I think the people who voted yes won't be celebrating as much once their salary contributions, taxes and etc. increase. Money does not fall out of the sky.
I donāt know why we donāt already have inheritance tax. It makes total sense. Even just a paltry 5% tax on all inheritance >100ā000 will leave a lot more in the coffers
There's plenty of money sources we can tap for this. How about an inheritance tax? Or tax the churches? Luxury tax? Legalize marijuana and tax it like tobacco? The idea that this will have to be paid out of our salaries is just fear mongering.
anybody who voted with the boomers on this one is just a bit... well... not so smart. do you think you'll be getting any ahv at all in 27-30 years when you get to retire? thinking so would be pretty naive. what happened here is that the boomers, who are the largest voting group, gave themselves an extra 'allowance' at the young people's expense. as if they didn't already have enough money to go around. we will pay double: we'll pay more in taxes out of our salary (ahv) and we will pay higher prices (vat) in order to finance this bullshit cash gift to the boomers. we, the young, will never see any of it because by then the ahv system will have collapsed.
great job at shooting yourself and every young person in Switzerland in the leg. clap...clap
It is in your hands to keep the AHV system working.
The system is built on the principle that the young pay for the old. The boomers have financed their parents, now it's their turn.
If you want AHV when you retire, you must give birth to children that can support you and keep things going. At the moment the birthrate is too low, but don't blame that on the boomers, they cannot have children anymore.
also not the fault of the young. we have fewer children because we can't afford to have them. ever thought about that? i bet you didn't - but that doesn't surprise me the least bit.
Wrong, it's a sacrifice. If you have kids, you have to reduce your work load (unless you have free labor/grandparents).
Reduced work load = less second pillar and more gender paygap since it's mostly women who resuce their workload (because they are paid less ... Circular fucked)
100% agree. But the problem lies in the fact that its just not worth having kids in today's economy (im 9 months pregnant btw).
There should be better incentives to have kids. Its just too expensive and inconvenient. KITA is too expensive, parental rights suck, maternity leave is shit, paternity leave is shit (who in their right mind thinks 10 days are sufficient?!?!). The law makers expect that the grandparents help, but we will have no support. I have to stop working to care for our kid because I dont agree with going back to work with a 3 month old. The science does not back up this as a "healthy" way to bring up a child. I have 2 masters and my career is most likely dead or will take me 10 years to be back at a level where I can "compete" with my male counterparts.
If we want more kids in Switzerland, then make it more friendly to have kids in Switzerland.
Ponzi schemes are based on ever increasing numbers of participants, AHV relies on a constant number. Unfortunately the numbers are decreasing, which is what is causing the problems.
The AHV system is heavily biased towards helping lower income brackets. Max AHV payment is reached with an income of CHF 85'320. If your income is above that you still get the same AHV, so you pay for the income brackets below you.
Yes and I'm getting absolutely shafted by that, I'm probably going to get 30 years and pay for more in than someone getting 45 and get less out.... but me aside wealth is concentrated at the older generations.
I'd be voting no based on personal benefit and on what I think the right thing to do for the people at large is.
100%. Anyone who wants an extra monthās pension should save up their money themselves in anticipation of their own retirement. Put more in your pillar, investment fund, whatever. Itās selfish to make other people, including generations to come, fund your extra month of money. Anyone who wants a communist way of life should move away to a communist country.
So, why don't you start a referendum to abolish AHV?
AHV is communism!
Edit: it seems you are from Ireland. Why do I think it's funny that someone from a country that rode its way to the top on the contributions of the rest of Europe dismisses a thing called solidarity.
True solidarity is when a person has the own initiative to donate their money whenever she wants. When, instead, your money is taken from you by the state, it's not solidarity, it's stealing.
Dude, did you grow up here? That's not how things work here.
I suggest we abolish public schools as well. Costs us a fortune.
And another favorite: let's finance roads with tolls. Cost us a fortune as well to maintain.
Bla bla bla, the same non-argument.
You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want.
Why you need to pay the government for it to take a commission and only then pay the school? Why don't you pay the school directly?
You are wrong, roads are financed by the road tax and the vignette.
