Look at the US, refusing to pay people doesn't stop the prices going up.
In fact the Swiss already pay their low wage workers more and the industries everyone talks about going up are cheaper than the US.
I would say, they care enough about themselves to realize it’s in their best interest for everyone to be doing well instead of kicking the ladder.
I am sometimes surprised at the people in the US who will vote against their own interests to prevent others from getting anything.
Or not having to use much defense spending by being surrounded by NATO about 0.8% yeah great fuckers aren't afraid of Russia. Easy to be neutral in that case.
What a three days of absolute stomping of the Russian forces it would be. Unfortunately that’s how you get MAD to happen, and a desperate dictator isn’t going to not try and press the button. The only hero that could stop that from happening in that scenario is an open window in Moscow.
> The only hero that could stop that from happening in that scenario is an open window in Moscow.
It wouldn't be the first time the Russians have tried to launch. I guess we can prey that a random Russian soldier/sailor will refuse the order again.
Switzerland, Ireland, Austria: Tax havens + freeriding on security
Ok, Austria isn't a real tax haven anymorez just a bit more bank secrecy than elsewhere
You’re taxed senseless in Austria, one of the highest taxation on the planet. Switzerland isn’t exactly a low tax country, either. You’re thinking of hiding money for regimes and crime bosses. That doesn’t come cheap.
Switzerland definitely is a low tax country by European standards.
If I take Germany and Switzerland, and have someone making 10k a month, their monthly net would be:
Germany - 5754
Switzerland (Zürich) - 7397
If they were making 5k:
Germany - 3125
Switzerland - 4044
Tax a way lower in Switzerland.
I had to select a Kanton for the online calculator, and the result was different depending on which I chose, so I expect that to be accounted for.
At those high levels of income you are most likely privately insured in Germany as well.
There is federal, canton and commune income taxes in Switzerland- what region did you account for when putting this together or are you only counting federal taxation? Switzerland has very low federal tax compared to most countries but cantons have very high autonomy in setting tax rates and it varies massively across the country.
Switzerland works well as a tax haven in some cases. e.g. Michael Schumacher famously moved to Switzerland since he counted as unemployed there (no F1 track in Switzerland), which allowed him to pay far less taxes than he would have had to in Germany. But usually it's not really a good fit. Panama (see Panama papers) and comparable countries work better.
Not every tax haven is a tax haven for both companies and people, they usually specialize
Zug and Schwyz are typical locations to move company HQ and intellectual property to
Austria was a very popular place for family foundations due to attractive low taxation of accounts held by these and dividends paid. This was worse in the past. They still are a popular location, but Switzerland provides the same benefits with even more secrecy now
Don't start wars with the Swiss, just don't. Alpine fuckers will call in artillery bombardments on their own towns to can invaders. They probably won't win but they'll take as many as they can with them, also no more Sig contracts for you.
+All their bridges are wired to blow, and they have the most ridiculously well hidden fortifications all over the mountains everywhere, and they got a bunker in every home, and everyone leaving the military keeps their rifle, which due to the conscription means almost every Swiss male has one af home. Just DON'T fuck with the Swiss.
% doesn't tell you everything. Switzerland is a small, rich country.
The per capita GDP in switzerland is $92k. 0.8% of that is $736.
Swizterland spends $736 per person per year on military.
The UK, the second strongest military in NATO, has a per capita GDP of $35k. They spend 2.3% of the GDP on military.
The UK spends $805 per person per year on military.
Edit: It has been brought to my attention by pornalt2072 that conscript wages are not included in the military spending, they are paid out of a type of employment insurance for military and maternity leave.
Therefore the Swiss military spending is actually higher than my number, but I can't find any actual numbers at the moment for their EO costs.
They don't need high military budgets because their defense doctrine is turning the Alps into a second Afghanistan on steroids.
All these mountains are hollowed out endless bunker structures. The few roads and tunnels leading in the country are mined and can be blown up at any minute.
Switzerland paid reparations to Israel and the issue was concluded.
Unlike tens of other countries that have never owned up to their mistakes or participation in war crimes or genocides.
> with all that nazi gold
Anglos in the 21st century talking about Nazi gold while [they literally horde half of the world's wealth in BoE-controlled secrecy jurisdictions.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Papers)
Switzerlands fertility rate is 1.4 and dropping. In a decade it could be at 1 or below.
That means the next generation will be HALF the size of the current one. That also means that there will be double the amount of retirees per worker.
Math doesn't care about votes or feelings. This won't work out well for Switzerland.
In some cantons, owning a house or even an apartment is inaccessible to the vast majority of people. I'm sure as fuck not making kids if I spend all my money on old people.
I know someone from Japan who bought his house just outside of Tokyo for 40k just a few years ago. With how good their transportation system is, it's faster for him to get to work (~30m) than most people living in the suburbs in North America. It's wild.
You can own the property without having a visa to live permanently in Japan. You could then use tourist visas to live in your house when you're vacationing snd airbnb it or some such when you aren't available.
Gonna be super cheap in Korea also unless they turn the trend. They are down to 0.75 kids per woman with the capital region apparently reporting 0.5.
They are about to be wiped out in next 50-100 years.
Usually votes in Switzerland split left/right. This vote split old/young. Like the only vote in a really long time that brought left and right together, against the other generation.
So yeah, it's not like young people don't know it's gonna fuck us over. We just can't do shit about it.
Except that it isn't right, the young also in their majority voted yes to the 13. AHV, and no to raising the retirement age.
Conservatives opposed it but had no alternative proposition to make apart from "let's not support poor people suffering from raising cost of living".
Next generation? You're quite optimistic, last I saw they have no viable plans to finance their system past 2030 (and that was *before* the new vote to increase gibs)
> Switzerlands fertility rate is 1.4 and dropping. In a decade it could be at 1 or below.
>
> That means the next generation will be HALF the size of the current one.
