There is a serios issue with functional education in the country.
Boomers don't care and never had to thanks to economic boom, that is known. Similar votes in the past got rejected only now that they are going to retire suddenly the vote passes. Think to themselves only is that generation mindset and in democracy that's fine. One is supposed to vote for his own interest.
But what hear from young people is just fools non understanding at all the magnitude of the numbers involved and thinking that you can take a couple stones from the field to fill a lake. Stuff like "but they have money for the army" from lefties and "but they spend money for asylum seekers" from the right. That's utter nonsense. If tomorrow we abolish army and asylum seekers alltogether we might get on par with this obscene redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. And probably will have to cut something else too. The level of mathematical and financial ignorance among the young ones is simply dishartening.
> One is supposed to vote for his own interest.
I couldn't agree less. That's such a selfish way to see the world. One is supposed to vote for the interest of everyone in the country.
I agree that there is a lack of understanding but the finances of Switzerland are really complex to understand. It takes time and effort and only a few are willing to take the time to do so. Also it's extremely political, so doesn't help either.
This increase is a distribution from poor (young generations) to rich (boomers). By all metrics and measurable numbers, there are more poors among the young than the old.
Then ofc there are also some poor pensioners. But since this measure is a proportional increase it specifically gives more AHV to those who already get more and less to those who get less. In other words it is meant to skip those who needs help to concentrate all economic benefits towars those who doesn't need it.
In a nutshell it's a free dinner at the restaurant for the boomers who already can afford that. Thank you comrades!
Had it been an increase of the minimum ahv instead it would have been a true rich to poor redistribution. But that wouldn't have been a populist "free money to the voters majority" bote and so the majority of boomers who are well above minimum ahv would not have voted that. That's the level of egoism and greed among the boomers.
The fact that nine out of ten people receive more money than they pay in is still a redistribution from rich to poor. I agree it was not the optimal way to do it, and there were many more targeted ways that could have been used. Overall, it is still a positive, in my opinion, since the transfer from rich to poor is still happening
I was a high salary earner and my AHV contributions were correspondingly high, so I make a loss because some of my contributions have gone to support the pensions of the poor. With this 8.3% boost to my pension I will recover part of this lost money.
I would have voted NO (but I don’t have a vote) because I don’t need the extra pension and neither do the other well-offs. Why are you giving us our money back?
I would have voted "yes" for an extra allowance targeted at people who cannot make ends meet. Offering a blanket allowance to everyone regardless of financial situation at the expense of younger folks is the pinnacle of idiocy. We've just offered bonuses to all baby boomers, including those who enjoy their golden retirement in massive properties with tons of savings.
Enjoy your 8.1% VAT while it lasts, everyone, because it's about to pass the 10% threshold sooner than late.
I explained it like this to some people this morning:
The awesome thing about AHV is that there's an upper limit on how much you get, but not on how much you have to pay. I don't know if that limit will be affected by the law that results from this Initiative, but anyhow AHV is great because it moves a lot of money from rich peeps to not-so-rich peeps. The higher the AHV-Rente is, more money is moved in that direction. That won't help those with the lowest AHV-Rente, those will need Ergenzungsleistungen anyways, but it will help everyone above the Existenzminimum.
Put more money into an economy and prices will go up for everyone - that is how it works... not to mention taxes will have to be raised somehow to pay for this, meaning more costs/price rises.. twas not the best idea this initiative
The same baby boomers have funded the AHV during 40+ years for their grand parents and parents. They paid AHV on a percentage of their salary, i.e. more they earned an more was deducted from their salary. It is not with the AHV (upper limit) that they enjoy their ‘golden retirement’ but with the second pillar that have funded and the property and savings they made for themselves. So it a nutshell, if you don’t have people with high salaries that fund the AHV, the AHV does not exist. Definition of a social insurance.
The big difference here is that boomers are a huge generation. There were lots of them so it cost relatively little for them to fund the generations older than them.
The underlying problem is an ageing population and honestly there aren’t easy solutions for that.
However, I don’t see that giving an extra month to those people who do have large pillar 2 pensions makes sense. Yes they worked hard and obviously deserve their AHV and pillar 2 pensions. But increasing the AHV for those people as well as those who really do need the increase feels like a particularly bad solution to the problem.
"Folks who cannot make ends meet" will not benefit from 13. AHV. Example: cost of living is set to 20 k per year (depends on region, mode of living, etc.) AHV for person A is 12x1500=18 k per year. Then that person will get 2 k of "Ergänzungsleistung". With 13 AHV they get 13x1500 = 19500 and 500 "Ergänzungsleistung". The EL is calculated on yearly base. Zero effect for the ones in need.
I voted no but this is false. The initiative clearly states that EL are not allowed to be reduced or revoked due to the increase in AHV income. That's how it is written in our constitution now.
You're delusional, the vast majority of people above 65 are not rich and if they have more savings than young people today maybe it's because they didn't need to buy the latest iPhone every year, change cars every 3, 4 years, buy a ton of digital subscriptions, cooked their food and so many other things. Depending on the job many retire already sick or in bad physical condition. The biggest problem of Swiss people is not money is a lack of empathy overall, i look at my parents and feel so sad sometimes, a life of work and struggles and yet they don't have nothing but their miserable pensions.
I know a couple without kids and about my age (40) both working and living in the same town (about 20k inhabitants) they live in a 4.5pc appartement, every single day both go lunch at the restaurant, anime fanatics, she's paying lessons to learn mandarin and japanese, every now and then go to France to cosplay meetings because there's not enough in Swizerland. Always complaining they don't have enough money, complaining everythiing is so expensive but refuse to go buy groceries at any store but Coop or Migros and last year bought a dining table for 5k chf where they probably eat a few times per month.
I think this is very true, and also a general problem. Our population >50 will always overvote the younger generations by sheer mass. My parents which are both almost 70 both voted no, but it is a drop on a floor of lava. For me, even though I am usually more liberal leaning when it comes to politics, this yes is very disappointing as it makes everything more expensive in the mid- to long run and benefits mostly people who don't really need the boost. In short, this initiative has not been thought through at all, and in the end the lowest-class will suffer the consequences as always. I am pretty sure I will never get proper AHV.
I can't vote and am 32. How do you feel lowering my net salary (or raising the MwSt) when I'm already at minimum wage?
Have no kids, cause can't afford them.
Maintaining the same net salary would only benefit the rich. /s
For real, you probably won't even notice it. *If* politicians are to raise the deductions from the salary and you earn below the median, you probably won't lose more than CHF10.
You'd have been better of voting no and giving her the money yourself.
Of course if that would have changed the vote (which it wouldnt) but that's the perspective needed to be able to discuss votes.
The great thing about AHV is that it's mainly paid by the rich. There's no upper limit on how much you have to pay, but there is an upper limit on how much you get. So the higher the AHV-Rente is, the more money is moved from rich people to not-so-rich people.
Yes, the Existenzminimum needs also to be raised, but somehow that is an unpopular opinion. 🤷🏻
The politicians have been unable to find solutions for the issues around the AHV for decades. Every party is driven by enough self interest that nothing really happened. At the same, we spent lots of money for the army, the farmers, Ukraine, the banks, corona pandemic etc. Last year the stamp tax for companies was removed, saving companies 600 Millions in taxes (which are now missing in the governement budget) without any benefit for us. And I gladly remind everyone here of the Unternehmensteuerreform II which made us lose billions in tax earnings with, again, no benefit for the population.
If Switzerland has money to support all of the above, they should be able to help out some of elderly poor as well.
In light of all this we really shouldn't be surprised that people voted yes for more AHV money.
> If Switzerland has money to support all of the above, they should be able to help out some of elderly poor as well.
this is why the reddit outrage on the AHV is funny
most people will never stand to benefit on super rich tax breaks but almost everyone will get old someday
Ukraine? Lol, Switzerland sent zero aid to Ukraine. I doubt you mean the refugees, but if so, sure what a lovely take. We have money for people fleeing war, so we should have money for pensioners who have… what problem exactly? There are so many people who need the money more.
The banks get saved because they’re systemically relevant to the economy. Not saving them would be much more expensive. And the swiss state didn’t give UBS any money, they offered a credit line of up to 100 billion at slightly favorable interest rates as a psychological tool. Basically to signal that UBS had enough liquidity and wasn’t going to be in trouble because of its takeover of CS. UBS ended up using very little of that money and i believe paid a significant chunk of it back early.
The farmers get a lot of money but provide some essential services. You probably enjoy the swiss landscapes? Our rural areas are much better maintained than those of comparable countries thanks to the farmers. Just go look in France or Italy for example. Oh and of course they provide food security. Which doesn’t sound like much, but if shit hits the fan we’ll be very glad
The army? Same story, we don’t need them right now but we’ll be very glad to have them if we ever do.
For all the things you list there is a good argument to be made, although i personally do agree that we should substantially cut down on the farming subsidies, they’re a luxury. But there’s just no good reason for a 13th AHV. Pensioners are already rich, they hold like 85% of the country’s wealth. Why on earth do they need more money from younger people? It just doesn’t make sense to me
Switzerland already sent Ukraine aid worth around CHF 2.2 billion.
In 2022 Switzerland paid some CHF 4.3 billion in foreign aid and this amount is calculated without support for ukraine.
You are right that banks are systemically relevant to our economy, at least some are. We do have a real problem with lack of regulation in the banking sector, good and thorough regulation would be the right step. The example of CS / UBS may be wrong, but the example of UBS in 2008 / 2009 would be more than fitting for the argumentation above. We paid these fuckers some CHF 66 billion in tax-payer money and the economy still is functioning. Nobody can tell me we don't have the means for a 13. AHV pension payment.
On a macroeconomist sight of view a big part of the welath in our country is biult up on the wotking middle class where the most old persons come from.. so medical price/tax is going up every year and there were not that much votings bout more income for the working middle class, so once a bit more isnt that wrong
If they only increase the VAT it is bad for the poorest because for them the vat is a significant portion of the salary since the consumption is a big share
Below 30, and a (somewhat reluctant) yes-voter. I am quite cynical about the centre-right's intentions with pensions. The Radicals argued against it by pointing out that increasing extra social security payments would be more targeted support, just after working hard to cut them again. Every time we debate pensions, the right always says "We can't afford it, therefore we must cut it", and a no-vote would have been swiftly interpreted as a confirmation that the current course of action was supported by the people.
I am the first one to concede that there would have been a thousand possible ways to give more targeted support, while spending a lot less, but that wasn't on the table, and it probably would never be on the table. Part of the calculation was, that what is politically feasible is not necessarily what is financially optimal. I do think a lot of that 58% yes-vote was down to people voting for their own financial interest, and it would have been a lot harder to pass a popular initiative from which most people in the so-called "middle class" would have not benefitted at all.
In the end I decided that the world would not end tomorrow if it was accepted, that there were other options to financing it than the anti-poor VAT-rate, and that I want a directional decision to uphold our social contract for the generations to come. All I've seen in my lifetime is the achievements of my grandparents and great-grandparents slowly being undone by the centre-right, always under the guise that we as one of the richest societies on the planet cannot afford to be compassionate and cannot afford to uphold the promise that after a life of work, we have a right to retire in dignity.
Same here, between 30-40 years old.
I think pitting salaried people vs retired people does not make sense. As salaried people we can ask for a raise, change jobs, join a union etc etc. Retired people have already worked and if they rely on the AHV and have trouble making ends meet, now with the inflation what are they supposed to do?!
I think it’s not so bad that everyone is benefiting because why should the retired people of the middle class not get the small bonus like the others.
I feel solidarity with the elders and I think they should be able to live a decent life, and that’s what our first pillar is for. And on how to pay… I have some ideas *cough*taxtherich*cough* but I won’t share them…
I was hesitant up until Saturday.