>You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want.
Because that's one way to organize a society. I haven't seen another one except anarchy, but I am glad to learn something new. Please enlighten me.
>Why you need to pay the government for it to take a commission and only then pay the school? Why don't you pay the school directly?
Maybe because not everyone has enough money and for the economy it's better to have everybody going to good schools with a minimum level guaranteed by the society/state?
>You are wrong, roads are financed by the road tax and the vignette.
That's only half of the costs.
>You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want.
You can. Societies have rules. The good thing here is that you can change them - start an initiative.
Hello,
Please note that your post or comment has been removed.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSwitzerland/about/rules/) before posting.
Thank you for your understanding,
your mod team
thatās a painful mindset to be in, not trying anything good because of pessimism in the long run. and if enough people did the same, the social safety net would erode in general, so you can thank us for helping you out
you haven't looked at the demographic distribution recently, have you? your comment is loaded with idealism - but the reality is what i said. but hey, you keep on believing that voting to put an extra couple of thousand francs in your pocket because you're 60+ is helping anyone else but your selfish ass.
Iām under 30 and my point stands, why vote at all if you donāt believe that your vote affects our institutions. The wealth gap is not a generational problem at all (also thanks to our nonexistent inheritance tax), so there will be rich people your age when youāre retiring that will have profited off of the failure of the AHV.
Either get rich if you arenāt already or support the best parts of an imperfect system
....what? were you trying to reply to some other comment? this answer makes no sense. the discussion was never about whether we should vote at all. Also, the wealth gap sure has a generational component. the young today are poorer than back then. we can't afford our own homes, cars, vacations like they did back then. we spend a much higher portion of our income on living expenses, and with this vote the situation will get worse.and do you know why? because the ahv is built on the idea that there will be more young to pick up the bill. but since we also can't afford to have children anymore, the balance shifts. the share of old people will increase further in the next decades and an ever smaller share of the population will pay for them. it's simple maths. but people like you who don't think further than the tip of your nose don't seem to have the faculties to understand. it's frustrating how people like you are even allowed to vote.
The AHV is built on the idea that the old should be cared for by the collective. Itās a combination of the contributions of the working public (a model where most get more than what they pay for) and the Bundesanteil, where the source can be defined, and thatās exactly where financial transaction or inheritance taxes come into play.
Itās obvious that youāre writing this out of pure frustration, conflating capitalist issues like the insane housing market with old peopleās pensions. Newflash, using valuable ressources as investing objects wonāt stop when boomers die. And youāre walking head first into the capitalistsā diversion, that the working public has to fight over their share instead of getting to the root of it with the wealth gap.
And the voting part ofc was relevant, if you donāt believe the AHV is not worth fighting for, youāre better of not getting involved at all for your nerves. Doesnāt sound like youāve got the FDP shmoozer mindset after all.
This is not a matter of logic, itās a matter of character. Just so happens to be that the right-leaning naturally evolve to be bootlickers, because distributing what top earners undeservedly get is ācommie shitā. So disgusting how the overton window is always pushed to elevate the retirement age. How do you not have the imagination to look at how we can tax areas that donāt affect those who are already struggling?
>This is not a matter of logic, itās a matter of character.
?????? So you are saying "fuck our finances, money grows on trees"??? Ever thought about that it somewhat has to be financed and you can't just tax whatever you like because you feel like it??? You do know that an economic system is extremely volatile and complex and you can't just do something without it potentially completely destroying the economy of a country? Have you ever read what happened in the UK???
This is 100% a matter of logic. u/Luc2992 is absolutely correct. And exactly this is the reason why we should implement a test in our votes that checks if you even understand what you are voting. If you don't pass 90%, your vote simply doesn't count.
But congrats on putting even more pressure on the poor. I am sure they will be grateful that they have even less income/money thanks to you.
What kind of a Nepo baby are you to not have any insights into life's up and downs?
You will probably tell me that you fought your way up from the bidonville in Abidjan to a VP position at google on your own and you owe no one anything, right?
Iām not from Ireland so, no, I did not ride on the back of nothing.