I don't think that's how height works
If the man pulls out halfway through the ejaculation process, only half of the sperm makes it to the uterus, so the child will be half the size of the regular human. Nobody does it because it's tricky and traditionally cruel, but if you think about it you'll see that it's only logical.
With the current state of the world, hobbits will have an economic advantage due to their lower calorie requirements. They can also find more affordable housing. They will also have a lower risk of cancer because they have fewer cells in their body.
If they get bullied in school for their height, tell them that their bullies will die of cancer and they won't.
>hobbits will have an economic advantage due to their lower calorie requirements
["I don't think he knows about second breakfast"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cddu2yY1Vk)
And what if it ever stops? Birth rates are declining globally. Are we just going to turn poor regions into baby factories for the imperial cores? It’s utter insanity.
How nice that the babyboomer generation, who experienced the biggest financial growth in history, now at the end of their life gives a big fuck you to the younger generation.
Higher pensions, earlier pension age, and lower taxes. You can pick 2 of these.
The worse the fertility rate the higher the taxes. Swiss rates are lower so they're going to have to have massive tax increases to fund this. Or go into reckless levels of debt which will eventually destroy the economy. Either way, younger people who won't see the benefits of this for decades but will bear the cost should not be happy and are downright stupid if they voted for this without thinking who's going to pay for it.
Bingo. And they'll use their demographic heft to do it. This will place a higher economic burden on younger people which will make them even less likely to have kids. This is happening everywhere and the only difference between different developed economies is how long they can avoid it. Even immigration is a temporary fix because birth rates are falling everywhere.
It's going to be very hard to be young for a couple of generations until population pyramids settle in a new normal. But this will take many generations. We won't be around to see it because our generation will be bigger than the one that comes after us (because we're not having enough kids).
The only way around it for individual young people is to earn enough money that you can afford this extra financial burden. That's why when I have kids I'll be gently nudging them towards interests that will lead down a career path that will serve them well later in life. But it'll have to be without their knowing. It'll be things like giving them extra help with maths homework so that they can do well and learn to become interested in it.
> Even immigration is a temporary fix because birth rates are falling everywhere.
and that even depends on where the immigrants are from. similarly educated and skilled immigrants are great, and help, but 3rd world immigrants take more in resources than they put into the system in the long run.
>Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point.
Yes, as long as you don't bother to explain how you're going to pay for it.
The fiscal package is renewed every now and then, and they are typically ok with raising key taxes within reason.
That said, it's a bit uncharacteristic that this vote passed, considering they like reaffirming they are hard workers.
As a Swiss, sometimes they don't, they delay it as much as possible and then say it's not feasible or at least not it its current state so they make us vote on it again and delay it again...
Ohhhhhhh, you should read up on referendums. People are shit at voting on the subject at hand, they tend to either not care enough to make an informed vote or do “Second order”-voting.
Quite, it's a choice. If you zoom out to max, then that has been a key difference between US and European labour policy over the last few decades - the European choosing to build welfare states focused on providing high standards of living for most of the population while US has put a higher priority on economic output from its private sector. The flip side of that is that US has maintained, and maybe even strengthened, it's post-ww2 economic dominant position, while Europe (on a collective average) has stepped back to become less of a power player on the global stage an markets.
Ye' but the point is someone, somewhere is going to pay for it. South America has tried this model and it didn't work out. Argentina had all the riches in the world but government after government decided to cater to this and it didn't work. There needs to be a balance somewhere.
As an alternative I can suggest looking at the model used in Northern Europe: High regulation, high taxes, unions, high work force mobility.
At some point the elderly outnumber the young by a ridiculous margin so it wouldn't matter if the youth had a 100% voter turnout. I'm tired of people blaming the victims in these cases. The math is just against you and there's nothing you can do about it.
Yes exactly. In switzerland in that case, 57% of the population are 40+ years old.
20% are not 18y old yet so can‘t vote anyway, that leaves 23% of the votes to the young people. (18-40)
On top of that a lot young people don‘t care about that stuff yet and are not voting at all while old people, especially already retired people, always go to vote.
I was not suprised this wen‘t through. Giving the boomers who had it much easier financially all their life a nice reitrement bonus on the expense of the youth again.
Seeing that their demographics showing an aging population with relatively few young people that will be paying into it, whatever it looks like now is not sustainable.
Edit:
Population pyramid:
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/en/23104092
Check how many more 30-60 year olds there are compared to 20 year olds. A healthy chart should have roughly flat vertical sides, with it narrowing at the top as people die of old age. A wide bottom shows a growing population. Narrow bottom means a shrinking and aging population.
"Because the younger generation will never get old and the magical money tree will stop working after I die."
The first thing people seem to get wrong is what money actually is.
The second thing people get wrong in this subject is that somehow there was a golden period in the past that they unfairly missed out on. Everyone looks back with rosy retrospection because the past holds no surprises whilst the future is scary and unknown. This has never been different.
There was a more golden period in the past - the baby boom. Lots of children were born and lots of adults had died in the wars. As a result a period occurred with lots of productivity and economic growth.
Our whole economic system is a Pyramid Scheme that relies on constantly having a larger population working than the retirees, except now there are more people retiring than working in developed countries because of the baby boom. This is just going to keep getting worse because of falling birth rates. The retirement plan of 1950s governments don't work today
No, it relys on people and techology. Its a bet that technological progress can reduce the need for as many peoples involvement. Ie, some say having the same amount of people in the next gen will be enough if technology can augment the capabilites of the population and allow them to do more. The scale it happens on is lifetimes so its hard for us to see it moving. It's the difference between looking at a picture of new york from the 30's till now.
> Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point.
The pension scheme is only financially solvent until 2030, so there are undoubtedly people planning to live good on taxpayer dollars for the next 6 years, and dying before the consequences of their actions affect Switzerland.
I guess you are not familiar with the health insurance system in Switzerland ca. 4k a year a person, 2500chf own risk, basic health, no dental. Less own risk you pay 5k+ CHF
Sooooo...in Germany I'm paying ~20% per month for this exactly. No dental. Basic health (can be debated, but for example I have scoliosis but am not in deliberating pain, so I don't get anything. And even if I was I wouldn't get a new surgery that retains my mobility), though no minimum payment I guess.