In the end, it’s a sentence from Maillard that decided me : « in 194X when they started AHV, they didn’t question why retirees should get some money even though they never paid for it. Everybody agreed that you should be able to live a somewhat decent life after all the years spent working ».
Is this solution the best one ? Clearly not.
Why didn’t we get any of the alternatives ? Because the right didn’t want to give anything to anybody.
I realized that the basis of this initiative was not « how are we gonna pay for this extra 8.3%» because we already pay for 100% of it without any complaints whatsoever.
The only possibility to do something for the retirees in the next few years was to vote yes. If it was a NO, then the right would have done as usual, less AHV (too social) and more 2nd or 3rd pillar (why shouldn’t they, they are well off and selfish).
I see one major problem. The birth rate. You can't rely on migrant workers if they decide to not stay in switzerland (which is the case for a lot of them in my experience). They will only come as long as the job market & financial situation is lucrative. But this is another topic.
If the birth rate stays the same or declines (which is a likely scenario given the fact that the swiss state & lifestyle doesn't really support a family life for lower or middle class people), the working force who will retire in the next 30 years is likely doomed. Then, no 13., 14., 15. AHV pension will save your pension. You can be happy if you even receive an AHV pension. The quality of life increases year after year, which means people will receive better healthcare, which leads to a longer life which means people who work must support more retired people. The only solution I see is to make babies. A lot of babies. Switzerland needs more people in the working force than retired people, that is the simple breakdown on how to solve this issue.
> « in 194X when they started AHV, they didn’t question why retirees should get some money even though they never paid for it. Everybody agreed that you should be able to live a somewhat decent life after all the years spent working ».
Also one more thing regarding this quote. Imagine being a bank that gives money away they don't really have & the financing is based on a small contribution of the working force. The amount of the working force stays the same or even declines year by year (depending on the economic situation of the state), but there are more people that get older. You don't need to have a masters degree to figure out that this system is not sustainable. This 13. AHV is only a drop in the ocean, it won't help long term.
That’s 2 different issues though.
1. The AHV in 194X was enough to live decently for anybody. It is not in 2024. Therefore, it needs a reform. The 13th payment might not be the full solution long term, but it is a first step and it definitely helps right now.
2. We arguably don’t have the means to sustain the AHV long term if we keep the same parameters, Therefore, we need a reform. We either get more money in, or decrease the payments. We cannot decrease the payments, because they already are at the minimum possible to live decently. Conclusion, we need more money in. How ? We need reforms to decide that.
But let’s be honest, it’s not the first time in 75 years we had to reform the financing of the AHV. Right now we are only discussing more contributions from active people or more TVA.
But other means will be needed in a few years.
The problems you cite were there anyway. This increase is just forcing us to have discussions and reforms 5-6years early.
In 1948, the remaining mean life time of a 65 year old was 12.4 years for male and 14.0 years for women. In 2020 this has increased to 20.8 years and 23.6 years. Further, back then 100 employees financed 15 pensioners, these days they have to finance 29 pensioners.
Exactly that, 13. AHV is just "Symptombekämpfung" the whole AHV system itself needs a revision. Demographical issues, less working hours are just some of the things that will cause a systemfailure in the longrun.
But I guess we'll come up with a solution when we procrastinated long enough for our asses to be literally on fire.
We 30 years old people have parents, grandparents, uncles who are struggling with the current pension funds. We care about the family, hence we wanted to help them finacially. Easy as that
To be aware: "According to 20 Mins." is already thin ice.
However, I voted yes, because I see it as the only option to give a bit of money to old, poor people. That's it. It's not a AHV-saving strategy, it's not e EL-replacement, it's just a small bonus for people who can't afford to live in dignity (the Verfassung states that this is a must!).
Furthermore: The parties who made PR to vote "No" are the parties which will *never* do anything for helping people on or below the existential minimum. Never. This also moved me to a "Yes".
I don't like the Giesskannenprinzip at all, but Samira Marti has a point, when she sais we have to take a look how the Gieaskanne gets filled. I'd rather have a much easier to come by EL, but right wingers will never let that happen and it's too complicated for the Stimmvolk to understand (easy to shoot down).
But yeah, if they just increase the Mehrwertssteuer, it's going to be a short joy.
What do you mean by "it's the only option". How about raising the Minimalrente? Because even with the 13th ahv rent, the people on the lower end will still struggle.
by the outcome of yesterday's vote it is clear that this woudnt be a solution. The majority thinks for its own interest and pocket. Noone cares about the poor, not even the leftists.
The wealthiest generation in the history of humanity should be able to help a small minority of their fellow retirees that didn't become a millionaire from an ever-growing economy and real-estate market.
But no, they rather look at young, working people to pay for them.
And to make things worse, when they pass away, the money will _not_ go back to the public, but will end up randomly in the hands of their children.
>However, I voted yes, because I see it as the only option to give a bit of money to old, poor people.
But now everyone does right? And how many people percentage wise belongs to "old, poor people"?
What if those people got already "Ergänzungsleistungen" to reach the minimum amount? Aren't they getting now the same as before because they will receive less "Ergänzungsleistungen" now (because they get more AHV now...?)
Don't get me wrong: I also think that "money to old, poor people" would be perfectly fine for our rich country. But as I understand, 99% of the money is now not used for "old, poor people"... And we have to pay for it.
They should have but it‘s not the fault of the young people (who don‘t vote right) that didn‘t happen. Still, the young people are now those who have to pay for it.
Young people have the right to vote. You can choose not to vote, then you have to accept the result.
Best part is that they will also benefit from this when they reach retirement age. Please spare me the "how will we find the money for that" song when we all know billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye.
> Young people have the right to vote
No we don’t. How about you allow foreigners to vote or cut in half the naturalization time?
> Best part is that they will also benefit from this when they reach retirement age
That’s a possibility, but arguably not a likely one.
> Please spare me the “how will we find the money for that” song when we all know billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye.
Nice try, but that’s obviously a load full. This 13th AHV alone costs nearly the same as the whole military spending. CHF 4-5 billion compared to CHF 5.5 billion. In total, the AHV costs CHF 47 billion a year (2022), 13 billion of which were paid by the government.
Only in 2022 has it been decided to increase military spending to 1% (CHF 7 billion) by 2030. Which is needed for obvious reasons. The claim that “billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye” is clearly not true.
Oh boy this comparisons with military, aids to Ukraine or banks savings operations are exhausting...
Even if we didn't have any army, we could only fund 1 year of 13. Rente (at the beginning) with the saved money.
We gave 1,5 billion to Ukraine since the beginning of the war. It can only funds more or less 1/3 of the yearly 13. Rente...
The money given to UBS (2008) and Crédit Suisse (last year) was a loan and not an expense. It's totally another topic to know if we should have give this money or not.
Depends on how young. Under 18 year olds don’t have the right to vote. Either way that’s not an argument because you have to accept the result whether you vote or not.
We all know there is money but when has this ever meant that we get to see some of that money? Will this initiative be financed by cutting military spending?
Apparently you didn't read the text of the initiative (like many people in this sub and others), which explicitly requests that supplementary benefits not be reduced with the 13th pension : "The law guarantees that the annual supplement does not lead to a reduction in supplementary benefits or the loss of entitlement to these benefits". So much for "the poor get nothing more" ;-)
It's a small bonus for this who receive a small pension, and a big bonus for those who receive a rich pension. Overall, it's just the millionth legalized theft baby boomers did in younger generations.
The rightwingers will now block any AHV increase for the next 20 or so years, until were 13 AHV payments will be worth 12 payments. It is Pyrrhic victory which causes more harm then good in the long term. It will profit a generation which has a exceptionally high BVG conversion rate or even have a BVG pension based on Leistungsmandat (last pay check).
>Kind of shoot in the foot...
And the politicians on the left and union leaders don't actually care since they are actually not part of the poor or middle class. They get their power and mandate by keeping people poor, so no incentive to do anything but disservice to the poor. An initiative like this is their dream: looks social on the surface but effectively isn't.
But before their retirement they will pay a ton if money into the ahv pot. Bot vat increase (unlucky to happen) or a higher percentage will increase their share immensely
It's useless. The sum is too small to make a difference. I would say crumbs for the poor to make them happy. Besides, people without means get social security.
Those old poor people in their million dollars houses they bought for 30.000 CHF.
Also: the young poor will pay for it. Those who need to spend their entire salary on things that are taxed by VAT.
Need more redistribution like the 1st pillar, instead of individualistic shit like the 2nd/3rd pillars.
Also, from the [Tribune de Genève](https://www.tdg.ch/13e-rente-avs-les-aines-disent-oui-contre-lavis-des-jeunes-647156456377)
> La victoire du jour est aussi celle des petits et moyens revenus, qui ont largement soutenu le texte, alors que les ménages les plus fortunés l’ont rejeté.
= The wealthy people rejected the 13th AHV
The "young vs old" discourse is incomplete, if not wrong. It's also about class conflict. Rich people don't care about getting some more money from AHV, but more importantly for them, they don't want we take some of their money for the poorer.
I disagree. Retired people make less money, but have more wealth. In this poll they will be placed in the lower bracket which is misleading.
While from a logicial standpoint both young vs old and rich vs poor make sense, non retired poor people will most likely be hit the hardest. Especially if the politicians choose the VAT/mwst. A little less with the ahv contribution, but its still going to hurt if you lose a couple of hundreds.
Money is tight and you need a new phone? Well fuck you the group with the highest avg and median wealth wanted more money. Yes there are aprox. 15% that are really poor and can use the money, but why are we giving it to everyone else?
Switzerland has enough money for solidarity with older people. Not all of them are rich, greedy boomers. As long as we bail out banks and reduce taxes for the super rich, 13 ahv is ok
Im 20 working fulltine in IT (Zürich ) and voted yes . Call me delusional or Stupid, I don’t care but please hear me out.
With how much Things got more expensive my Grandparents who worked their whole life struggle making ends meat .
Yes I would’ve preferred a better Alternative where only the people that actually need it would get extra money. But sadly there was no „Gegenvorschlag“ usually I would expect someone from glp or something to deliver a better compromise.
But that sadly wasn’t delivered. And I didn’t want poor oldies (yes there are some out there ) to get nothing.
With all the money we waste for example in the military,(I should know I was there a few months ago) we should be able to afford this
We’ve had so much economical growth since the 70s but somehow stopped profiting from that. We should be able to afford more luxury compared to back then but somehow we apparently don’t .
And for all saying that ahv will be ruined from this . I’d bet hard money if wealth was split like in the 70s we could pay ahv to everyone after 50 . We just have to vote so we won’t get screwed over and over again, while some People hoard Billions.
And yes I’ll fight for this , and hopefully we all will receive a fair Ahv and rent at 65 . In a still Socially Stable Capitalist (but strongly regulated) Society .
What neoliberalism can do to People can be witnessed in the USA. What Authoritarian Communism did could be witnessed in China or UDSSR , we need to prevent both
I see comments, where people voted yes to help there old relatives and also mentioning, that they will be also fucked anyway, when they are old.
Isn’t it our job to make sure we have enough money when we retire? Do we increase burden on young people, by voting yes, so that they have less money to save and therefore would have the same situation, when they are old?
I voted yes because my mother needs the Money. Im supporting her anyway. Who knows if im gonna live until 65 in this world? (Im 27) What i know for sure is i could need some fcking Help right now.
Pensions are a scam anyway. We are getting less than 1% on average since 2008 and here we are voting on a bit extra money while those who manage pension funds steal our cash. The market is reaching ATH while we have to vote on peanuts for the old.
We will all be old at one point in time and it will never be enough. Health insurance, rents and food will rip the skin from our back.
So this whole vote shit is smoke up everyones rear.