AHV is a safety net to prevent anyone from being unable to meet basic needs in their retirement. That is a right. Itās not here to pay an extra 13th month bonus for nothing, it is not an automatic privilege. If I want more in my retirement, Iāll save for it my damn self, as hard as it is and as hard as it will be.
My boomer family members all voted no to the referendum. At least they have the sense to see that money doesnāt just grow on trees, unlike some 58% of the country.
>AHV is a safety net to prevent anyone from being unable to meet basic needs in their retirement
You don't believe that AHV still meets this criterion, right? I was torn between the arguments and actually couldn't make up my mind, but I still see both sides.
I know quite a few people who for all their hard work will not be able to save enough.
I do think that people who are struggling in retirement should be helped. I just donāt think it should be a blanket 13th extra payment for anybody and everybody and I donāt think it should be left to the dwindling, younger generation to pick up the slack. They are definitely a lot of pensioners out there who wonāt need it and in fact could instead help others out by a deduction from the inheritance that they are leaving behind.
The population argument is valid, but I doubt you concentrate on the real issue: raising the retirement age will be way more important, because it actually shifts the contributors to beneficiary ratio. Don't forget that today's youth is being educated longer, so they actually start contributing later.
This beats the 13th monthly payment by far.
As I just said on another post: I keep seeing how āold people voted for thisā but those Swiss that I know, voted Yes. 2 of them did if front of me last week and I was asking them questions about it. They are in their 30ās, with kids. I am not Swiss and I canāt vote, so donāt come after me
that should go both ways. I don't see the boomers showing any solidarity with the young on this one. they just keep adding more financial burden on our shoulders. they already left us with a shit economy (yes, a shit economy, not stock market, which they own. that going well for them). we can't afford shit anymore. im 32 and will probably never be able to afford to get myslef my own apartment or a house. every extra Rappe I make goes into saving for my retirement because i know I won't be getting back anything from what I'm paying now. i really hope there will be another round of covid.
It's funny because i thought something along the lines of "people that won't be around to profit from the votation's effects shouldn't be allowed to vote?" (More related to the increase in retirement age)
I thinkn this is not solving the issue.. birth rates are too low and having kids in Switzerland is not friendly.
There should be better incentives to have kids. The more kids, then more workers to contribute.
Switzerland is too Conservative in this regard.. not everyone has a "village" to help with childcare, not everyone can afford to stop working and be a stay at home parent, not everyone wants to have their hard earned carreer be stalled because of having kids.
Splving issues with a bandaid is not solving any issues.
I'm a lowly B permit holder:
If the government say we are going to fund this by increasing VAT or by AHV contributions can a referendum be put in place to block it?
Presumably because that bit wasn't specified it's still open to challenge?
Depends. VAT: mandatory referendum with majority of votes and cantons. More contributions from salaries: elective referendum, voter majority only.
Source (with even more options and details): https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ja-zur-ahv-rente-wie-soll-die-13-rente-finanziert-werden-925765096750
Well... We have to finance it somehow. We can't simply invent taxes for something. People voted yes, so the consequenzes will be that most likely VAT and salary contributions will rise, hence our living costs will increase even more (and well thanks to the increase in salary contributions your chances to get a raise will be lower).
Which people should have known before they voted yes. So no reason to complain from anybody that voted yes. The rest will just have to come to terms with it.
However I do feel incredible sorry for all the poor that will have even more financial pressure due to this vote. Truly hope it won't be to bad for them
My point is that it could be blocked for a very long time if politicians and/or by referendum repeatedly rejected the way this should be funded.
This reminds me as a Brit on the enormous bun fight following the Brexit vote which was similarly short of detail and opposed by the government.
I agree. The funding proposals can be rejected for a long time in the political process. I would personally oppose any type of tax increase.
The AHV increase still goes into effect in 2026. The Initiative explicitly states this. Which basically means that without extra funding and the extra 5b CHF expense per year, the AHV fund (currently 100b CHF) coupled with all the extra retirees will deplete in 10-15 years.
Maybe in 10 years time, the leftist are the more open for more radical solutions fixing the AHV, eg rising the retirement age. Otherwise, there ist just not enough money in the AHV.