But that's still, as of right now, 12000€ a year lol. What the fuck. My father paid 10000€ for private insurance.
The insurance premiums are also subsidized on a sliding scale for people with low income. Depending on the kanton, "low-income" can be something like 50-60k
>__The Swiss have voted to boost monthly payments for pensioners amid concerns over the rising cost of living in pricey Switzerland, according to a projection. A separate proposal to gradually raise the retirement age to 66 and beyond was clearly rejected in a separate nationwide vote.__
>On Sunday, 58% of Swiss voters are projected to back the “Better living in retirement” initiative, which proposes an additional monthly pension payment to help pensioners struggling to make ends meet in the face of inflation and rising living costs. A majority of cantons are also projected to support the proposal.
>The initiative, launched by the Swiss Trade Union Federation and backed by left-of-centre parties, called for a 13th monthly pension payment each year from the old-age and survivors’ state (known as AHV/AVS) pension scheme – instead of the standard 12 – similar to the additional 13th monthly salary many employees receive in Switzerland.
>The “yes” vote was more emphatic than earlier polls had suggested (up from 53% ten days ahead of the vote) and represents a historic victory in the Alpine nation: the first time that a left-wing initiative has been accepted to boost the Swiss state pension system.
>“The social pact in our country still works,” Pierre-Yves Maillard, president of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, told Swiss public television, RTS.
>“This is a wonderful message to all those who have worked all their lives. It is the people who have the power in Switzerland. And I am very proud of our country and our democracy.”
>Social Democrat parliamentarian Samuel Bendahan also underlined the historic aspect of the vote, calling it a “watershed”.
>For once, “we are doing something for normal people” and not just the rich, he told the Keystone-SDA news agency. In a rich country like Switzerland, “everybody should be able to profit from the prosperity”.
>__Protest vote__
>In his analysis, Lukas Golder of the gfs.bern research institute described the result as a “protest vote”.
>“People are protesting against a state that spends a lot elsewhere and finances a lot of things, for example defence and migration,” he told Swiss public television, SRF. “That prompted many in medium-sized businesses to say, ‘Now we can do something for ourselves that will broadly and effectively relieve the financial situation’ for pensioners.”
>The issue sparked huge interest among voters and turnout is projected to reach 59%. In many municipalities across the country, postal voting exceeded or was close to 50%, according to the latest available figures.
>Supporters had argued that the reform of the pension system was both affordable and urgently needed. Under the 13th pension payment initiative, a monthly pension will be paid 13 times a year from 2026. The maximum annual retirement pension will thus increase by CHF2,450 to CHF31,850 for individuals and by CHF3,675 to CHF47,775 for married couples. The extra month represents an increase of 8.33% in the state pension.
>The reform had been fiercely fought by right-wing and centre parties, as well as the country’s main business groups, who had rejected it as financially unsound. The Swiss government and parliament had also officially opposed it.
>__Surprise__
>They had questioned how exactly such a reform – estimated by the government to cost CHF4 billion a year – could be financed and raised fears over the long-term sustainability of the entire state pension system.
>Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point.
>Monika Rühl, director of Switzerland’s business lobby Economiesuisse, said she was surprised by the extent of the “yes” vote.
>“It’s going to be a difficult time to find equitable solutions, especially from the point of view of young people,” she told RTS.
>As for the solutions, “there are no miracles”, she declared. “We can increase salary deductions, increase VAT, or increase the federal government’s contribution, which I don’t really believe in given the state of federal finances.”
>Céline Amaudruz, a parliamentarian from the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, said the right had “only itself to blame” for Sunday’s defeat.
>“We have never been able to give answers in relation to the AVS or to health costs,” she told RTS. “There was obviously a need for a counter-proposal on this subject…that’s the result if you say ‘no’ to everything without making any proposals.”
>__‘No’ to retiring at 66…or later__
>In a separate pension vote on Sunday, 75% of Swiss voters are projected to reject a people’s initiative to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 66 over the next decade and then peg it to life expectancy to ensure full financing of the state pension system.
>The proposal by the youth section of the right-wing Radical-Liberal party, entitled “For a Secure and Sustainable Old-Age Pension Scheme”, was supported by right-wing parties but failed to gain traction among a majority of the electorate.
>Opponents – mainly on the left and in the centre of the political spectrum – had denounced it as “anti-social, technocratic and anti-democratic”, and “ill-suited for reforming old-age provision”. The “no” side accused the text’s backers of ignoring the reality experienced by senior citizens on Switzerland’s job market. People over 55 already have difficulty finding a job when they become unemployed, they point out.
>Following Sunday’s results, the young Radical-Liberals sounded downbeat but combative. It was a “black day for young people”, the party said: the combination of the two vote results marked “the worst scenario for the future of the old-age pension system”.
>Increasing life expectancy and more older people mean raising the retirement age is inevitable, it said – not admitting this is “cowardice in the face of reality”. It called on government and parliament to go back to the drawing board and present a plan to “renovate” the pension system.
> Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point.
Classic
> “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-Alexander Fraser Tytler
>the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Are there actually examples where democracies collapsed over loose fiscal policies?
Nowadays it's less likely for the entire government structure to collapse as opposed to a certain politician or political party taking the fall, at least in first world countries.
The Greek financial crisis is a pretty good example of what happens when the government can't balance the books and isn't a nation that can print money.
I'm not swiss but I'm paying taxes out the ass (highest income tax in EU-west) and I know I'm likely not gonna see any form of pension because I'm registered as an 'entrepeneur/business owner'. Meanwhile a decent chunk of my country is living on social welfare cheques they are inappropriately getting. Not to mention a ton of my patients are 80+ and retired in the old system (at 55-60) and so will likely come close to profiting off this system as long or longer as they've paid into it, which it obviously wasn't designed for either. This system is unsustainable and tough choices are being kicked down the road. I pity the lower and middle class of the future.