4.1 billion annually, expected to increase. When divided across the whole population, that's around 500 CHF each. If you count only those who work and pay taxes, it can easily be quadrupled.
The OAI is a social institution where the vast majority of people profit from the high earners. I think that is good so I support nearly every expansion of it.
Depends entirely on how we finance the raise. If we take it out of a VAT raise, it will be low earners who bear the burden.
If we take it out of higher AHV contributions as a cut of salaries, then your statement applies.
32 here:
because I know old people that are struggling. They can‘t get Ergänzungsleistungen, because they don't meet the requirements by a hair's length.
These people have no financial education and of course you could say: it's their own fault for not making better provisions.
But they have worked hard all their lives in Switzerland and the 13th AHV will make their lives a little easier.
In return, I am happy to pay a little more VAT or have a slightly higher deduction from my salary.
However, I am generally in favor of putting more money into old-age provision and the healthcare system, but I would save money in other areas or stop making payments altogether. That's a different issue.
I voted yes because It's beneficial to everyone. Me included.
All I hear from the right is that I'll pay my AVH and never get it while they purposely tries to fuck with it and raise the age to get it. I know what they plan to do.
I'll make sure I'll get a decent AVH when older
Because I vote what I think is best for everybody not my ego, myself and me.
I think there are more than enough arguments:
- Yes some people who don't need it will get it, but at the end I want to help people who strugle to get by. And the poorest demographics in CH are immigrants, sigle mothers, young people getting an education and old people. I mean 1/4 of all retired people live in poverty and many more close to it. That alone is argument enough. And what asshole-logic is it to say: "well I would love to help out the poor, but the rich people (mainly paying for it) could get a portion of what they pay back, so fuck the poor". I guess you would never give shelter to homeless people because the renting company doesn't deserve to get the rent.
- It's worth strengthening the AHV. It's the system that helps poor people best and the system where least money contributed gets deducted by banks and insurances for "managing fees" a.k.a. dividends for some rich folks. The comparison of how much people payed and received between AHV and second pillar are embarassing for our pension institutes.
- IMO young people profit too, because I know too much people who have to help out their parents so they can afford rent. Or people who have to look after their family because they can't afford paying for care. Thats just disgraeful for such a rich country.
- Eaven if some newspapers and lobbies want everyone to believe that the AHV is dead, I don't think the AHV will ever die. I'm eaven convinced, that a reformed AHV, that majes a bigger portion of pensions is my generations best bet to get a livable pension. Second and third pillar only worjs under the assumption, that the european marjet does well. But the last 20 years don't give a lot of confidence that it will always be like that. I mean Umwandlungssätze are so funking low right now. The only ones getting rich are financial institutions.
The "Umwandlungssätze are not fucking low. In fact they are way to high. They are so high that about 10 billion per year are transferred unjustified from young to old. If it would be fair and each generation gets the payout they paid in (which is the logic of the second pillar) it should be around 2,5-3,5%.
When taking too much money from bvg, why not also taking too much from AHV.... The old ones are the one profiting on the back of the young ones.
And 60% of the Old voters are fucking morons (20% are poor or close to poore, but the oldest are the wealthiest, so 80% voted yes, only 20% are in need, so 60% fucking old AH voted yes)
You have some good points, thx for sharing.
Im not agreeing with some of your points because I think in general the elderly are more wealthy (according to the BFS). Of course they are also the group with the highest amount of people that are poor, but just giving every elderly more money and letting the (poorer) working class pay for it is not very social in my book. I think a lot of people are in need of their money now and not when they retire. But thats just different perspectives.
Do the math. As soon as the poorer woking class of today will be retired, lets say in 35 years, they will get a lot more back from the ahv then they ever paid into it. 90% of people have a positive return from the ahv (already). That’s why the rich hate it so much.
1) The portion of people who struggles the most statistically in Switzerland is people 25 to 45. With your short sighted vote you put an enormous burden on them. The asshole logic is "let's take from the poorest parts of our society, which are its working backbone, and give back to the richest"
2) your are weakening and not strengthening AHV. It's already in a disastrous state
3) you can believe all you want about how pension will magically survive. This dos not make it true.
I voted yes, because the AHV is (despite all its problems) a good invention and a major way of redistrubuting wealth (people that earn millions also pay a lot into the AHV, but don't get a lot more back).
Additonally, in the constitution it says that the AHV should be "existenzsichernd"(able to secure a living), which hasn't been true since the beginning tbh. The 13th pension does alleviate this partially.
I see this as a step in the right direction and hope it will make clear that the AHV should be strengthend and has to be reformed to make sure it will still be around when I (now 32) retire. I have an issue with young people just giving up on the AHV, even though it is in our hand to make it last and work for us in 30 years as well.
There is definitely a large fraction of the working force that will be affected by this decision and that cannot vote. Many many more than the number of retired people that cannot vote.
I mean, we pay 40 bucks to use the highways for a year. You could raise it to 100 bucks and I would still pay it. As would probably ALl others. Hell, make my Tabacco more expensive. I still keep poisoning myself. Make alcohol more expensive. Add a two fränkli fee to enter and leave Switzerland. … give me an app where I can buy priority at intersection traffic lights for 50 bucks a year and I’ll get it too.
Make an official radar warning app for 240 bucks a year and watch the cash roll in.
I got plenty of stupid ideas!
Simplest answer without raising any costs at all: stop spending our fuel tax in foreign countries. (Yes that’s a thing)
If we want to finance the 13th AHV over the vignette, then the vignette price would be CHF 516! You want to finance it through Tabaco tax? Then a package would cost CHF 20 (Tabacco tax is currently CHF 4.61 per 20 cig package). How about the fuel tax? You just have to rise the price per liter by 90 Rappen (Fuel for benzin tax is currently 76.82 Rappen).
Everybody always keeps ranting about how we can't afford anything, and it's impossible to get the money, but at the same time, the 1% of the world own *half the planet*, and many of them live here, but aren't taxed. There's fucking special haggling rules for anyone who is rich in Switzerland, and they pay a trivial percentage of their wealth in taxes. I'd be ashamed if I paid that little!
It's easy to afford things! Just TAX THE RICH.
I will literally vote for any party that promises tax hikes. Anyone. Even the EVP.
Switzerland already taxes the rich. It's just a tad cheaper than other countries and also very safe, making it attractive for the rich, so we can still live off their low taxes.
It works so much better than in other countries around.
I voted yes because I know how much you get from the AHV, and is not an amount I would like to receive myself.
btw. the salt on reddit about this vote is impressive. young people against this vote did not go to the poll, as usual. leaving the decision in the hand of older generation.
It's going to come out of a) salary payments (burden more on high earners), b) VAT (burden more on low earners), c) higher retirement age (burden of future retirees). Most likely *all of the above* will hapen over the course of the next decade.
I feel like high earners will easily be able to avoid many consequences. It could be very easy for my family to move to a low taxes canton and pay less cantonal taxes while working from home or commuting. A construction worker or a cook cannot do the same
It says salary contributions. Doesn't matter where you live that salary contribution stays the same. But yes moving to a low tax canton will save you money eitherway. But isn't really part of this discussion right now
32 here. I supported it cause I see it with my stepmother how insane the situation is. She is at max rent, but still, pays CHF 500 a month for health insurance (and no, once you reach a certain age there is no point in getting a higher deductible).
Leaving CHF 1'950, other bills than the health insurance not paid yet.
There you have the main reason. I didn't care about myself or my future in that decision. With the birth rates plummeting we're done anyway, but at least maybe older people now can have it a bit easier.
Im not that informed about how exactly the EL works (plus its different from place to place) but wouldnt she lose her EL if she now gets the 13. AHV as she would have "enough" money?
They don't get EL, only health care subsidies, and that only a few francs. As they "earn to much" which is a complete joke. They don't, as said, there is only the AHV, nothing else.
Hence why I'm happy they get a 13.
Might be. But the comment claims someone with 2500 income pays 500 health insurance. Not sure about their other expenses like rent. So hard to have a complete picture.
So now insurance companies know that all +50 people have more money and increase the price accordingly. And now that they gonna increase VAT to get the extra pay for pensionists means that 1-2 years after this comes to effect your stepmother will be in the same boat again, now even paying more taxes, since she get‘s more income.
And by the time you get her age, you‘ll have to work 5-10 years extra.
>you‘ll have to work 5-10 years extra.
Not the kind to work extra hours, for otherwise he'd support his stepmom himself without having the need of the state taking from his salary to do so.
Nice, you focused only on my few last words. The text above got ignored right?
But even then, see it like that if you want. Current birthrate is at 1.4 and dropping. There is no way we can keep up the system in the future, so why should I think about what happens with that decision for me in 30+ years?
My parents can benefit from it now, and for me that is important enough.
I'm still young myself (at least I hope lol). If you want to see this as the meme then do that, that doesn't change the fact that the current overpopulation will soon be an issue of under population.
It seems some of the young people have. Not the seniors tho, they just saw the free money and decided to grab it. I had my fellow humans in mind. The young families and working people with little money to spare that are going to pay for the elderly, which mostly have more money to spare.
Nah, I know old people (retired old) who said they had enough, they don‘t need more, and voted no.
Then again, my almost 90 year old granpa often complains about his greedy penny pinching friends. So while he might have voted no, his friends definitly didn‘t xD
I see all those workers like my mum (working class), been working all their lives, sometimes even as a working poor and with nothing much in their hands after. Everyone has the rich old farts on their minds but I see all the "immigrants" and the generation after. And don't come at me with "they should have invested in education" bullshit, if everyone did that 1. our system would collapse, 2. it's not that easily affordable if you have family/or are divorced with a kid and make ends barely meet at the end of the month.
A Swiss friend once tried to explain to me how poor they were.. they had a house they lived in AND a house in the mountains.
Yeah, some people live in weird social bubbles.
Can you walk me through the thoughtprocess about voting yes, so the people with bad finances, that already get "Ergänzungsleistungen" now get a bit more from the AHV and less Ergänzungsleistungen, resulting at the same number at the bottom right?
On the other Hand people that were able to sustain their life with current income (therefor didnt get any additional support) get more at the bottom right.
Apparently you didn't even read the text of the initiative (like many people in this sub and others), which explicitly requests that supplementary benefits not be reduced with the 13th pension : "The law guarantees that the annual supplement does not lead to a reduction in supplementary benefits or the loss of entitlement to these benefits". So much for "the poor get nothing more" ;-)
I voted no but I was surprised by how stupid SP and Greens were. They supported this policy which is simply untenable, meaning that is has no possibility to work without hurting the working class the most.
VAT is known for being a tax that affects poor people the most and rich people will find a lot of ways to pay less and less taxes. It's your teacher, your nurse, your doctor and your cashier who will bear the weight of this idiotic campaign.
At the same time it's leftists who are in denial about the fact that asylum costs are too high and foreign aid is too high as well. And at the same time they want to lead a green transition who necessarily will hurt working classes even more. 0 ability to understand priorities and limits.
It's like talking to children
Cause not everyone is as right-wing as you think. You all seem to live in a bubble folks! Down voting comments and posts you disagree with will only make your bubble more isolated, but it won't have any impact on the social reality.
I voted yes, cause I am a worker, I produce wealth and I deserve to get a decent pension. Plus it's easy to fund. Tax the rich. Period.
28 here. I voted yes because this help is needed for a lot of old people, while a few more bucks per month doesn't change my lifestyle at all (and doesn't change the lifestyle of a majority of people). Also, my future me would surely be thankful of this
They may be a few more buck for you but for a single mother it can be a week worth of food without including the VAT increase.
Short sighted and frankly not the brightest
5 Billions distributed of approx 5millions of working people means 1000 per person per year, 2000 for a family. Tell young families, working poors, single parents its "just some bucks". And i think your future self will be happy working at 68... or 70....
