Hello, I’m not really active in this subject, but I’ve been enjoying the debate about this initiative
Yesterday on T.T.C, a romand broadcast, they pointed out some interesting data about who is contributing the most in taxes and where said taxes come for.
First of all, a picture from who contribute the most in tax:
The initiative want to increase the taxes on wealthier people who doesn’t contribute the most at the end in the country, and I don’t think that someone who is earning 1-2 millions per year will be affected to pay a bit more taxes as he will recover it in less than 1-2 months. That’s my view. If I could earn that amount, I would be pleased to contribute a bit more for the country who offers me some privileges to earn more and more.
As for now and my personal situation, I’m thankful to have some help from our welfare, it helps me to have an apartment, work and to set up my future. Also, because I was unemployed and not able to reach my objective despite a bachelor, a master and a CAS in legal procedure, I thank our welfare to helped me a bit to finaly get out of the unemployment insurance and find an internship in order to become a lawyer in a year
Of course, no one like to pay taxes, but when we need help from our welfare system, we should me thankful.
If you think wealth disproportion is too high, then target wealth and not income. Targeting income cements the status quo. Rich remain rich and poor have it harder to get rich.
High earners contribute many times over in taxes than low earners (e.g. I pay over 50k income tax, which is more than my after-tax expenses). And then once they paid income tax on their work, they continue to pay tax on the things they buy that earn them income, and on their wealth. And for all this they get spat in their face for not contributing enough and being accused of stealing from the poor.
Thank for highlighting that I just watched it on player.
Could you clarify how you understood the above? My take away was that 10% of the population pay 53% of the country’s taxes and that 50% of the population pay 10% of taxes. In my canton 36% don’t pay any tax whatsoever
It seems that I didn’t understand it like that. I don’t why but by looking this “charts” I had the impression that the middle and class are contributing more than 50% to the taxes, then comes the rich and in the end the superrich. I may have interpreted it wrong here.
It’s Geneva ? I know that in Jura, “only” 18% of the population doesn’t pay taxes.
Yes, that is what they said on T.T.C. for Geneva and Jura.
I agree the rich should pay more. The question for me is when is too much. In Geneva you already pay ~40% tax and social deductions on every CHF earned over about 100k.
There is also a pragmatic view that if you run your canton like a business you want to attract as many wealthy & high income people as possible. In your example if someone is earning 2M CHF they are contributing 700k CHF taxes even if it is unfair that they arrived at that status due to an inheritance. This is what Switzerland has been smart about in the past and is a main reason why the taxes are low for everyone relative to most other countries. [edit: not just talking about individuals, also companies]
Some would do that because they think it’s the right thing to do. Many (most?) would only do it if they would not be among the ones getting taxed more, that’s why I wrote my comment/joke that if really the proposal would benefit 99% of the population and increase taxes only on the 1%, then it would pass easily.
So everything public (roads, schools, hospitals etc.) should require an entry ticket before you use it? And we should abolish AHV, ALV, the health care system etc.?
I know I’m not speaking for the majority but I’m glad to contribute according to my means, so me being affected by the measures doesn’t play a big part in the way I vote (and tend to play against my own selfish interest when it does). It used to be a sign of high social status to pay high taxes, because it meant you had a high income. Nowadays, tax avoidance gets more praise. I find that a bit sad but, there again, that’s just me.
Edit: And yes, I am very confident it would still be very possible to FIRE with this initiative being accepted.
Because if we ask the question: would you pay your taxes if you didn’t have to? Some people would answer “no”. The common good has to impose itself upon some people because if you let free riding be a viable and easy option, some people will follow it without realizing that’s making things unsustainable on the long run.
And yes, I know we disagree on that. I’ll try to reach for what I think is a good way for us as a society to move forward but I won’t cry if we don’t. When I hear the complaints about not being able to go on vacation making life unsustainable during this pandemic, I’m confident I’m more prepared for a dire future than some are.
That’s how societies are built rights and duties. Gives a sense of purpose and shared fate. Not everyone wants to fight for themself in a mad max world.
I wouldn’t because the measures we’d have to take to control and enforce it would be more expensive than having people paying for the whole society package without discretionary choice. Those controls being necessary to the functioning of the system, they’d have to be paid by everybody and couldn’t be crossed out by people ticking the “I don’t want to pay for the controls, give me the cheaper whole package” box, too.
(Emphasis mine) That’s the preamble of the Swiss constitution (https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en). You don’t want the freedom that comes with it? Be my guest. But freedom comes with responsibilities and it’s right there, at the start of our fundamental freedoms text.
You’re welcome to seek a place where society doesn’t work this way (or advocate for changing the one you live in), but that’s how all places work (and what living together has meant for a looong loong time, I’m fairly sure people living in tribes many thousand years had duties towards each other and breaking them meant being an outcast). This contract comes from you being born into that society, you’re free to leave it if you find somewhere else with a different contract.
Like many people, I’m happy to live in a society where we look out for each other instead of just caring about oneself. Isn’t the ground that it’s what societies tend to converge to (because that’s the main reason why we are social people and live together) a good enough reason?
Humans are social animals. Zoon politikon, as Aristotle said.
To me that also means that we have something like innate social duties. Now we can debate whether we cooperate with and help others out of egoism, expecting something in return, or out of an inborn moral law, as Kant believed.
Either way, no human can survive alone. Not back in the stone age, let alone in today’s modern world.
The problem with today’s world is that it’s too complex, too big, too fast. Just look at something like Dunbar’s number. The world has become bigger than us.
But even in today’s anonymous world we need each other!
I thus agree with @Wolverine and I am also happy to pay my share. Roads, schools, police, etc. Social welfare within reason. All those things that make a place good to live.
Of course there are things that I don’t like. This initiative for example…
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.