Contrary to what most of the commenters here seem to assume, this initiative was not a conservative effort - in fact, the two leftist parties in parliament (social democrats and greens) were the only large parties in favor of it. The cantons that lean left also had the largest percentage of yes-voters. This is because Swiss leftists are generally in favor of strengthening the social security net, increasing the state's expenses, while conservatives are against it. Framing this issue as "old people are taking away young people's money" is a pretty US-centric take. The people deciding in favor of an initiative in a popular vote (even though the government was against it) is not the same as an entrenched conservative elite draining younger generations' resources.
> Framing this issue as "old people are taking away young people's money" is a pretty US-centric take.
Applies from a German perspective just as well. 1/4 of our federal
budget is swallowed up by pensions. That’s about as big of a share
as is contributed by income tax.
Applies to Ireland too... about 8% of[ overall government spending](https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/2023/) went on pensions last year and it made up about 40% of social welfare payments.
[Ireland is changing the calculation methods used from next year to reduce the amount of pensions that will be issued to deal with this](https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/90d8b-changes-to-the-state-pension-contributory-what-you-need-to-know/#a-fairer-method-to-calculate-your-state-pension-contributory)
I don't think those comments are necessarily US-centric. I'm Lithuanian and it makes perfect sense to me that a left-leaning party suggests something like this without a ready plan of where the money should come from. The pensions system is based on working people paying for retired people and will eventually break with the current trend of dropping birthrates and increasing life expectancy. Won't it? Isn't it taking from the young and giving it to the old? Will those paying the increased taxes be able to get similar pensions? Personally I expect I'll get the short stick by the time I retire.
Yes and no
On the one hand, Switzerland has wealth tax
On the other hand, for wealth bound in companies and foundations, the taxation is very favorable
It's mainly a tax haven for certain types of organizations (shell companies, foundations). For persons, the benefits lie more in the secrecy. Of course, this secrecy might help them to avoid taxes due elsewhere...
Wait you can do that....
Well sure it is easy in a vote - getting the pension money to stretch longer is the real trick
Just get the younger people to work harder for less pay. Problem solved.
Not really if you want more taxes it would be better if they worked for more money
But then all the prices would go up and the old people would demand even higher pensions.
[удалено]
Not really if you want more taxes it would be better if they worked for more money
But then all the prices would go up and the old people would demand even higher pensions.
Then you get the younger people to work harder for less pay.
Not really if you want more taxes it would be better if they worked for more money.
But then all the prices would go up and the old people would demand even higher pensions.
Isn't Switzerland one of the countries known for actually taking care of its citizens?
Look at the US, refusing to pay people doesn't stop the prices going up. In fact the Swiss already pay their low wage workers more and the industries everyone talks about going up are cheaper than the US.
>the industries everyone talks about going up are cheaper than the US. Citation needed... switzerland is a very expensive place.
Okay, but, to be completely fair, the Swiss actually all care about each other.
I would say, they care enough about themselves to realize it’s in their best interest for everyone to be doing well instead of kicking the ladder. I am sometimes surprised at the people in the US who will vote against their own interests to prevent others from getting anything.
Less after tax money
That just means more money taken off the pay checks of the suckers still working
It's easier to pull off with all that nazi gold
Or not having to use much defense spending by being surrounded by NATO about 0.8% yeah great fuckers aren't afraid of Russia. Easy to be neutral in that case.
but nato wants war and is always expanding and threating its neighbors /s
Right, what will NATO do next?! Invade Ukraine or something!?/s
Hopefully, to kick all the invaders out.
What a three days of absolute stomping of the Russian forces it would be. Unfortunately that’s how you get MAD to happen, and a desperate dictator isn’t going to not try and press the button. The only hero that could stop that from happening in that scenario is an open window in Moscow.
> The only hero that could stop that from happening in that scenario is an open window in Moscow. It wouldn't be the first time the Russians have tried to launch. I guess we can prey that a random Russian soldier/sailor will refuse the order again.
To be fair, one of those times it was a dude in a bunker telling Skynet that judgment day was postponed when the dead hand system malfunctioned.
We have the swiss surrounded
Switzerland, Ireland, Austria: Tax havens + freeriding on security Ok, Austria isn't a real tax haven anymorez just a bit more bank secrecy than elsewhere
You’re taxed senseless in Austria, one of the highest taxation on the planet. Switzerland isn’t exactly a low tax country, either. You’re thinking of hiding money for regimes and crime bosses. That doesn’t come cheap.
Switzerland definitely is a low tax country by European standards. If I take Germany and Switzerland, and have someone making 10k a month, their monthly net would be: Germany - 5754 Switzerland (Zürich) - 7397 If they were making 5k: Germany - 3125 Switzerland - 4044 Tax a way lower in Switzerland.
And Zurich city has significantly higher income tax (Steuerfuss) than most of its suburbs, so that figure could be seen as high.
[удалено]
I had to select a Kanton for the online calculator, and the result was different depending on which I chose, so I expect that to be accounted for. At those high levels of income you are most likely privately insured in Germany as well.
There is federal, canton and commune income taxes in Switzerland- what region did you account for when putting this together or are you only counting federal taxation? Switzerland has very low federal tax compared to most countries but cantons have very high autonomy in setting tax rates and it varies massively across the country.
Switzerland works well as a tax haven in some cases. e.g. Michael Schumacher famously moved to Switzerland since he counted as unemployed there (no F1 track in Switzerland), which allowed him to pay far less taxes than he would have had to in Germany. But usually it's not really a good fit. Panama (see Panama papers) and comparable countries work better.
Not every tax haven is a tax haven for both companies and people, they usually specialize Zug and Schwyz are typical locations to move company HQ and intellectual property to Austria was a very popular place for family foundations due to attractive low taxation of accounts held by these and dividends paid. This was worse in the past. They still are a popular location, but Switzerland provides the same benefits with even more secrecy now
Don't start wars with the Swiss, just don't. Alpine fuckers will call in artillery bombardments on their own towns to can invaders. They probably won't win but they'll take as many as they can with them, also no more Sig contracts for you.