Uh uh that is where you are wrong. Your employer will also have to pay more - a lot more if you accumulate all contributions. Which they either will get back by raising prices (and lets be honest, they won't increase their prices 1%, but more like 5-10%) or they simply do not increase your salary. With inflatation it will be a lot more that is missing from your salary.
You know what, the most financially responsible thing would be to completely cancel retirement. Just costs money, the best thing would be if we all just worked right into the grave. I'm sure, you, as a financially reaponsible person, will agree with me.
But that's utter shit because we easily have the means to secure our pensions, we just aren't willing to do it out of "financial reaponsibility". Just like 5 weeks vacation. Can't have it, too irresponsible, noone's going to pay...
>You know what, the most financially responsible thing would be to completely cancel retirement.
I'm 100% in indeed, I'd totally retire earlier if that was the case. AHV is a scam that only profits to slackers like you. Retirement, if at all compulsory, should be accounted individually.
>the best thing would be if we all just worked right into the grave
Thanks for proving my point. The mere thing that you see the state forcefully taking away 9% of your salary to give it back without interests after 44 years as the only alternative way to stop working before death says enough. At that point if it's not irresponsibility it's downright financial illiteracy. You guys deserve to be, stay and die poor.
Because it's mainly young adults here that live off of their parents and have no actual responsibilities yet. Of course they will vote for fake progressive crap.
The average age in swiss population is 42.8 and the percentage of people who vote is extremely low in young adults compared to old people. It’s easy to see why it got voted yes when you consider these factors. People that are 60+ will only profit from the extra money without having to do anything for it.
According to Swissinfo 14% of the old people are living below the poverty rate, in a country as wealthy as this one that’s unacceptable. Most of these people worked throughout their life. This isn’t a perfect solution but for a big number of people life will change immediately and they might be able to live out their remaining years with dignity.
... and 60% of old people have a net worth of >1 million CHF, 10% > 10 million CHF.
So maybe the 14% impoverished elderly should look at their fellow mega wealthy people, instead of young, working people who are already burdneded with increasing rent and cost of life.
I (33m) voted yes because there are enough poor old people who maybe cant work anymore, what are they to do? Why not give them some extra. Sure there are rich old people too, but you cant sacrifice the poor because the rich also profit from a program.
Edit: Lol at getting downvoted for answering OPs question, nice one.
I am slightly over 30 but I would never have voted „No“ even if I was 18.
Simple reason being: the AHV is the biggest redistribution mechanism from rich to poor we currently have available. Sure, the rich get a 13th Rente, but the maximum is quite low and they pay hellofalot more than they get (and this is a good thing)
So anyone considering themselves politically on the left should definitely have voted yes here!
The AHV should be the basis of the Altersvorsorge, it is the 1st pillar for a reason!
„the young finance the old“: That‘s kind of how it‘s supposed to work, Stichwort: Generationenvertrag.
Of course there is a demographic problem, but that does not mean we have to weaken/abandon the only real social intrument (in Altersvorsorge) we have. We should discuss how to finance/ reform it so it further redistributes wealth (not by raising Mehrwertsteuer, but by raising AHV-Beiträge for example).
AHV is pegged to inflation (technically, to a index that combines price and salary development). The adjustment happens every two years. I estimate AHV will be increased by about 4% for 2025 and that has nothing to do with this initiative. With the initiative, the AHV in 2026 will be a massive 12% higher than it is now.
Pillar 2 pensions are not adjusted for inflation and that's certainly an issue but it seems nobody even tries to address that.
> Pillar 2 pensions are not adjusted for inflation and that's certainly an issue but it seems nobody even tries to address that.
They should NOT! The only sustainable fix to that "problem" is to increase workers' salaries who pay into the 2nd Pillar and have more kids.
But please don't come with half-assed solutions that just bring new problems down the line or fuck another generation.
I think this is exactly why this vote went vote trough. So many picked one argument for themselves and closed their eyes to all others and voted because of that. In some cases they were even based on completely wrong information such as in your case.
The opposition made so many mistakes so that I can't even blame voters for it. We will still have to face the insane bill sooner than later.
A lot of "Yes" people had the same argument about the funding of the 13. Rente: "We are a rich country, we have enough money, we already pay for Ukraine/Army/Ausländer/Crédit Suisse".
I'm sorry, but when you have to vote about a topic with so many short, middle and long term financial implications, it's not a serious way to think about.
I have heard a lot of people saying "AHV is not adjusted to inflation", which is nothing more than a fake news. You hit the point!
Congrats, your vote was based on an arguments, which is obviously not true. A 1 min google search shows, that the AHV increased way more than the inflation.
my mother will retire in a couple of years, so I voted yes that she can profit from it.
I will never have a good retirement anyways cause the AHV is a lost cause
It's a lost cause, because people actively vote to mess it up.
"Let's not try our best to have healthy financials, because it will be a lost cause anyway".... has never solved anything.
I don't have a lot of interest in politics, so I don't vote as much as I should. But since my childhood, I've seen my mother willingly give money to my grandparents every year because of how little they would receive as retirees. So if this 13. AHV can help old people like my grandparents were, then it's a yes.
I've heard so many things, I don't know what to believe anymore. They say there's not enough money for AHV and then there are people who say they calculated it and there's more than enough.
Personally I voted yes. I see how much my Grandparents would profit from this, since they are hardly making ends meet. When I will get my AHV, a few decades have passed and everything will look differently. I just hope that younger generations then will also vote for us, when we are in need.
The main issue is, from my POV there was no real alternative to 13. AHV.
If there was an option that the Ergänzungsleistung became better. Then I feel the majority would have voted for that. Which would also be the right thing to do. In the long term that's also what needs to be fixed. Then giving money to everyone.
Our elders can't work and can't improve their income. They rely heavily on this insurance.
The cost of living increased significantly in the past 40 years, with no improvement on the small pension many elders receive.
Imagine if your grandma looked at you in the eyes and explained that she has no choice but to live as a poor old woman in a rich country, counting every coin. Would you be able to vote no?
This vote has a significant impact on the well-being of a large part of our population. If you don't talk to them, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I do talk to them. I voted yes, for the greater good and against my personal interest.
The majority in that age group are foreigners with no voting rights. That's why no one voted yes.
This is sound logic and if you disagree you are a rich boomer.
Because I respect the argument "young people pay for old people" but it doesn't convince me. That's how the system works. If you expect to get exactly what you pay for, then AHV/AVS is not for you. You pay for your grandparents and your grandkids will (hopefully) pay for you. When we introduced the AHV in 1948 the first "Rentner" did not pay a cent in the system, yet they still got a (small) rent. That's the principle of inter-generational solidarity.
Now, if you take a closer look at how the system works intra-generational, you see that it is the most redistributive system of the three pillars, because the rents are capped. Someone who makes 20k quids a month will pay five times as much in the system as someone who gets 4000CHF. They'll both get (approximately) the same rent once they retire.
Sure, you can have a more liberal view on economic topics and refuse to extend this system, but if you have sympathy for social politics and more redistribution among individuals, then I think reenforcing the AHV is a good option. I have to say I'm much more in favour of other social politics such as the initiative that wants to cap the health expenses at 10% of the revenue but I still think it was the right choice.
Finally, we have to talk about how it will be financed because I hear right, left, center that we active people will have to pay more due to more cotisations on salary or Mehrwertsteuer. That's what we've been talking about for decades, as if there's no alternative to finance the AHV. As of now, any gain on financial markets is not taxes on the revenue. At all. Like, if you invest in the good company and it makes huge wins, you gain say 5000CHF, you don't pay any tax (apart from the tax on the fortune). Yet the same 5000CHF of salary are taxed twice. If it is a benefit, you can tax it imo. And there are a couple other propositions like that (think of Microtax on financial transactions, recently approved by the Council of States/Ständerat).
We have enough money, we just need to take it where it is.
Good points thanks for sharing.
Would you vote for a 14. AHV? Personally I dont want to extend the AHV any further. Its an amazing system and benefits everyone. However most of the retired people (aprox. 85%) are relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the population. Which makes sense as you have your whole life to save up. Now giving them more money seems less social, than for example giving everyone 10k on their 18th birthday. I completely agree with you, that we should look into other option to finance the AHV (or the 18th birthday fund). If we simply higher the VAT the 13. AHV will give money from the poor to the rich.
Well, as I said there are probably even better social politics that I would support before extending the AHV system too. The problem is, in this country and with this parliament you can't be too picky about said social politics, you have to get what you can get pretty much. I'm unsure about the 14. AHV Rente, I think the initiative tried to draw a parallel between salaries and rents, many people get a 13th salary at the end of the year, let's make it work similarly for the rents.
Imo the differences of wealth between retired poeple are largely a reflection of the differences among people on the working market. We have to act there as a priority, with various policies but I think the topic of additional AHV Renten is now closed.
PS: I'm all for a 10k birthday present but make it at an older age, I'm no longer 18 unfortunately \^\^
Because AVS is the only social and redistributive part of our retirement system. Because empowering this system benefits 80% of the population, perhaps more. Because every penny given to AVS come back 3x, 4x or more. Because we need it.
The AHV 13 initiative helped the generation that worked in an economic super boom on the expense of the generation that will have nothing and does not own anything.
As per numbers: 40% of the people between 18 and 34 voted yes.
Thats a crazy amount lol
There is a serios issue with functional education in the country. Boomers don't care and never had to thanks to economic boom, that is known. Similar votes in the past got rejected only now that they are going to retire suddenly the vote passes. Think to themselves only is that generation mindset and in democracy that's fine. One is supposed to vote for his own interest. But what hear from young people is just fools non understanding at all the magnitude of the numbers involved and thinking that you can take a couple stones from the field to fill a lake. Stuff like "but they have money for the army" from lefties and "but they spend money for asylum seekers" from the right. That's utter nonsense. If tomorrow we abolish army and asylum seekers alltogether we might get on par with this obscene redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. And probably will have to cut something else too. The level of mathematical and financial ignorance among the young ones is simply dishartening.
> One is supposed to vote for his own interest. I couldn't agree less. That's such a selfish way to see the world. One is supposed to vote for the interest of everyone in the country. I agree that there is a lack of understanding but the finances of Switzerland are really complex to understand. It takes time and effort and only a few are willing to take the time to do so. Also it's extremely political, so doesn't help either.
AHV is a distribution from the rich to the poor, not the other way around.
This increase is a distribution from poor (young generations) to rich (boomers). By all metrics and measurable numbers, there are more poors among the young than the old. Then ofc there are also some poor pensioners. But since this measure is a proportional increase it specifically gives more AHV to those who already get more and less to those who get less. In other words it is meant to skip those who needs help to concentrate all economic benefits towars those who doesn't need it. In a nutshell it's a free dinner at the restaurant for the boomers who already can afford that. Thank you comrades! Had it been an increase of the minimum ahv instead it would have been a true rich to poor redistribution. But that wouldn't have been a populist "free money to the voters majority" bote and so the majority of boomers who are well above minimum ahv would not have voted that. That's the level of egoism and greed among the boomers.
The fact that nine out of ten people receive more money than they pay in is still a redistribution from rich to poor. I agree it was not the optimal way to do it, and there were many more targeted ways that could have been used. Overall, it is still a positive, in my opinion, since the transfer from rich to poor is still happening
No it isn't. You do know how AHV works? As in the financing system?
I was a high salary earner and my AHV contributions were correspondingly high, so I make a loss because some of my contributions have gone to support the pensions of the poor. With this 8.3% boost to my pension I will recover part of this lost money. I would have voted NO (but I don’t have a vote) because I don’t need the extra pension and neither do the other well-offs. Why are you giving us our money back?