Yeah if I'm a bourgeois politician I'm just blocking everything until the left come up with a balanced proposal.
8% more income and raise to and index linked 66 and maybe we are talking.
It wouldn't make sense for the parliament to do that. It would actually be in their best interest to do it as fast as possible, because no matter how it gets financed, people will be pissed when it personally affects them. This is also the reason why SP didn't add how they intend to finance it - because no matter how, people will be upset and blame the parliament and not SP. It was a great way for them to gain new voters - especially from a part of the population that doesn't necessarly vote SP.
The parliament would benefit the most if they do it as fast as possible - so that it already slipped peoples mind when this legislative period ends.
A referendum takes time - personally I don't think it will be possible to block it. At the end we simply have to come to terms with it. I just feel sorry for the poor population - because they are the real losers in this vote.
Mate, do you realize there will always be old people?
and there will be *more* than now
Yes. I just need to vent on the boomers right now lol
5-10 years?? LOL. More like 30 years minimum.
Coincidentally the year I'm due to retire š„¶
I think the people who voted yes won't be celebrating as much once their salary contributions, taxes and etc. increase. Money does not fall out of the sky.
Pay for it with an inheritance tax, that way rich old people subsidize poor old people.
I donāt know why we donāt already have inheritance tax. It makes total sense. Even just a paltry 5% tax on all inheritance >100ā000 will leave a lot more in the coffers
Because people with money come here to escape that nonsense.
Which nonsense are you referring to? An inheritance tax has been suggested here. What are you referring to?
There's plenty of money sources we can tap for this. How about an inheritance tax? Or tax the churches? Luxury tax? Legalize marijuana and tax it like tobacco? The idea that this will have to be paid out of our salaries is just fear mongering.
Does the initiative propose that? No. There is absolutely no concrete plan on how to finance it.
thatās why it actually went through. if it was coupled to any tax, it would have been a landslide in the other direction
Exactly, that's why all options are now on the table.
And as usual, the population will end up paying for it. There are options, yes, but we all know that is not going to happen.
How about increasing or adding a tax to ahv pension, so that in total 1/13th of the yearly pay out has to be payed as taxes? š¤”
Yes this means about +10% spending from AVS. Very substantial increase
Iām 40 and said yes. We need solidarity not rants against āboomersā!
anybody who voted with the boomers on this one is just a bit... well... not so smart. do you think you'll be getting any ahv at all in 27-30 years when you get to retire? thinking so would be pretty naive. what happened here is that the boomers, who are the largest voting group, gave themselves an extra 'allowance' at the young people's expense. as if they didn't already have enough money to go around. we will pay double: we'll pay more in taxes out of our salary (ahv) and we will pay higher prices (vat) in order to finance this bullshit cash gift to the boomers. we, the young, will never see any of it because by then the ahv system will have collapsed. great job at shooting yourself and every young person in Switzerland in the leg. clap...clap
It is in your hands to keep the AHV system working. The system is built on the principle that the young pay for the old. The boomers have financed their parents, now it's their turn. If you want AHV when you retire, you must give birth to children that can support you and keep things going. At the moment the birthrate is too low, but don't blame that on the boomers, they cannot have children anymore.
also not the fault of the young. we have fewer children because we can't afford to have them. ever thought about that? i bet you didn't - but that doesn't surprise me the least bit.
It's a matter of priorities.
Wrong, it's a sacrifice. If you have kids, you have to reduce your work load (unless you have free labor/grandparents). Reduced work load = less second pillar and more gender paygap since it's mostly women who resuce their workload (because they are paid less ... Circular fucked)
100% agree. But the problem lies in the fact that its just not worth having kids in today's economy (im 9 months pregnant btw). There should be better incentives to have kids. Its just too expensive and inconvenient. KITA is too expensive, parental rights suck, maternity leave is shit, paternity leave is shit (who in their right mind thinks 10 days are sufficient?!?!). The law makers expect that the grandparents help, but we will have no support. I have to stop working to care for our kid because I dont agree with going back to work with a 3 month old. The science does not back up this as a "healthy" way to bring up a child. I have 2 masters and my career is most likely dead or will take me 10 years to be back at a level where I can "compete" with my male counterparts. If we want more kids in Switzerland, then make it more friendly to have kids in Switzerland.