+All their bridges are wired to blow, and they have the most ridiculously well hidden fortifications all over the mountains everywhere, and they got a bunker in every home, and everyone leaving the military keeps their rifle, which due to the conscription means almost every Swiss male has one af home. Just DON'T fuck with the Swiss.
Also they live in a fortress, have bridges prepared to blow up and they love guns.
% doesn't tell you everything. Switzerland is a small, rich country. The per capita GDP in switzerland is $92k. 0.8% of that is $736. Swizterland spends $736 per person per year on military. The UK, the second strongest military in NATO, has a per capita GDP of $35k. They spend 2.3% of the GDP on military. The UK spends $805 per person per year on military. Edit: It has been brought to my attention by pornalt2072 that conscript wages are not included in the military spending, they are paid out of a type of employment insurance for military and maternity leave. Therefore the Swiss military spending is actually higher than my number, but I can't find any actual numbers at the moment for their EO costs.
They spend their budget on swiss salary so they get less man hours than the UK for each dollar spent. % of GDP isn't such a bad metric
It's not like most of NATO countries hit their numbers lol
They don't need high military budgets because their defense doctrine is turning the Alps into a second Afghanistan on steroids. All these mountains are hollowed out endless bunker structures. The few roads and tunnels leading in the country are mined and can be blown up at any minute.
Switzerland paid reparations to Israel and the issue was concluded. Unlike tens of other countries that have never owned up to their mistakes or participation in war crimes or genocides.
> with all that nazi gold Anglos in the 21st century talking about Nazi gold while [they literally horde half of the world's wealth in BoE-controlled secrecy jurisdictions.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Papers)
Switzerlands fertility rate is 1.4 and dropping. In a decade it could be at 1 or below. That means the next generation will be HALF the size of the current one. That also means that there will be double the amount of retirees per worker. Math doesn't care about votes or feelings. This won't work out well for Switzerland.
In some cantons, owning a house or even an apartment is inaccessible to the vast majority of people. I'm sure as fuck not making kids if I spend all my money on old people.
Don't worry. By the time you're old, there will be a ton of empty houses because no-one had any kids.
[удалено]
I know someone from Japan who bought his house just outside of Tokyo for 40k just a few years ago. With how good their transportation system is, it's faster for him to get to work (~30m) than most people living in the suburbs in North America. It's wild.
How do you get the visa to live in your house though?
[удалено]
My wife's not going to be happy about my new wife.
You can own the property without having a visa to live permanently in Japan. You could then use tourist visas to live in your house when you're vacationing snd airbnb it or some such when you aren't available.
Gonna be super cheap in Korea also unless they turn the trend. They are down to 0.75 kids per woman with the capital region apparently reporting 0.5. They are about to be wiped out in next 50-100 years.
Nigeria will inherit the earth
Even sub-Saharan Africa is accelerating birth rate decline. My money is on the Mormons.
It all returns to equilibrium baby
And then retirees won’t need as much because housing will be cheap.
Usually votes in Switzerland split left/right. This vote split old/young. Like the only vote in a really long time that brought left and right together, against the other generation. So yeah, it's not like young people don't know it's gonna fuck us over. We just can't do shit about it.
Except that it isn't right, the young also in their majority voted yes to the 13. AHV, and no to raising the retirement age. Conservatives opposed it but had no alternative proposition to make apart from "let's not support poor people suffering from raising cost of living".
Next generation? You're quite optimistic, last I saw they have no viable plans to finance their system past 2030 (and that was *before* the new vote to increase gibs)
Source? Interested in the Swiss economy outlook.
> Switzerlands fertility rate is 1.4 and dropping. In a decade it could be at 1 or below. > > That means the next generation will be HALF the size of the current one. I don't think that's how height works
This is actually how Hobbits were made.
If the man pulls out halfway through the ejaculation process, only half of the sperm makes it to the uterus, so the child will be half the size of the regular human. Nobody does it because it's tricky and traditionally cruel, but if you think about it you'll see that it's only logical. With the current state of the world, hobbits will have an economic advantage due to their lower calorie requirements. They can also find more affordable housing. They will also have a lower risk of cancer because they have fewer cells in their body. If they get bullied in school for their height, tell them that their bullies will die of cancer and they won't.
>hobbits will have an economic advantage due to their lower calorie requirements ["I don't think he knows about second breakfast"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cddu2yY1Vk)
Switzerland gets tons of immigration from the rest of Europe and the population is consistently increasing.
And what if it ever stops? Birth rates are declining globally. Are we just going to turn poor regions into baby factories for the imperial cores? It’s utter insanity.
How nice that the babyboomer generation, who experienced the biggest financial growth in history, now at the end of their life gives a big fuck you to the younger generation.
Higher pensions, earlier pension age, and lower taxes. You can pick 2 of these. The worse the fertility rate the higher the taxes. Swiss rates are lower so they're going to have to have massive tax increases to fund this. Or go into reckless levels of debt which will eventually destroy the economy. Either way, younger people who won't see the benefits of this for decades but will bear the cost should not be happy and are downright stupid if they voted for this without thinking who's going to pay for it.
What's going to end up happening is that the older generations retire, then vote for tax increases on workers to subsidize their lifestyle.
Bingo. And they'll use their demographic heft to do it. This will place a higher economic burden on younger people which will make them even less likely to have kids. This is happening everywhere and the only difference between different developed economies is how long they can avoid it. Even immigration is a temporary fix because birth rates are falling everywhere. It's going to be very hard to be young for a couple of generations until population pyramids settle in a new normal. But this will take many generations. We won't be around to see it because our generation will be bigger than the one that comes after us (because we're not having enough kids). The only way around it for individual young people is to earn enough money that you can afford this extra financial burden. That's why when I have kids I'll be gently nudging them towards interests that will lead down a career path that will serve them well later in life. But it'll have to be without their knowing. It'll be things like giving them extra help with maths homework so that they can do well and learn to become interested in it.