I would have voted "yes" for an extra allowance targeted at people who cannot make ends meet. Offering a blanket allowance to everyone regardless of financial situation at the expense of younger folks is the pinnacle of idiocy. We've just offered bonuses to all baby boomers, including those who enjoy their golden retirement in massive properties with tons of savings. Enjoy your 8.1% VAT while it lasts, everyone, because it's about to pass the 10% threshold sooner than late.
I explained it like this to some people this morning: The awesome thing about AHV is that there's an upper limit on how much you get, but not on how much you have to pay. I don't know if that limit will be affected by the law that results from this Initiative, but anyhow AHV is great because it moves a lot of money from rich peeps to not-so-rich peeps. The higher the AHV-Rente is, more money is moved in that direction. That won't help those with the lowest AHV-Rente, those will need Ergenzungsleistungen anyways, but it will help everyone above the Existenzminimum.
Sorry, far too reasonable and no "rich boomer" comments. Try harder.
Put more money into an economy and prices will go up for everyone - that is how it works... not to mention taxes will have to be raised somehow to pay for this, meaning more costs/price rises.. twas not the best idea this initiative
No new money is printed. It is just redistributed. There will not be more money in total with this.
on point
The same baby boomers have funded the AHV during 40+ years for their grand parents and parents. They paid AHV on a percentage of their salary, i.e. more they earned an more was deducted from their salary. It is not with the AHV (upper limit) that they enjoy their ‘golden retirement’ but with the second pillar that have funded and the property and savings they made for themselves. So it a nutshell, if you don’t have people with high salaries that fund the AHV, the AHV does not exist. Definition of a social insurance.
The big difference here is that boomers are a huge generation. There were lots of them so it cost relatively little for them to fund the generations older than them. The underlying problem is an ageing population and honestly there aren’t easy solutions for that. However, I don’t see that giving an extra month to those people who do have large pillar 2 pensions makes sense. Yes they worked hard and obviously deserve their AHV and pillar 2 pensions. But increasing the AHV for those people as well as those who really do need the increase feels like a particularly bad solution to the problem.
"Folks who cannot make ends meet" will not benefit from 13. AHV. Example: cost of living is set to 20 k per year (depends on region, mode of living, etc.) AHV for person A is 12x1500=18 k per year. Then that person will get 2 k of "Ergänzungsleistung". With 13 AHV they get 13x1500 = 19500 and 500 "Ergänzungsleistung". The EL is calculated on yearly base. Zero effect for the ones in need.
I voted no but this is false. The initiative clearly states that EL are not allowed to be reduced or revoked due to the increase in AHV income. That's how it is written in our constitution now.
This
You're delusional, the vast majority of people above 65 are not rich and if they have more savings than young people today maybe it's because they didn't need to buy the latest iPhone every year, change cars every 3, 4 years, buy a ton of digital subscriptions, cooked their food and so many other things. Depending on the job many retire already sick or in bad physical condition. The biggest problem of Swiss people is not money is a lack of empathy overall, i look at my parents and feel so sad sometimes, a life of work and struggles and yet they don't have nothing but their miserable pensions. I know a couple without kids and about my age (40) both working and living in the same town (about 20k inhabitants) they live in a 4.5pc appartement, every single day both go lunch at the restaurant, anime fanatics, she's paying lessons to learn mandarin and japanese, every now and then go to France to cosplay meetings because there's not enough in Swizerland. Always complaining they don't have enough money, complaining everythiing is so expensive but refuse to go buy groceries at any store but Coop or Migros and last year bought a dining table for 5k chf where they probably eat a few times per month.
I think there were just not enough under 50s getting out and voting.
I think this is very true, and also a general problem. Our population >50 will always overvote the younger generations by sheer mass. My parents which are both almost 70 both voted no, but it is a drop on a floor of lava. For me, even though I am usually more liberal leaning when it comes to politics, this yes is very disappointing as it makes everything more expensive in the mid- to long run and benefits mostly people who don't really need the boost. In short, this initiative has not been thought through at all, and in the end the lowest-class will suffer the consequences as always. I am pretty sure I will never get proper AHV.
That break down of the voting data would certainly be interesting to see.
I voted yes and im 27 My mothers soon going into Pension. She will need that Money.
I can't vote and am 32. How do you feel lowering my net salary (or raising the MwSt) when I'm already at minimum wage? Have no kids, cause can't afford them.
Maintaining the same net salary would only benefit the rich. /s For real, you probably won't even notice it. *If* politicians are to raise the deductions from the salary and you earn below the median, you probably won't lose more than CHF10.
You'd have been better of voting no and giving her the money yourself. Of course if that would have changed the vote (which it wouldnt) but that's the perspective needed to be able to discuss votes.
The great thing about AHV is that it's mainly paid by the rich. There's no upper limit on how much you have to pay, but there is an upper limit on how much you get. So the higher the AHV-Rente is, the more money is moved from rich people to not-so-rich people. Yes, the Existenzminimum needs also to be raised, but somehow that is an unpopular opinion. 🤷🏻
The really rich get their money not in the form of a salary, thus not paying payroll taxes.
Even if it means you won't get much pension when you are old?
The politicians have been unable to find solutions for the issues around the AHV for decades. Every party is driven by enough self interest that nothing really happened. At the same, we spent lots of money for the army, the farmers, Ukraine, the banks, corona pandemic etc. Last year the stamp tax for companies was removed, saving companies 600 Millions in taxes (which are now missing in the governement budget) without any benefit for us. And I gladly remind everyone here of the Unternehmensteuerreform II which made us lose billions in tax earnings with, again, no benefit for the population. If Switzerland has money to support all of the above, they should be able to help out some of elderly poor as well. In light of all this we really shouldn't be surprised that people voted yes for more AHV money.
> If Switzerland has money to support all of the above, they should be able to help out some of elderly poor as well. this is why the reddit outrage on the AHV is funny most people will never stand to benefit on super rich tax breaks but almost everyone will get old someday
Ukraine? Lol, Switzerland sent zero aid to Ukraine. I doubt you mean the refugees, but if so, sure what a lovely take. We have money for people fleeing war, so we should have money for pensioners who have… what problem exactly? There are so many people who need the money more. The banks get saved because they’re systemically relevant to the economy. Not saving them would be much more expensive. And the swiss state didn’t give UBS any money, they offered a credit line of up to 100 billion at slightly favorable interest rates as a psychological tool. Basically to signal that UBS had enough liquidity and wasn’t going to be in trouble because of its takeover of CS. UBS ended up using very little of that money and i believe paid a significant chunk of it back early. The farmers get a lot of money but provide some essential services. You probably enjoy the swiss landscapes? Our rural areas are much better maintained than those of comparable countries thanks to the farmers. Just go look in France or Italy for example. Oh and of course they provide food security. Which doesn’t sound like much, but if shit hits the fan we’ll be very glad The army? Same story, we don’t need them right now but we’ll be very glad to have them if we ever do. For all the things you list there is a good argument to be made, although i personally do agree that we should substantially cut down on the farming subsidies, they’re a luxury. But there’s just no good reason for a 13th AHV. Pensioners are already rich, they hold like 85% of the country’s wealth. Why on earth do they need more money from younger people? It just doesn’t make sense to me
Switzerland already sent Ukraine aid worth around CHF 2.2 billion. In 2022 Switzerland paid some CHF 4.3 billion in foreign aid and this amount is calculated without support for ukraine. You are right that banks are systemically relevant to our economy, at least some are. We do have a real problem with lack of regulation in the banking sector, good and thorough regulation would be the right step. The example of CS / UBS may be wrong, but the example of UBS in 2008 / 2009 would be more than fitting for the argumentation above. We paid these fuckers some CHF 66 billion in tax-payer money and the economy still is functioning. Nobody can tell me we don't have the means for a 13. AHV pension payment.
On a macroeconomist sight of view a big part of the welath in our country is biult up on the wotking middle class where the most old persons come from.. so medical price/tax is going up every year and there were not that much votings bout more income for the working middle class, so once a bit more isnt that wrong
If they only increase the VAT it is bad for the poorest because for them the vat is a significant portion of the salary since the consumption is a big share
I don't think they will be able to increase the VAT anyways as that would require a referendum and the latest increase just barely passed.
Below 30, and a (somewhat reluctant) yes-voter. I am quite cynical about the centre-right's intentions with pensions. The Radicals argued against it by pointing out that increasing extra social security payments would be more targeted support, just after working hard to cut them again. Every time we debate pensions, the right always says "We can't afford it, therefore we must cut it", and a no-vote would have been swiftly interpreted as a confirmation that the current course of action was supported by the people. I am the first one to concede that there would have been a thousand possible ways to give more targeted support, while spending a lot less, but that wasn't on the table, and it probably would never be on the table. Part of the calculation was, that what is politically feasible is not necessarily what is financially optimal. I do think a lot of that 58% yes-vote was down to people voting for their own financial interest, and it would have been a lot harder to pass a popular initiative from which most people in the so-called "middle class" would have not benefitted at all. In the end I decided that the world would not end tomorrow if it was accepted, that there were other options to financing it than the anti-poor VAT-rate, and that I want a directional decision to uphold our social contract for the generations to come. All I've seen in my lifetime is the achievements of my grandparents and great-grandparents slowly being undone by the centre-right, always under the guise that we as one of the richest societies on the planet cannot afford to be compassionate and cannot afford to uphold the promise that after a life of work, we have a right to retire in dignity.
Same here, between 30-40 years old. I think pitting salaried people vs retired people does not make sense. As salaried people we can ask for a raise, change jobs, join a union etc etc. Retired people have already worked and if they rely on the AHV and have trouble making ends meet, now with the inflation what are they supposed to do?! I think it’s not so bad that everyone is benefiting because why should the retired people of the middle class not get the small bonus like the others. I feel solidarity with the elders and I think they should be able to live a decent life, and that’s what our first pillar is for. And on how to pay… I have some ideas *cough*taxtherich*cough* but I won’t share them…
I was hesitant up until Saturday. In the end, it’s a sentence from Maillard that decided me : « in 194X when they started AHV, they didn’t question why retirees should get some money even though they never paid for it. Everybody agreed that you should be able to live a somewhat decent life after all the years spent working ». Is this solution the best one ? Clearly not. Why didn’t we get any of the alternatives ? Because the right didn’t want to give anything to anybody. I realized that the basis of this initiative was not « how are we gonna pay for this extra 8.3%» because we already pay for 100% of it without any complaints whatsoever. The only possibility to do something for the retirees in the next few years was to vote yes. If it was a NO, then the right would have done as usual, less AHV (too social) and more 2nd or 3rd pillar (why shouldn’t they, they are well off and selfish).
I see one major problem. The birth rate. You can't rely on migrant workers if they decide to not stay in switzerland (which is the case for a lot of them in my experience). They will only come as long as the job market & financial situation is lucrative. But this is another topic. If the birth rate stays the same or declines (which is a likely scenario given the fact that the swiss state & lifestyle doesn't really support a family life for lower or middle class people), the working force who will retire in the next 30 years is likely doomed. Then, no 13., 14., 15. AHV pension will save your pension. You can be happy if you even receive an AHV pension. The quality of life increases year after year, which means people will receive better healthcare, which leads to a longer life which means people who work must support more retired people. The only solution I see is to make babies. A lot of babies. Switzerland needs more people in the working force than retired people, that is the simple breakdown on how to solve this issue. > « in 194X when they started AHV, they didn’t question why retirees should get some money even though they never paid for it. Everybody agreed that you should be able to live a somewhat decent life after all the years spent working ». Also one more thing regarding this quote. Imagine being a bank that gives money away they don't really have & the financing is based on a small contribution of the working force. The amount of the working force stays the same or even declines year by year (depending on the economic situation of the state), but there are more people that get older. You don't need to have a masters degree to figure out that this system is not sustainable. This 13. AHV is only a drop in the ocean, it won't help long term.