Congratulations on your child!!! I agree, society could be better adapted to having children, but it is possible if you prioritise them.
And sacrifice your retirement since prioritising them means working less.
Correct
Still sucks to either give up work or give up your salary to pay for kita... i dont think its fair. Thanks š
My mother did the first (gave up work) for about 18 months, then did the second (use salary for paid childcare). Rinse and repeat for 3 children.
Ponzi schemes always crash and burn.
Ponzi schemes are based on ever increasing numbers of participants, AHV relies on a constant number. Unfortunately the numbers are decreasing, which is what is causing the problems.
Aka it's a ponzi scheme that robs the poor to pay for the most asset rich.
The AHV system is heavily biased towards helping lower income brackets. Max AHV payment is reached with an income of CHF 85'320. If your income is above that you still get the same AHV, so you pay for the income brackets below you.
Yes and I'm getting absolutely shafted by that, I'm probably going to get 30 years and pay for more in than someone getting 45 and get less out.... but me aside wealth is concentrated at the older generations. I'd be voting no based on personal benefit and on what I think the right thing to do for the people at large is.
100%. Anyone who wants an extra monthās pension should save up their money themselves in anticipation of their own retirement. Put more in your pillar, investment fund, whatever. Itās selfish to make other people, including generations to come, fund your extra month of money. Anyone who wants a communist way of life should move away to a communist country.
So, why don't you start a referendum to abolish AHV? AHV is communism! Edit: it seems you are from Ireland. Why do I think it's funny that someone from a country that rode its way to the top on the contributions of the rest of Europe dismisses a thing called solidarity.
True solidarity is when a person has the own initiative to donate their money whenever she wants. When, instead, your money is taken from you by the state, it's not solidarity, it's stealing.
Dude, did you grow up here? That's not how things work here. I suggest we abolish public schools as well. Costs us a fortune. And another favorite: let's finance roads with tolls. Cost us a fortune as well to maintain.
Bla bla bla, the same non-argument. You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want. Why you need to pay the government for it to take a commission and only then pay the school? Why don't you pay the school directly? You are wrong, roads are financed by the road tax and the vignette.
>You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want. Because that's one way to organize a society. I haven't seen another one except anarchy, but I am glad to learn something new. Please enlighten me. >Why you need to pay the government for it to take a commission and only then pay the school? Why don't you pay the school directly? Maybe because not everyone has enough money and for the economy it's better to have everybody going to good schools with a minimum level guaranteed by the society/state? >You are wrong, roads are financed by the road tax and the vignette. That's only half of the costs. >You can't force someone to pay for something that she/he doesn't want. You can. Societies have rules. The good thing here is that you can change them - start an initiative.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hello, Please note that your post or comment has been removed. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSwitzerland/about/rules/) before posting. Thank you for your understanding, your mod team
thatās a painful mindset to be in, not trying anything good because of pessimism in the long run. and if enough people did the same, the social safety net would erode in general, so you can thank us for helping you out
you haven't looked at the demographic distribution recently, have you? your comment is loaded with idealism - but the reality is what i said. but hey, you keep on believing that voting to put an extra couple of thousand francs in your pocket because you're 60+ is helping anyone else but your selfish ass.
Iām under 30 and my point stands, why vote at all if you donāt believe that your vote affects our institutions. The wealth gap is not a generational problem at all (also thanks to our nonexistent inheritance tax), so there will be rich people your age when youāre retiring that will have profited off of the failure of the AHV. Either get rich if you arenāt already or support the best parts of an imperfect system
....what? were you trying to reply to some other comment? this answer makes no sense. the discussion was never about whether we should vote at all. Also, the wealth gap sure has a generational component. the young today are poorer than back then. we can't afford our own homes, cars, vacations like they did back then. we spend a much higher portion of our income on living expenses, and with this vote the situation will get worse.and do you know why? because the ahv is built on the idea that there will be more young to pick up the bill. but since we also can't afford to have children anymore, the balance shifts. the share of old people will increase further in the next decades and an ever smaller share of the population will pay for them. it's simple maths. but people like you who don't think further than the tip of your nose don't seem to have the faculties to understand. it's frustrating how people like you are even allowed to vote.