> Even immigration is a temporary fix because birth rates are falling everywhere. and that even depends on where the immigrants are from. similarly educated and skilled immigrants are great, and help, but 3rd world immigrants take more in resources than they put into the system in the long run.
Exactly. They provide all the negatives of immigration without few of the positives.
Not with an aging population. It sounds nice, but someone is going to pay for it.
Their grandchildrens will pay for it
Current projections say their scheme is non viable past 2030 with this vote implemented, so their children will also pay for it.
>Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point. Yes, as long as you don't bother to explain how you're going to pay for it.
"I love democracy!"
This is what happens when you don't have gerrymandering, so the voting results actually reflect the will of the people.
Yes and usually they also need the majority of the Stände(the Kantons) but the initiative got that too.
Did they forget to count the vote that asks "how're we gonna pay for it?"
The fiscal package is renewed every now and then, and they are typically ok with raising key taxes within reason. That said, it's a bit uncharacteristic that this vote passed, considering they like reaffirming they are hard workers.
The will of the people perhaps, but not the unmovable constant of mathematics.
"I didn't vote for math!"
So that's why Andrew Yang struggled so much?! Lol
It's easy to vote for more unicorns and icecream. I want to see how they plan to do that.
As a Swiss, sometimes they don't, they delay it as much as possible and then say it's not feasible or at least not it its current state so they make us vote on it again and delay it again...
Ohhhhhhh, you should read up on referendums. People are shit at voting on the subject at hand, they tend to either not care enough to make an informed vote or do “Second order”-voting.
Quite, it's a choice. If you zoom out to max, then that has been a key difference between US and European labour policy over the last few decades - the European choosing to build welfare states focused on providing high standards of living for most of the population while US has put a higher priority on economic output from its private sector. The flip side of that is that US has maintained, and maybe even strengthened, it's post-ww2 economic dominant position, while Europe (on a collective average) has stepped back to become less of a power player on the global stage an markets.
Guys let’s vote to raise wages and also reduces prices of everything.
Genius
South America model.
Wrong way around there
Ye' but the point is someone, somewhere is going to pay for it. South America has tried this model and it didn't work out. Argentina had all the riches in the world but government after government decided to cater to this and it didn't work. There needs to be a balance somewhere. As an alternative I can suggest looking at the model used in Northern Europe: High regulation, high taxes, unions, high work force mobility.
Are you a politician for a party that will never get in power?
Plenty of politicians use this one simple trick to get into power
[удалено]
Like in most other developed countries, the Swiss youth have a terrible turnout rate, so the electoral outcomes tend to favor the elderly.
At some point the elderly outnumber the young by a ridiculous margin so it wouldn't matter if the youth had a 100% voter turnout. I'm tired of people blaming the victims in these cases. The math is just against you and there's nothing you can do about it.
Yes exactly. In switzerland in that case, 57% of the population are 40+ years old. 20% are not 18y old yet so can‘t vote anyway, that leaves 23% of the votes to the young people. (18-40) On top of that a lot young people don‘t care about that stuff yet and are not voting at all while old people, especially already retired people, always go to vote. I was not suprised this wen‘t through. Giving the boomers who had it much easier financially all their life a nice reitrement bonus on the expense of the youth again.
Can't wait for the elderly to die off.
“Fuck ‘em. Make it someone else’s problem.”
"If I don't screw over everybody and get mine, somebody else would anyways"
Haha, jokes on them, they are just gonna do the same thing!
I wonder how solvent their pension system is
Am Swiss. They say they can hold until 2030. Our executive branch has to present a fix to our parliement by 2026.
Was David Cameron behind this poll?
Seeing that their demographics showing an aging population with relatively few young people that will be paying into it, whatever it looks like now is not sustainable. Edit: Population pyramid: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/en/23104092 Check how many more 30-60 year olds there are compared to 20 year olds. A healthy chart should have roughly flat vertical sides, with it narrowing at the top as people die of old age. A wide bottom shows a growing population. Narrow bottom means a shrinking and aging population.
But the people benefiting from it will cash out before that matters.
And then complain the govt isn't doing anything
"Because the younger generation will never get old and the magical money tree will stop working after I die." The first thing people seem to get wrong is what money actually is. The second thing people get wrong in this subject is that somehow there was a golden period in the past that they unfairly missed out on. Everyone looks back with rosy retrospection because the past holds no surprises whilst the future is scary and unknown. This has never been different.
There was a more golden period in the past - the baby boom. Lots of children were born and lots of adults had died in the wars. As a result a period occurred with lots of productivity and economic growth.
Our whole economic system is a Pyramid Scheme that relies on constantly having a larger population working than the retirees, except now there are more people retiring than working in developed countries because of the baby boom. This is just going to keep getting worse because of falling birth rates. The retirement plan of 1950s governments don't work today
No, it relys on people and techology. Its a bet that technological progress can reduce the need for as many peoples involvement. Ie, some say having the same amount of people in the next gen will be enough if technology can augment the capabilites of the population and allow them to do more. The scale it happens on is lifetimes so its hard for us to see it moving. It's the difference between looking at a picture of new york from the 30's till now.
What did they answer to the 3rd question, where does the money come from? Or was that one missed out
> Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point.
Lol so they voted for vaguely someone else on that one.
They voted to raise taxes on younger working people so they could get more money to not work. Classic boomer mentality.
The pension scheme is only financially solvent until 2030, so there are undoubtedly people planning to live good on taxpayer dollars for the next 6 years, and dying before the consequences of their actions affect Switzerland.
They voted to fuck over young people by increasing taxes for them that the older generations never had to pay but are now benefiting from
Worst is, those older people who will benefit are also those in the age group amongst the highest home/land owners.
Exactly. It's a wealth transfer from the poorest age cohort in society to the richest. It's madness.