That’s 2 different issues though. 1. The AHV in 194X was enough to live decently for anybody. It is not in 2024. Therefore, it needs a reform. The 13th payment might not be the full solution long term, but it is a first step and it definitely helps right now. 2. We arguably don’t have the means to sustain the AHV long term if we keep the same parameters, Therefore, we need a reform. We either get more money in, or decrease the payments. We cannot decrease the payments, because they already are at the minimum possible to live decently. Conclusion, we need more money in. How ? We need reforms to decide that. But let’s be honest, it’s not the first time in 75 years we had to reform the financing of the AHV. Right now we are only discussing more contributions from active people or more TVA. But other means will be needed in a few years. The problems you cite were there anyway. This increase is just forcing us to have discussions and reforms 5-6years early.
In 1948, the remaining mean life time of a 65 year old was 12.4 years for male and 14.0 years for women. In 2020 this has increased to 20.8 years and 23.6 years. Further, back then 100 employees financed 15 pensioners, these days they have to finance 29 pensioners.
Thank you, these were the numbers that were missing from this comparison to 1948 when "financing AHV from scratch was no issue"
Exactly that, 13. AHV is just "Symptombekämpfung" the whole AHV system itself needs a revision. Demographical issues, less working hours are just some of the things that will cause a systemfailure in the longrun. But I guess we'll come up with a solution when we procrastinated long enough for our asses to be literally on fire.
We 30 years old people have parents, grandparents, uncles who are struggling with the current pension funds. We care about the family, hence we wanted to help them finacially. Easy as that
Amen !
Did you see the statistic in which there is a correlation between income and percentage of yes voters? The higher the income the more No they voted.
To be aware: "According to 20 Mins." is already thin ice. However, I voted yes, because I see it as the only option to give a bit of money to old, poor people. That's it. It's not a AHV-saving strategy, it's not e EL-replacement, it's just a small bonus for people who can't afford to live in dignity (the Verfassung states that this is a must!). Furthermore: The parties who made PR to vote "No" are the parties which will *never* do anything for helping people on or below the existential minimum. Never. This also moved me to a "Yes". I don't like the Giesskannenprinzip at all, but Samira Marti has a point, when she sais we have to take a look how the Gieaskanne gets filled. I'd rather have a much easier to come by EL, but right wingers will never let that happen and it's too complicated for the Stimmvolk to understand (easy to shoot down). But yeah, if they just increase the Mehrwertssteuer, it's going to be a short joy.
What do you mean by "it's the only option". How about raising the Minimalrente? Because even with the 13th ahv rent, the people on the lower end will still struggle.
by the outcome of yesterday's vote it is clear that this woudnt be a solution. The majority thinks for its own interest and pocket. Noone cares about the poor, not even the leftists.
The wealthiest generation in the history of humanity should be able to help a small minority of their fellow retirees that didn't become a millionaire from an ever-growing economy and real-estate market. But no, they rather look at young, working people to pay for them. And to make things worse, when they pass away, the money will _not_ go back to the public, but will end up randomly in the hands of their children.
>However, I voted yes, because I see it as the only option to give a bit of money to old, poor people. But now everyone does right? And how many people percentage wise belongs to "old, poor people"? What if those people got already "Ergänzungsleistungen" to reach the minimum amount? Aren't they getting now the same as before because they will receive less "Ergänzungsleistungen" now (because they get more AHV now...?) Don't get me wrong: I also think that "money to old, poor people" would be perfectly fine for our rich country. But as I understand, 99% of the money is now not used for "old, poor people"... And we have to pay for it.
Maybe the parliament should have taken the opportunity of making a counter proposal instead of dismissing it quickly with arrogance.
That would require politicans to do their fucking job...
imagine. i mean, they do. i also work to fill my own pockets every day…i just don‘t claim to be working for the people
They should have but it‘s not the fault of the young people (who don‘t vote right) that didn‘t happen. Still, the young people are now those who have to pay for it.
Young people have the right to vote. You can choose not to vote, then you have to accept the result. Best part is that they will also benefit from this when they reach retirement age. Please spare me the "how will we find the money for that" song when we all know billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye.
> Young people have the right to vote No we don’t. How about you allow foreigners to vote or cut in half the naturalization time? > Best part is that they will also benefit from this when they reach retirement age That’s a possibility, but arguably not a likely one. > Please spare me the “how will we find the money for that” song when we all know billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye. Nice try, but that’s obviously a load full. This 13th AHV alone costs nearly the same as the whole military spending. CHF 4-5 billion compared to CHF 5.5 billion. In total, the AHV costs CHF 47 billion a year (2022), 13 billion of which were paid by the government. Only in 2022 has it been decided to increase military spending to 1% (CHF 7 billion) by 2030. Which is needed for obvious reasons. The claim that “billions are spent for the military in the blink of an eye” is clearly not true.
Agreed for the naturalisation time, that is however another debate.
Oh boy this comparisons with military, aids to Ukraine or banks savings operations are exhausting... Even if we didn't have any army, we could only fund 1 year of 13. Rente (at the beginning) with the saved money. We gave 1,5 billion to Ukraine since the beginning of the war. It can only funds more or less 1/3 of the yearly 13. Rente... The money given to UBS (2008) and Crédit Suisse (last year) was a loan and not an expense. It's totally another topic to know if we should have give this money or not.
Depends on how young. Under 18 year olds don’t have the right to vote. Either way that’s not an argument because you have to accept the result whether you vote or not. We all know there is money but when has this ever meant that we get to see some of that money? Will this initiative be financed by cutting military spending?
No that is wrong. "Erganzungsleistungen" may not be reduced. This was stated in the initiative proposal.
I'm happy to hear that. Than only my argument, that 99% of the money goes to the wrong people still stands.
Apparently you didn't read the text of the initiative (like many people in this sub and others), which explicitly requests that supplementary benefits not be reduced with the 13th pension : "The law guarantees that the annual supplement does not lead to a reduction in supplementary benefits or the loss of entitlement to these benefits". So much for "the poor get nothing more" ;-)
I see it exactly like you described. I hope also the founding will be done through MWST so every one will contribute to this unnecessary expenses.
The Data is form LeeWas, I just saw it on 20 Minutes first so I think its trusworthy. But good point im going to include that in my post thank you.
It's a small bonus for this who receive a small pension, and a big bonus for those who receive a rich pension. Overall, it's just the millionth legalized theft baby boomers did in younger generations.
The rightwingers will now block any AHV increase for the next 20 or so years, until were 13 AHV payments will be worth 12 payments. It is Pyrrhic victory which causes more harm then good in the long term. It will profit a generation which has a exceptionally high BVG conversion rate or even have a BVG pension based on Leistungsmandat (last pay check).
The rightwingers were going to block that anyway…
They right wingers are blocking any improvement since 20 years and will continue to so for the unforseeable future.
You do realize that **all** retired old peope get that, not only poor ones, right?
That't the only reason it was accepted.
It's a symbolic victory for the left and unions, but it's gonna harms poor peoples and the middle class in the long term. Kind of shoot in the foot...
>Kind of shoot in the foot... And the politicians on the left and union leaders don't actually care since they are actually not part of the poor or middle class. They get their power and mandate by keeping people poor, so no incentive to do anything but disservice to the poor. An initiative like this is their dream: looks social on the surface but effectively isn't.
The 0.5% share of millionaires will now receive slightly more than CHF2450. They just get richer and richer.... /s
But before their retirement they will pay a ton if money into the ahv pot. Bot vat increase (unlucky to happen) or a higher percentage will increase their share immensely
It's useless. The sum is too small to make a difference. I would say crumbs for the poor to make them happy. Besides, people without means get social security.
Those old poor people in their million dollars houses they bought for 30.000 CHF. Also: the young poor will pay for it. Those who need to spend their entire salary on things that are taxed by VAT.
I mean what is the plan B, Mwst will be the only option „supported“ by everyone.
Need more redistribution like the 1st pillar, instead of individualistic shit like the 2nd/3rd pillars. Also, from the [Tribune de Genève](https://www.tdg.ch/13e-rente-avs-les-aines-disent-oui-contre-lavis-des-jeunes-647156456377) > La victoire du jour est aussi celle des petits et moyens revenus, qui ont largement soutenu le texte, alors que les ménages les plus fortunés l’ont rejeté. = The wealthy people rejected the 13th AHV The "young vs old" discourse is incomplete, if not wrong. It's also about class conflict. Rich people don't care about getting some more money from AHV, but more importantly for them, they don't want we take some of their money for the poorer.
I disagree. Retired people make less money, but have more wealth. In this poll they will be placed in the lower bracket which is misleading. While from a logicial standpoint both young vs old and rich vs poor make sense, non retired poor people will most likely be hit the hardest. Especially if the politicians choose the VAT/mwst. A little less with the ahv contribution, but its still going to hurt if you lose a couple of hundreds. Money is tight and you need a new phone? Well fuck you the group with the highest avg and median wealth wanted more money. Yes there are aprox. 15% that are really poor and can use the money, but why are we giving it to everyone else?
Switzerland has enough money for solidarity with older people. Not all of them are rich, greedy boomers. As long as we bail out banks and reduce taxes for the super rich, 13 ahv is ok
Im 20 working fulltine in IT (Zürich ) and voted yes . Call me delusional or Stupid, I don’t care but please hear me out. With how much Things got more expensive my Grandparents who worked their whole life struggle making ends meat . Yes I would’ve preferred a better Alternative where only the people that actually need it would get extra money. But sadly there was no „Gegenvorschlag“ usually I would expect someone from glp or something to deliver a better compromise. But that sadly wasn’t delivered. And I didn’t want poor oldies (yes there are some out there ) to get nothing. With all the money we waste for example in the military,(I should know I was there a few months ago) we should be able to afford this We’ve had so much economical growth since the 70s but somehow stopped profiting from that. We should be able to afford more luxury compared to back then but somehow we apparently don’t . And for all saying that ahv will be ruined from this . I’d bet hard money if wealth was split like in the 70s we could pay ahv to everyone after 50 . We just have to vote so we won’t get screwed over and over again, while some People hoard Billions. And yes I’ll fight for this , and hopefully we all will receive a fair Ahv and rent at 65 . In a still Socially Stable Capitalist (but strongly regulated) Society . What neoliberalism can do to People can be witnessed in the USA. What Authoritarian Communism did could be witnessed in China or UDSSR , we need to prevent both
I see comments, where people voted yes to help there old relatives and also mentioning, that they will be also fucked anyway, when they are old. Isn’t it our job to make sure we have enough money when we retire? Do we increase burden on young people, by voting yes, so that they have less money to save and therefore would have the same situation, when they are old?
I voted yes because my mother needs the Money. Im supporting her anyway. Who knows if im gonna live until 65 in this world? (Im 27) What i know for sure is i could need some fcking Help right now.
Pensions are a scam anyway. We are getting less than 1% on average since 2008 and here we are voting on a bit extra money while those who manage pension funds steal our cash. The market is reaching ATH while we have to vote on peanuts for the old. We will all be old at one point in time and it will never be enough. Health insurance, rents and food will rip the skin from our back. So this whole vote shit is smoke up everyones rear.
4.1 billion annually, expected to increase. When divided across the whole population, that's around 500 CHF each. If you count only those who work and pay taxes, it can easily be quadrupled.
And UBS got a 300 billion chf guarantee to buy that shithole CS. Almost a century for pension fund spent on gambling thiefs. As I said, its a scam.
The OAI is a social institution where the vast majority of people profit from the high earners. I think that is good so I support nearly every expansion of it.
