needed.
Wasn’t the Islamic State also only created after WW2?
If you earn anything close to 100’000 CHF a year from capital income, everyone in their right mind will consider you financially independent.
And once a tax law is in place, you can always increase the tax rate.
In the end, this is Switzerland - so it will be politically decided. Down to the cantonal level.
A stark increase in taxation of ordinary earners isn’t politically viable.
Oh yes, I share that worry with you…
Didn’t @Bojack write somewhere that in Poland they took the polish equivalent of the 2nd pillar to finance the polish equivalent of the 1st pillar?
Yes. Polish 2nd pillar was weird. The providers charged 2% annual custody fee and then they invested a large chunk in government bonds. So the money was deducted from your salary and went to the treasury, then to the 2nd pillar, which took 2% and invested back in treasury bonds, which paid over 2%.
In 2013, the ruling party PO realized this made little sense. Just some easy money leaking to the private financial companies. So they amortised the bonds, which was about 50% of the entire 2nd pillar. In 2019, the PiS party took the other half. In both times, money has been rebooked to 1st pillar.
When I told this to my Swiss colleagues, they said: this is Switzerland, not Poland 
I don’t get what is the point with the age?
I’ll just leave this here.
You could conclude that older people care less about the well being of other people. Is that fair?
I also don’t quite understand the focus on terms like socialism.
This line of reasoning is just doesn’t make any sense. Especially because socialism is not really clearly defined. It just introduces unnecessary noise and populism into any debate it is brought up.
To come back to the numbers. Assuming that
You would need a portfolio of 5.8 million to reach the 100k threshold with the dividends.
I am very far from a perfect man, but at least I am not a libertarian nut.
This calculation uses real data. And I have never said I would vote for it.
Without wealth redistribution, inequality grows. Inequality is bad for society.
Not having a welfare system can cost more to society than having one.
For example, the homelessness crisis in California.
Note: I won’t debate more on this topic as we have completely different point of view. My goal was just to provide some real data
That is the problem here. Until now, the only thing we got from patron is socialism is bad, taxes are theft, anecdotical story of his brother, and misinterpreted data that most taxes are used for social welfare (where he only took the Bundessteuer, which is not even 1/3 of taxes paid.
I might have forgotten few points, but this is it in a nutshell.
So over and out, discussion is useless. Do not feed the troll.
I find it pretty cool that thanks to that my parents could marry easily, had no war since over 70y in memberstates… Not too bad I guess
Oh and allowed myself to work and study where I want according to what I would like to achieve. Also pretty cool.
Is it perfect, by far not. But hey, at least we are not shooting at each other anymore.
For sure you haven’t mastered remaining cultural. I guess the core values of libertarianism are so offending to you, that you just can’t remain calm? Let’s check Wikipedia:
a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.
Disgusting! These libertarians must be real nutjobs! How can they not be, after all their views are the opposite of Stalin and Mao, who as we know were really good guys!
My main gripe with the EU is that it is not democratic - it is rather undermining and eroding democracy.
The irony here of course is that you yourself married a non-EU citizen.
Marrying whom you want wasn’t and isn’t generally an issue at all in Europe, EU or not. You marry someone and he/she will able to live with you. For EU citizens, the EU just reduces some paperwork.
I would argue that the EU has done much more for unmarried couples rather than married ones. You are Portuguese and have a new Finnish girlfriend? Since, as long as one is an EU resident and the other a citizen - you can now easily live together without committing to marriage.
He may have gotten carried away by your calling it the worst construct since WW2. 
Socialist Godwin argument delivered!
So let me tell you how I define socialism. Let’s have a look at the Nolan Chart (who was a libertarian, just to be clear):
It defines the political spectrum with two variables:
The axes have two extremes:
So when I say that an economic policy is socialist, I mean it reduces economic freedom.
The example you gave (voting against gay marriage) is an example of a policy that limits personal freedom. I guess it’s logical that older population is more restrictive when it comes to personal freedom. But both policies are essentially anti-libertarian and pro-authoritarian.
Interesting, thank you.
Nolan Chart, Overton Window, how do you know all these things? 
I read many (history and politics) books (which you don’t, I know, I know ) and never came across these things! 
I think I just know a little about a lot. I watch YouTube videos, read online blogs and this forum, then I google it or read up on wikipedia. I think there is so much to know, you probably also know a lot of stuff that I don’t.
Of the few books I did read, were 1984, Brave New World, Rich Dad Poor Dad. These are somewhat relevant to the topic. But what I enjoyed the most was Harry Potter 
I think it’s wrong that very few people have almost everything. Not just in Switzerland, but on a global scale. This inequality of wealth, war, hunger, climate change…we just totally failed as a species. I’m just lucky to be born in Switzerland. The chance was much higher to die of starvation as a 12 year old kid somewhere in Africa.
Imagine if your salary would be decided by 3 dices. The different combinations would range between 1k a year and 200k a year. Would you be happy with that? Because in reality it’s just like that.