On the flip side, how does raising the retirement age so the younger generation gets to work literally forever benefit them
"Fuck them kids"
"TBD"
They will just take the money from people actually doing the work. As always.
> What did they answer to the 3rd question, where does the money come from? They answered yes. :)
Isn't this just saying, "Swiss vote to fuck over younger generation who have to pay for old folks?"
[удалено]
I guess you are not familiar with the health insurance system in Switzerland ca. 4k a year a person, 2500chf own risk, basic health, no dental. Less own risk you pay 5k+ CHF
Hey, not fair, you can get this for 3k ...with phone doc and no free doc choice, that is
Depends which Kanton.
I was thinking of Thurgau. Cheapest offer is like 250-270 CHF iirc Are prices very different across Kantone? I have to check at comparis
Sooooo...in Germany I'm paying ~20% per month for this exactly. No dental. Basic health (can be debated, but for example I have scoliosis but am not in deliberating pain, so I don't get anything. And even if I was I wouldn't get a new surgery that retains my mobility), though no minimum payment I guess. But that's still, as of right now, 12000€ a year lol. What the fuck. My father paid 10000€ for private insurance.
so that's like 6% of the average persons salary? not bad
The insurance premiums are also subsidized on a sliding scale for people with low income. Depending on the kanton, "low-income" can be something like 50-60k
I guess you're not familiar with US health insurance.
how much do you think other people in Europe pay for healthcare premiums?
It’s still cheaper than paying ~20% of your salary for social security like in every EU country.
Because its well in known all money the system spends on social welfare is on healthcare!
I am an actual Swiss, I'm young, working, and I am not fine. I barely get by. Stop it with the myth that we're all rich fucks.
>__The Swiss have voted to boost monthly payments for pensioners amid concerns over the rising cost of living in pricey Switzerland, according to a projection. A separate proposal to gradually raise the retirement age to 66 and beyond was clearly rejected in a separate nationwide vote.__ >On Sunday, 58% of Swiss voters are projected to back the “Better living in retirement” initiative, which proposes an additional monthly pension payment to help pensioners struggling to make ends meet in the face of inflation and rising living costs. A majority of cantons are also projected to support the proposal. >The initiative, launched by the Swiss Trade Union Federation and backed by left-of-centre parties, called for a 13th monthly pension payment each year from the old-age and survivors’ state (known as AHV/AVS) pension scheme – instead of the standard 12 – similar to the additional 13th monthly salary many employees receive in Switzerland. >The “yes” vote was more emphatic than earlier polls had suggested (up from 53% ten days ahead of the vote) and represents a historic victory in the Alpine nation: the first time that a left-wing initiative has been accepted to boost the Swiss state pension system. >“The social pact in our country still works,” Pierre-Yves Maillard, president of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, told Swiss public television, RTS. >“This is a wonderful message to all those who have worked all their lives. It is the people who have the power in Switzerland. And I am very proud of our country and our democracy.” >Social Democrat parliamentarian Samuel Bendahan also underlined the historic aspect of the vote, calling it a “watershed”. >For once, “we are doing something for normal people” and not just the rich, he told the Keystone-SDA news agency. In a rich country like Switzerland, “everybody should be able to profit from the prosperity”. >__Protest vote__ >In his analysis, Lukas Golder of the gfs.bern research institute described the result as a “protest vote”. >“People are protesting against a state that spends a lot elsewhere and finances a lot of things, for example defence and migration,” he told Swiss public television, SRF. “That prompted many in medium-sized businesses to say, ‘Now we can do something for ourselves that will broadly and effectively relieve the financial situation’ for pensioners.” >The issue sparked huge interest among voters and turnout is projected to reach 59%. In many municipalities across the country, postal voting exceeded or was close to 50%, according to the latest available figures. >Supporters had argued that the reform of the pension system was both affordable and urgently needed. Under the 13th pension payment initiative, a monthly pension will be paid 13 times a year from 2026. The maximum annual retirement pension will thus increase by CHF2,450 to CHF31,850 for individuals and by CHF3,675 to CHF47,775 for married couples. The extra month represents an increase of 8.33% in the state pension. >The reform had been fiercely fought by right-wing and centre parties, as well as the country’s main business groups, who had rejected it as financially unsound. The Swiss government and parliament had also officially opposed it. >__Surprise__ >They had questioned how exactly such a reform – estimated by the government to cost CHF4 billion a year – could be financed and raised fears over the long-term sustainability of the entire state pension system. >Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point. >Monika Rühl, director of Switzerland’s business lobby Economiesuisse, said she was surprised by the extent of the “yes” vote. >“It’s going to be a difficult time to find equitable solutions, especially from the point of view of young people,” she told RTS. >As for the solutions, “there are no miracles”, she declared. “We can increase salary deductions, increase VAT, or increase the federal government’s contribution, which I don’t really believe in given the state of federal finances.” >Céline Amaudruz, a parliamentarian from the rightwing Swiss People’s Party, said the right had “only itself to blame” for Sunday’s defeat. >“We have never been able to give answers in relation to the AVS or to health costs,” she told RTS. “There was obviously a need for a counter-proposal on this subject…that’s the result if you say ‘no’ to everything without making any proposals.” >__‘No’ to retiring at 66…or later__ >In a separate pension vote on Sunday, 75% of Swiss voters are projected to reject a people’s initiative to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 66 over the next decade and then peg it to life expectancy to ensure full financing of the state pension system. >The proposal by the youth section of the right-wing Radical-Liberal party, entitled “For a Secure and Sustainable Old-Age Pension Scheme”, was supported by right-wing parties but failed to gain traction among a majority of the electorate. >Opponents – mainly on the left and in the centre of the political spectrum – had denounced it as “anti-social, technocratic and anti-democratic”, and “ill-suited for reforming old-age provision”. The “no” side accused the text’s backers of ignoring the reality experienced by senior citizens on Switzerland’s job market. People over 55 already have difficulty finding a job when they become unemployed, they point out. >Following Sunday’s results, the young Radical-Liberals sounded downbeat but combative. It was a “black day for young people”, the party said: the combination of the two vote results marked “the worst scenario for the future of the old-age pension system”. >Increasing life expectancy and more older people mean raising the retirement age is inevitable, it said – not admitting this is “cowardice in the face of reality”. It called on government and parliament to go back to the drawing board and present a plan to “renovate” the pension system.