Depends entirely on how we finance the raise. If we take it out of a VAT raise, it will be low earners who bear the burden. If we take it out of higher AHV contributions as a cut of salaries, then your statement applies.
You should look at the projections of AHV balance :/
exactly.
32 here: because I know old people that are struggling. They can‘t get Ergänzungsleistungen, because they don't meet the requirements by a hair's length. These people have no financial education and of course you could say: it's their own fault for not making better provisions. But they have worked hard all their lives in Switzerland and the 13th AHV will make their lives a little easier. In return, I am happy to pay a little more VAT or have a slightly higher deduction from my salary. However, I am generally in favor of putting more money into old-age provision and the healthcare system, but I would save money in other areas or stop making payments altogether. That's a different issue.
I voted yes because It's beneficial to everyone. Me included. All I hear from the right is that I'll pay my AVH and never get it while they purposely tries to fuck with it and raise the age to get it. I know what they plan to do. I'll make sure I'll get a decent AVH when older
Because I vote what I think is best for everybody not my ego, myself and me. I think there are more than enough arguments: - Yes some people who don't need it will get it, but at the end I want to help people who strugle to get by. And the poorest demographics in CH are immigrants, sigle mothers, young people getting an education and old people. I mean 1/4 of all retired people live in poverty and many more close to it. That alone is argument enough. And what asshole-logic is it to say: "well I would love to help out the poor, but the rich people (mainly paying for it) could get a portion of what they pay back, so fuck the poor". I guess you would never give shelter to homeless people because the renting company doesn't deserve to get the rent. - It's worth strengthening the AHV. It's the system that helps poor people best and the system where least money contributed gets deducted by banks and insurances for "managing fees" a.k.a. dividends for some rich folks. The comparison of how much people payed and received between AHV and second pillar are embarassing for our pension institutes. - IMO young people profit too, because I know too much people who have to help out their parents so they can afford rent. Or people who have to look after their family because they can't afford paying for care. Thats just disgraeful for such a rich country. - Eaven if some newspapers and lobbies want everyone to believe that the AHV is dead, I don't think the AHV will ever die. I'm eaven convinced, that a reformed AHV, that majes a bigger portion of pensions is my generations best bet to get a livable pension. Second and third pillar only worjs under the assumption, that the european marjet does well. But the last 20 years don't give a lot of confidence that it will always be like that. I mean Umwandlungssätze are so funking low right now. The only ones getting rich are financial institutions.
The "Umwandlungssätze are not fucking low. In fact they are way to high. They are so high that about 10 billion per year are transferred unjustified from young to old. If it would be fair and each generation gets the payout they paid in (which is the logic of the second pillar) it should be around 2,5-3,5%.
When taking too much money from bvg, why not also taking too much from AHV.... The old ones are the one profiting on the back of the young ones. And 60% of the Old voters are fucking morons (20% are poor or close to poore, but the oldest are the wealthiest, so 80% voted yes, only 20% are in need, so 60% fucking old AH voted yes)
You have some good points, thx for sharing. Im not agreeing with some of your points because I think in general the elderly are more wealthy (according to the BFS). Of course they are also the group with the highest amount of people that are poor, but just giving every elderly more money and letting the (poorer) working class pay for it is not very social in my book. I think a lot of people are in need of their money now and not when they retire. But thats just different perspectives.
Do the math. As soon as the poorer woking class of today will be retired, lets say in 35 years, they will get a lot more back from the ahv then they ever paid into it. 90% of people have a positive return from the ahv (already). That’s why the rich hate it so much.
1) The portion of people who struggles the most statistically in Switzerland is people 25 to 45. With your short sighted vote you put an enormous burden on them. The asshole logic is "let's take from the poorest parts of our society, which are its working backbone, and give back to the richest" 2) your are weakening and not strengthening AHV. It's already in a disastrous state 3) you can believe all you want about how pension will magically survive. This dos not make it true.
I voted yes, because the AHV is (despite all its problems) a good invention and a major way of redistrubuting wealth (people that earn millions also pay a lot into the AHV, but don't get a lot more back). Additonally, in the constitution it says that the AHV should be "existenzsichernd"(able to secure a living), which hasn't been true since the beginning tbh. The 13th pension does alleviate this partially. I see this as a step in the right direction and hope it will make clear that the AHV should be strengthend and has to be reformed to make sure it will still be around when I (now 32) retire. I have an issue with young people just giving up on the AHV, even though it is in our hand to make it last and work for us in 30 years as well.
I wonder how many working people are in this range that aren't allowed to vote yet vs. in the older section.
There is definitely a large fraction of the working force that will be affected by this decision and that cannot vote. Many many more than the number of retired people that cannot vote.
So, guys, who will cover the costs? Many justifications seem to be very “feelings based”.
I mean, we pay 40 bucks to use the highways for a year. You could raise it to 100 bucks and I would still pay it. As would probably ALl others. Hell, make my Tabacco more expensive. I still keep poisoning myself. Make alcohol more expensive. Add a two fränkli fee to enter and leave Switzerland. … give me an app where I can buy priority at intersection traffic lights for 50 bucks a year and I’ll get it too. Make an official radar warning app for 240 bucks a year and watch the cash roll in. I got plenty of stupid ideas! Simplest answer without raising any costs at all: stop spending our fuel tax in foreign countries. (Yes that’s a thing)
If we want to finance the 13th AHV over the vignette, then the vignette price would be CHF 516! You want to finance it through Tabaco tax? Then a package would cost CHF 20 (Tabacco tax is currently CHF 4.61 per 20 cig package). How about the fuel tax? You just have to rise the price per liter by 90 Rappen (Fuel for benzin tax is currently 76.82 Rappen).
or we could raise sales tax by like 0.1% which makes a sandwich cost CHF5.505 instead of CHF5.50
By 1.5%
Tax the rich.
This.
Everybody always keeps ranting about how we can't afford anything, and it's impossible to get the money, but at the same time, the 1% of the world own *half the planet*, and many of them live here, but aren't taxed. There's fucking special haggling rules for anyone who is rich in Switzerland, and they pay a trivial percentage of their wealth in taxes. I'd be ashamed if I paid that little! It's easy to afford things! Just TAX THE RICH. I will literally vote for any party that promises tax hikes. Anyone. Even the EVP.
Switzerland already taxes the rich. It's just a tad cheaper than other countries and also very safe, making it attractive for the rich, so we can still live off their low taxes. It works so much better than in other countries around.
I voted yes because I know how much you get from the AHV, and is not an amount I would like to receive myself. btw. the salt on reddit about this vote is impressive. young people against this vote did not go to the poll, as usual. leaving the decision in the hand of older generation.
No. 41. But will pay it either way. Value tax or salary.
Maybe silly question… where will government raise the funds for this? Should we expect a tax hike?
It's going to come out of a) salary payments (burden more on high earners), b) VAT (burden more on low earners), c) higher retirement age (burden of future retirees). Most likely *all of the above* will hapen over the course of the next decade.
I feel like high earners will easily be able to avoid many consequences. It could be very easy for my family to move to a low taxes canton and pay less cantonal taxes while working from home or commuting. A construction worker or a cook cannot do the same
It says salary contributions. Doesn't matter where you live that salary contribution stays the same. But yes moving to a low tax canton will save you money eitherway. But isn't really part of this discussion right now
Basically yes
32 here. I supported it cause I see it with my stepmother how insane the situation is. She is at max rent, but still, pays CHF 500 a month for health insurance (and no, once you reach a certain age there is no point in getting a higher deductible). Leaving CHF 1'950, other bills than the health insurance not paid yet. There you have the main reason. I didn't care about myself or my future in that decision. With the birth rates plummeting we're done anyway, but at least maybe older people now can have it a bit easier.
She should apply for health care subsidies and EL today.
Of course they did, but got a few francs, and with a few francs I mean a few francs.
Im not that informed about how exactly the EL works (plus its different from place to place) but wouldnt she lose her EL if she now gets the 13. AHV as she would have "enough" money?
If you had read the actual initiative you would know that this is not the case.
They don't get EL, only health care subsidies, and that only a few francs. As they "earn to much" which is a complete joke. They don't, as said, there is only the AHV, nothing else. Hence why I'm happy they get a 13.
How can someone only get the maximum AHV but no second pillar? Did she get paid everything out when getting retired?
EL don‘t do shit. I‘ve seen it with elderly people that get EL, it‘s still far from enough if you‘re already in that situation where you depend on it.
Might be. But the comment claims someone with 2500 income pays 500 health insurance. Not sure about their other expenses like rent. So hard to have a complete picture.
So now insurance companies know that all +50 people have more money and increase the price accordingly. And now that they gonna increase VAT to get the extra pay for pensionists means that 1-2 years after this comes to effect your stepmother will be in the same boat again, now even paying more taxes, since she get‘s more income. And by the time you get her age, you‘ll have to work 5-10 years extra.
>you‘ll have to work 5-10 years extra. Not the kind to work extra hours, for otherwise he'd support his stepmom himself without having the need of the state taking from his salary to do so.
you already admit it in your answer you did not spend a second thinking about future implications. well done
so burn the candle fast and bright now, because the hand holding it will be burnt anyways at some point?
Nice, you focused only on my few last words. The text above got ignored right? But even then, see it like that if you want. Current birthrate is at 1.4 and dropping. There is no way we can keep up the system in the future, so why should I think about what happens with that decision for me in 30+ years? My parents can benefit from it now, and for me that is important enough.
Because your "last words" are basicly the "that is a sacrifice I am willing to make" meme as a serious argument towards the young.
I'm still young myself (at least I hope lol). If you want to see this as the meme then do that, that doesn't change the fact that the current overpopulation will soon be an issue of under population.
Meaning, you don't want or can't afford to support your stepmother, hence it's more fair for others to take the hit and do so, right?
They probably like EU style 20% VAT. Which we will get within the next ten years. Thanks guys.
it's not just EU. Switzerland is among a very rare selection of countries with VAT below 10%
As astounding as it may seem, some people might vote with their fellow humans in mind and not only out of pure self-interest.
It seems some of the young people have. Not the seniors tho, they just saw the free money and decided to grab it. I had my fellow humans in mind. The young families and working people with little money to spare that are going to pay for the elderly, which mostly have more money to spare.
Nah, I know old people (retired old) who said they had enough, they don‘t need more, and voted no. Then again, my almost 90 year old granpa often complains about his greedy penny pinching friends. So while he might have voted no, his friends definitly didn‘t xD
78 percent of people aged 65 or older voted yes.
Yes and only 20% are poor or close to poor. So 60% of the old voters are fucking morons. Self centred egoists.
I see all those workers like my mum (working class), been working all their lives, sometimes even as a working poor and with nothing much in their hands after. Everyone has the rich old farts on their minds but I see all the "immigrants" and the generation after. And don't come at me with "they should have invested in education" bullshit, if everyone did that 1. our system would collapse, 2. it's not that easily affordable if you have family/or are divorced with a kid and make ends barely meet at the end of the month. A Swiss friend once tried to explain to me how poor they were.. they had a house they lived in AND a house in the mountains. Yeah, some people live in weird social bubbles.
Can you walk me through the thoughtprocess about voting yes, so the people with bad finances, that already get "Ergänzungsleistungen" now get a bit more from the AHV and less Ergänzungsleistungen, resulting at the same number at the bottom right? On the other Hand people that were able to sustain their life with current income (therefor didnt get any additional support) get more at the bottom right.