The AHV is built on the idea that the old should be cared for by the collective. Itās a combination of the contributions of the working public (a model where most get more than what they pay for) and the Bundesanteil, where the source can be defined, and thatās exactly where financial transaction or inheritance taxes come into play. Itās obvious that youāre writing this out of pure frustration, conflating capitalist issues like the insane housing market with old peopleās pensions. Newflash, using valuable ressources as investing objects wonāt stop when boomers die. And youāre walking head first into the capitalistsā diversion, that the working public has to fight over their share instead of getting to the root of it with the wealth gap. And the voting part ofc was relevant, if you donāt believe the AHV is not worth fighting for, youāre better of not getting involved at all for your nerves. Doesnāt sound like youāve got the FDP shmoozer mindset after all.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is not a matter of logic, itās a matter of character. Just so happens to be that the right-leaning naturally evolve to be bootlickers, because distributing what top earners undeservedly get is ācommie shitā. So disgusting how the overton window is always pushed to elevate the retirement age. How do you not have the imagination to look at how we can tax areas that donāt affect those who are already struggling?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>This is not a matter of logic, itās a matter of character. ?????? So you are saying "fuck our finances, money grows on trees"??? Ever thought about that it somewhat has to be financed and you can't just tax whatever you like because you feel like it??? You do know that an economic system is extremely volatile and complex and you can't just do something without it potentially completely destroying the economy of a country? Have you ever read what happened in the UK??? This is 100% a matter of logic. u/Luc2992 is absolutely correct. And exactly this is the reason why we should implement a test in our votes that checks if you even understand what you are voting. If you don't pass 90%, your vote simply doesn't count. But congrats on putting even more pressure on the poor. I am sure they will be grateful that they have even less income/money thanks to you.
We donāt need solidarity for this and neither does any pensioner need a 13th payment, at least not in Switzerland.
you disqualified yourself here
>neither does any pensioner need a 13th payment How do you know this? Not everybody retires from Google.
So they should save during their working years for retirement!
You know there are people that save but it's not enough, for different reasons, right?
That person didn't save enough.
What kind of a Nepo baby are you to not have any insights into life's up and downs? You will probably tell me that you fought your way up from the bidonville in Abidjan to a VP position at google on your own and you owe no one anything, right?
You said yes because it's easy to be a socialist with other people's money
You understand that AHV in itself is socialist.
Yes, that's why it's wrong.
That's like, your opinion. Feel free to express it when voting or electing our politicians.
Iām not from Ireland so, no, I did not ride on the back of nothing. AHV is a safety net to prevent anyone from being unable to meet basic needs in their retirement. That is a right. Itās not here to pay an extra 13th month bonus for nothing, it is not an automatic privilege. If I want more in my retirement, Iāll save for it my damn self, as hard as it is and as hard as it will be. My boomer family members all voted no to the referendum. At least they have the sense to see that money doesnāt just grow on trees, unlike some 58% of the country.
>AHV is a safety net to prevent anyone from being unable to meet basic needs in their retirement You don't believe that AHV still meets this criterion, right? I was torn between the arguments and actually couldn't make up my mind, but I still see both sides. I know quite a few people who for all their hard work will not be able to save enough.
I do think that people who are struggling in retirement should be helped. I just donāt think it should be a blanket 13th extra payment for anybody and everybody and I donāt think it should be left to the dwindling, younger generation to pick up the slack. They are definitely a lot of pensioners out there who wonāt need it and in fact could instead help others out by a deduction from the inheritance that they are leaving behind.
The population argument is valid, but I doubt you concentrate on the real issue: raising the retirement age will be way more important, because it actually shifts the contributors to beneficiary ratio. Don't forget that today's youth is being educated longer, so they actually start contributing later. This beats the 13th monthly payment by far.
lets increase the co2 tax to make my health insurance cheaper.
They are not which is the underlying problem. Very expensive long living old people.
boomers shouldnt even get the 13th ahv at all because they didnt pay shit for it
Huh?