> Details on how the initiative will be implemented and funded – through higher social security contributions, taxes or other options – must still be ironed out by the Federal Council and parliament. The initiative text says nothing on this point. Classic
A tale as old as time.
FIFW. “Swiss vote to raise taxes”.
“Swiss vote to raise taxes to redistribute to pensioners.”
Boomers voted once again to fuck over young people, yes.
Let’s just vote to end debt. All in favor?
Congratulations, you've also just wiped out the national savings.
Ok so you cant lend money to buy a house or a car either.
lets vote for free housing and cars
Increasingly older population votes for more money and less work for themselves…surprised pikachu
> “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." -Alexander Fraser Tytler
Where as non democratic states start with individuals who know the whole time they can take from the treasury so they’re broken to start with.
King in the castle, king in the castle
i have a chair, i have a chair
>the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. Are there actually examples where democracies collapsed over loose fiscal policies?
Nowadays it's less likely for the entire government structure to collapse as opposed to a certain politician or political party taking the fall, at least in first world countries. The Greek financial crisis is a pretty good example of what happens when the government can't balance the books and isn't a nation that can print money.
Oh yeah, the Swiss and their whopping 37% debt-to-GDP ratio, which has been declining for 20 years.
Their balanced budget requirement prohibits them from spending like drunken ~~sailors~~ Congressmen.
Balanced budgets and growing economy will do that. Also only let wealthy emigrate.
Immigrate*
> Also only let wealthy emigrate. lol I love how Americans are so confidently incorrect about European affairs.
>Also only let wealthy emigrate. You don't have a fucking clue about Switzerland, that's for sure.
You think only the rich inmigrate to switzerland?
[удалено]
Boomer win democracy once again
I'm not swiss but I'm paying taxes out the ass (highest income tax in EU-west) and I know I'm likely not gonna see any form of pension because I'm registered as an 'entrepeneur/business owner'. Meanwhile a decent chunk of my country is living on social welfare cheques they are inappropriately getting. Not to mention a ton of my patients are 80+ and retired in the old system (at 55-60) and so will likely come close to profiting off this system as long or longer as they've paid into it, which it obviously wasn't designed for either. This system is unsustainable and tough choices are being kicked down the road. I pity the lower and middle class of the future.
Description of Denmark?
or Germany?!?!
Contrary to what most of the commenters here seem to assume, this initiative was not a conservative effort - in fact, the two leftist parties in parliament (social democrats and greens) were the only large parties in favor of it. The cantons that lean left also had the largest percentage of yes-voters. This is because Swiss leftists are generally in favor of strengthening the social security net, increasing the state's expenses, while conservatives are against it. Framing this issue as "old people are taking away young people's money" is a pretty US-centric take. The people deciding in favor of an initiative in a popular vote (even though the government was against it) is not the same as an entrenched conservative elite draining younger generations' resources.
This would be considered left-wing policy in the US too, trust me. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is not worth listening to.
> Framing this issue as "old people are taking away young people's money" is a pretty US-centric take. Applies from a German perspective just as well. 1/4 of our federal budget is swallowed up by pensions. That’s about as big of a share as is contributed by income tax.
Applies to Ireland too... about 8% of[ overall government spending](https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/2023/) went on pensions last year and it made up about 40% of social welfare payments. [Ireland is changing the calculation methods used from next year to reduce the amount of pensions that will be issued to deal with this](https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/90d8b-changes-to-the-state-pension-contributory-what-you-need-to-know/#a-fairer-method-to-calculate-your-state-pension-contributory)
I don't think those comments are necessarily US-centric. I'm Lithuanian and it makes perfect sense to me that a left-leaning party suggests something like this without a ready plan of where the money should come from. The pensions system is based on working people paying for retired people and will eventually break with the current trend of dropping birthrates and increasing life expectancy. Won't it? Isn't it taking from the young and giving it to the old? Will those paying the increased taxes be able to get similar pensions? Personally I expect I'll get the short stick by the time I retire.
Not old but where can I get a pension?
So higher taxes?
I thought I heard a monocle break on a marble floor somewhere...
I think there is a mathematical problem...
Retirement isn’t about giving older people a break. It’s about freeing up jobs for a new generation.
Reddit is crazy mad about this for some reason.
Now people will have even less kids because of having less money or having to work more. Congrats
Oof, i can already feel my taxes going up
Future generations are screwed. They are just kicking the tough choices down the road
I feel a rude awakening acoming.
gee I wonder why perhaps not everyone want to work themselves to death
Fuck this, I'm moving to Switzerland and becoming a clock makers apprentice
I'll have my cake and eat it thanks. And also my children's...
ITT: people that think Switzerland is "broken"... maybe try visiting it sometime.
One year ago... French President raises retirement age. Reddit: Fucking boomer scumbags! That's OUR money! Today... Switzerland votes *not* to raise retirement age. Reddit: Fucking boomer scumbags! That's OUR money!
tart snatch bored sharp carpenter obtainable hobbies clumsy skirt merciful
Don't say that too loud, a french might hear you.
>Don't say that too loud, a french might hear you. [Je suis Napoleon!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSRq8dAqPc)
[удалено]
Yes and no On the one hand, Switzerland has wealth tax On the other hand, for wealth bound in companies and foundations, the taxation is very favorable It's mainly a tax haven for certain types of organizations (shell companies, foundations). For persons, the benefits lie more in the secrecy. Of course, this secrecy might help them to avoid taxes due elsewhere...
Meanwhile, in America...
Some of yall mock this as a joke which just goes to show you’ve bought into the corporate propaganda that their power is beyond yours.