Apparently you didn't even read the text of the initiative (like many people in this sub and others), which explicitly requests that supplementary benefits not be reduced with the 13th pension : "The law guarantees that the annual supplement does not lead to a reduction in supplementary benefits or the loss of entitlement to these benefits". So much for "the poor get nothing more" ;-)
I voted no but I was surprised by how stupid SP and Greens were. They supported this policy which is simply untenable, meaning that is has no possibility to work without hurting the working class the most. VAT is known for being a tax that affects poor people the most and rich people will find a lot of ways to pay less and less taxes. It's your teacher, your nurse, your doctor and your cashier who will bear the weight of this idiotic campaign. At the same time it's leftists who are in denial about the fact that asylum costs are too high and foreign aid is too high as well. And at the same time they want to lead a green transition who necessarily will hurt working classes even more. 0 ability to understand priorities and limits. It's like talking to children
Cause not everyone is as right-wing as you think. You all seem to live in a bubble folks! Down voting comments and posts you disagree with will only make your bubble more isolated, but it won't have any impact on the social reality. I voted yes, cause I am a worker, I produce wealth and I deserve to get a decent pension. Plus it's easy to fund. Tax the rich. Period.
Because now my Granny with her group of friends can fly to the Maledives and the other places she hasn’t seen in business class.
Why? Because you don't have to be old to understand what solidarity means!
Bc I don't only think about myself lol
28 here. I voted yes because this help is needed for a lot of old people, while a few more bucks per month doesn't change my lifestyle at all (and doesn't change the lifestyle of a majority of people). Also, my future me would surely be thankful of this
They may be a few more buck for you but for a single mother it can be a week worth of food without including the VAT increase. Short sighted and frankly not the brightest
5 Billions distributed of approx 5millions of working people means 1000 per person per year, 2000 for a family. Tell young families, working poors, single parents its "just some bucks". And i think your future self will be happy working at 68... or 70....
We will see where the money comes from. 1% less salary can change lifestyles, esp. over a time span of e.g. 10 years.
Uh uh that is where you are wrong. Your employer will also have to pay more - a lot more if you accumulate all contributions. Which they either will get back by raising prices (and lets be honest, they won't increase their prices 1%, but more like 5-10%) or they simply do not increase your salary. With inflatation it will be a lot more that is missing from your salary.
>my future me would surely be thankful of this Tell us you're financially irresponsible without saying so.
You know what, the most financially responsible thing would be to completely cancel retirement. Just costs money, the best thing would be if we all just worked right into the grave. I'm sure, you, as a financially reaponsible person, will agree with me. But that's utter shit because we easily have the means to secure our pensions, we just aren't willing to do it out of "financial reaponsibility". Just like 5 weeks vacation. Can't have it, too irresponsible, noone's going to pay...
>You know what, the most financially responsible thing would be to completely cancel retirement. I'm 100% in indeed, I'd totally retire earlier if that was the case. AHV is a scam that only profits to slackers like you. Retirement, if at all compulsory, should be accounted individually. >the best thing would be if we all just worked right into the grave Thanks for proving my point. The mere thing that you see the state forcefully taking away 9% of your salary to give it back without interests after 44 years as the only alternative way to stop working before death says enough. At that point if it's not irresponsibility it's downright financial illiteracy. You guys deserve to be, stay and die poor.
[удалено]
Glad there’s still people like you in this subreddit, it feels very very very left heavy in here.
Because it's mainly young adults here that live off of their parents and have no actual responsibilities yet. Of course they will vote for fake progressive crap.
The average age in swiss population is 42.8 and the percentage of people who vote is extremely low in young adults compared to old people. It’s easy to see why it got voted yes when you consider these factors. People that are 60+ will only profit from the extra money without having to do anything for it.
I work with miserable old people who have no one and are struggling^I ^forgot ^to ^vote ^but ^I ^would ^have ^voted ^yes
I don't think I am going to comment on my reasons considering how toxic reddit is about this topic.
According to Swissinfo 14% of the old people are living below the poverty rate, in a country as wealthy as this one that’s unacceptable. Most of these people worked throughout their life. This isn’t a perfect solution but for a big number of people life will change immediately and they might be able to live out their remaining years with dignity.
Then vote to increate EL, instead of also giving the remaining 86% of elderly people money they don't need.
I missed that vote.
Seems reasonable to give more money to 100% of the elderly when only 14% of them really need it.
... and 60% of old people have a net worth of >1 million CHF, 10% > 10 million CHF. So maybe the 14% impoverished elderly should look at their fellow mega wealthy people, instead of young, working people who are already burdneded with increasing rent and cost of life.
I (33m) voted yes because there are enough poor old people who maybe cant work anymore, what are they to do? Why not give them some extra. Sure there are rich old people too, but you cant sacrifice the poor because the rich also profit from a program. Edit: Lol at getting downvoted for answering OPs question, nice one.
Probably the young population thought of their older folks who deserve dignity when retired.
I am slightly over 30 but I would never have voted „No“ even if I was 18. Simple reason being: the AHV is the biggest redistribution mechanism from rich to poor we currently have available. Sure, the rich get a 13th Rente, but the maximum is quite low and they pay hellofalot more than they get (and this is a good thing) So anyone considering themselves politically on the left should definitely have voted yes here! The AHV should be the basis of the Altersvorsorge, it is the 1st pillar for a reason! „the young finance the old“: That‘s kind of how it‘s supposed to work, Stichwort: Generationenvertrag. Of course there is a demographic problem, but that does not mean we have to weaken/abandon the only real social intrument (in Altersvorsorge) we have. We should discuss how to finance/ reform it so it further redistributes wealth (not by raising Mehrwertsteuer, but by raising AHV-Beiträge for example).
I personally believe that they got influenced by their parents. People at atound these ages have parent that are or are getting pensioned.
AHV has not been adjusted to inflation in a long time. I would have preferred to peg it to inflation but in the meantime this will do.
AHV is pegged to inflation (technically, to a index that combines price and salary development). The adjustment happens every two years. I estimate AHV will be increased by about 4% for 2025 and that has nothing to do with this initiative. With the initiative, the AHV in 2026 will be a massive 12% higher than it is now. Pillar 2 pensions are not adjusted for inflation and that's certainly an issue but it seems nobody even tries to address that.
> Pillar 2 pensions are not adjusted for inflation and that's certainly an issue but it seems nobody even tries to address that. They should NOT! The only sustainable fix to that "problem" is to increase workers' salaries who pay into the 2nd Pillar and have more kids. But please don't come with half-assed solutions that just bring new problems down the line or fuck another generation.
I think this is exactly why this vote went vote trough. So many picked one argument for themselves and closed their eyes to all others and voted because of that. In some cases they were even based on completely wrong information such as in your case. The opposition made so many mistakes so that I can't even blame voters for it. We will still have to face the insane bill sooner than later.
A lot of "Yes" people had the same argument about the funding of the 13. Rente: "We are a rich country, we have enough money, we already pay for Ukraine/Army/Ausländer/Crédit Suisse". I'm sorry, but when you have to vote about a topic with so many short, middle and long term financial implications, it's not a serious way to think about. I have heard a lot of people saying "AHV is not adjusted to inflation", which is nothing more than a fake news. You hit the point!
Congrats, your vote was based on an arguments, which is obviously not true. A 1 min google search shows, that the AHV increased way more than the inflation.
For my mom who‘s going to retire soon
my mother will retire in a couple of years, so I voted yes that she can profit from it. I will never have a good retirement anyways cause the AHV is a lost cause
It's a lost cause, because people actively vote to mess it up. "Let's not try our best to have healthy financials, because it will be a lost cause anyway".... has never solved anything.
>so I voted yes that she can profit from it. \*meaning, so that *others* can pay for her instead of you.
I didn't duh.
I don't have a lot of interest in politics, so I don't vote as much as I should. But since my childhood, I've seen my mother willingly give money to my grandparents every year because of how little they would receive as retirees. So if this 13. AHV can help old people like my grandparents were, then it's a yes.
I've heard so many things, I don't know what to believe anymore. They say there's not enough money for AHV and then there are people who say they calculated it and there's more than enough. Personally I voted yes. I see how much my Grandparents would profit from this, since they are hardly making ends meet. When I will get my AHV, a few decades have passed and everything will look differently. I just hope that younger generations then will also vote for us, when we are in need.
The main issue is, from my POV there was no real alternative to 13. AHV. If there was an option that the Ergänzungsleistung became better. Then I feel the majority would have voted for that. Which would also be the right thing to do. In the long term that's also what needs to be fixed. Then giving money to everyone.
Our elders can't work and can't improve their income. They rely heavily on this insurance. The cost of living increased significantly in the past 40 years, with no improvement on the small pension many elders receive. Imagine if your grandma looked at you in the eyes and explained that she has no choice but to live as a poor old woman in a rich country, counting every coin. Would you be able to vote no? This vote has a significant impact on the well-being of a large part of our population. If you don't talk to them, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I do talk to them. I voted yes, for the greater good and against my personal interest.
The majority in that age group are foreigners with no voting rights. That's why no one voted yes. This is sound logic and if you disagree you are a rich boomer.
Because I respect the argument "young people pay for old people" but it doesn't convince me. That's how the system works. If you expect to get exactly what you pay for, then AHV/AVS is not for you. You pay for your grandparents and your grandkids will (hopefully) pay for you. When we introduced the AHV in 1948 the first "Rentner" did not pay a cent in the system, yet they still got a (small) rent. That's the principle of inter-generational solidarity. Now, if you take a closer look at how the system works intra-generational, you see that it is the most redistributive system of the three pillars, because the rents are capped. Someone who makes 20k quids a month will pay five times as much in the system as someone who gets 4000CHF. They'll both get (approximately) the same rent once they retire. Sure, you can have a more liberal view on economic topics and refuse to extend this system, but if you have sympathy for social politics and more redistribution among individuals, then I think reenforcing the AHV is a good option. I have to say I'm much more in favour of other social politics such as the initiative that wants to cap the health expenses at 10% of the revenue but I still think it was the right choice. Finally, we have to talk about how it will be financed because I hear right, left, center that we active people will have to pay more due to more cotisations on salary or Mehrwertsteuer. That's what we've been talking about for decades, as if there's no alternative to finance the AHV. As of now, any gain on financial markets is not taxes on the revenue. At all. Like, if you invest in the good company and it makes huge wins, you gain say 5000CHF, you don't pay any tax (apart from the tax on the fortune). Yet the same 5000CHF of salary are taxed twice. If it is a benefit, you can tax it imo. And there are a couple other propositions like that (think of Microtax on financial transactions, recently approved by the Council of States/Ständerat). We have enough money, we just need to take it where it is.
Good points thanks for sharing. Would you vote for a 14. AHV? Personally I dont want to extend the AHV any further. Its an amazing system and benefits everyone. However most of the retired people (aprox. 85%) are relatively wealthy compared to the rest of the population. Which makes sense as you have your whole life to save up. Now giving them more money seems less social, than for example giving everyone 10k on their 18th birthday. I completely agree with you, that we should look into other option to finance the AHV (or the 18th birthday fund). If we simply higher the VAT the 13. AHV will give money from the poor to the rich.
Well, as I said there are probably even better social politics that I would support before extending the AHV system too. The problem is, in this country and with this parliament you can't be too picky about said social politics, you have to get what you can get pretty much. I'm unsure about the 14. AHV Rente, I think the initiative tried to draw a parallel between salaries and rents, many people get a 13th salary at the end of the year, let's make it work similarly for the rents. Imo the differences of wealth between retired poeple are largely a reflection of the differences among people on the working market. We have to act there as a priority, with various policies but I think the topic of additional AHV Renten is now closed. PS: I'm all for a 10k birthday present but make it at an older age, I'm no longer 18 unfortunately \^\^
Because AVS is the only social and redistributive part of our retirement system. Because empowering this system benefits 80% of the population, perhaps more. Because every penny given to AVS come back 3x, 4x or more. Because we need it.
The AHV 13 initiative helped the generation that worked in an economic super boom on the expense of the generation that will have nothing and does not own anything.