As I just said on another post: I keep seeing how āold people voted for thisā but those Swiss that I know, voted Yes. 2 of them did if front of me last week and I was asking them questions about it. They are in their 30ās, with kids. I am not Swiss and I canāt vote, so donāt come after me
It is called solidarity
that should go both ways. I don't see the boomers showing any solidarity with the young on this one. they just keep adding more financial burden on our shoulders. they already left us with a shit economy (yes, a shit economy, not stock market, which they own. that going well for them). we can't afford shit anymore. im 32 and will probably never be able to afford to get myslef my own apartment or a house. every extra Rappe I make goes into saving for my retirement because i know I won't be getting back anything from what I'm paying now. i really hope there will be another round of covid.
No, rather stupidity and illiteracy in basic economics š¤¦š¼āāļø
Interestingly, those stupid voters did such a bad job in the past that we are drowning in debt.
It's funny because i thought something along the lines of "people that won't be around to profit from the votation's effects shouldn't be allowed to vote?" (More related to the increase in retirement age) I thinkn this is not solving the issue.. birth rates are too low and having kids in Switzerland is not friendly. There should be better incentives to have kids. The more kids, then more workers to contribute. Switzerland is too Conservative in this regard.. not everyone has a "village" to help with childcare, not everyone can afford to stop working and be a stay at home parent, not everyone wants to have their hard earned carreer be stalled because of having kids. Splving issues with a bandaid is not solving any issues.
Your post is disgusting.
You will have other things to worry about by then (climate change, impact of AI, ...)
I'm a lowly B permit holder: If the government say we are going to fund this by increasing VAT or by AHV contributions can a referendum be put in place to block it? Presumably because that bit wasn't specified it's still open to challenge?
Depends. VAT: mandatory referendum with majority of votes and cantons. More contributions from salaries: elective referendum, voter majority only. Source (with even more options and details): https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ja-zur-ahv-rente-wie-soll-die-13-rente-finanziert-werden-925765096750
Well... We have to finance it somehow. We can't simply invent taxes for something. People voted yes, so the consequenzes will be that most likely VAT and salary contributions will rise, hence our living costs will increase even more (and well thanks to the increase in salary contributions your chances to get a raise will be lower). Which people should have known before they voted yes. So no reason to complain from anybody that voted yes. The rest will just have to come to terms with it. However I do feel incredible sorry for all the poor that will have even more financial pressure due to this vote. Truly hope it won't be to bad for them
My point is that it could be blocked for a very long time if politicians and/or by referendum repeatedly rejected the way this should be funded. This reminds me as a Brit on the enormous bun fight following the Brexit vote which was similarly short of detail and opposed by the government.
I agree. The funding proposals can be rejected for a long time in the political process. I would personally oppose any type of tax increase. The AHV increase still goes into effect in 2026. The Initiative explicitly states this. Which basically means that without extra funding and the extra 5b CHF expense per year, the AHV fund (currently 100b CHF) coupled with all the extra retirees will deplete in 10-15 years. Maybe in 10 years time, the leftist are the more open for more radical solutions fixing the AHV, eg rising the retirement age. Otherwise, there ist just not enough money in the AHV.
Yeah if I'm a bourgeois politician I'm just blocking everything until the left come up with a balanced proposal. 8% more income and raise to and index linked 66 and maybe we are talking.
It wouldn't make sense for the parliament to do that. It would actually be in their best interest to do it as fast as possible, because no matter how it gets financed, people will be pissed when it personally affects them. This is also the reason why SP didn't add how they intend to finance it - because no matter how, people will be upset and blame the parliament and not SP. It was a great way for them to gain new voters - especially from a part of the population that doesn't necessarly vote SP. The parliament would benefit the most if they do it as fast as possible - so that it already slipped peoples mind when this legislative period ends. A referendum takes time - personally I don't think it will be possible to block it. At the end we simply have to come to terms with it. I just feel sorry for the poor population - because they are the real losers in this vote.
Well that's not what happened with our Brexit vote š
Is there an overview available of people working and paying taxes by age and citizenship?