Rehabilitate federal finances by increasing federal taxes.

Problem

• We expect more and more services from the state (AHV, infrastructure, health). At the same time, the state quota should preferably not increase.
• Most federal expenditures are bound by laws. The potential for savings is low and ideas are often not majority-supported.
• A potential increase in value-added tax that seems majority-supported disproportionately burdens low and middle incomes and is therefore not socially acceptable.
• Federal taxes are currently constitutionally capped at 11.5% for natural persons.
• Federalism reaches its limits on certain topics such as information technology, which require economies of scale.

Solution

• An increase in federal tax for natural persons would not disproportionately burden low and middle incomes, as the tax is progressive.
• Introduction of a (progressive) wealth tax for individuals at the federal level. This abolishes the pure taxation of income in the direct federal tax. Income tax could even be reduced for low and middle incomes.

Benefit

• The additional expenses would be covered.
• The tax increase would be socially acceptable.
• The wealth is already taxed for the state and municipal tax. It would therefore be simple to introduce this at the federal level as well (no system change).
• Unlike initiatives that use thresholds for taxing large fortunes (and are therefore rejected in Tegel), a low tax rate at the federal level for everyone who pays federal taxes could lead to the federal government having sufficient funds.

Public support

Total votes: 48

Breakdown: NoChance: 25, FullyOnBoard: 7, SoundsGood: 6, NeedForDiscussion: 5, NothingAgainstIt: 3, Concerns: 2

Discussion

• Ralf Metz (2026-02-25): I would fundamentally question the idea that "we expect more and more from the state and are not willing to pay more." Because my personal expectation is not that the state should fix everything. Because as long as we are not clear, a) why expenses keep rising and b) whether we (in the sense of the sovereign) actually want this continuously rising expenses are at best symptom treatment. Because the attitude "the state fixes more and more" ultimately leads to a steadily decreasing personal responsibility among people. A quick look at developments in the North (Germany) is enough. It quickly becomes clear what acceptance of ever-increasing state costs means in the long run. And yes, there are always arguments for a specific topic. Therefore, I see this as a fundamental question that cannot be decided on an individual level.
• ↳ Oliver Herren (2026-03-01): The skepticism is justified, but we should not pit personal responsibility against public services. Only a strong foundation, like our education system, creates the basis on which people can act responsibly and successfully at all. Prosperous states prove: smart public investments are not a sign of weakness but of efficiency. Instead of abstracting the debate to the fundamental level, we should conduct it on the concrete services: Does the collective perform a task more fairly and better than the market? Thanks to direct democracy, we in Switzerland are not a passive audience to rising costs but the sovereign who actively defines and controls this catalog of services.
• Dario Miglioretto (2026-02-14): Compensating excessive costs through tax increases is a declaration of bankruptcy for administration and politics. In private life, I can probably ask for a raise - but I will hardly get what I need for an extravagant lifestyle. So I have to moderate myself. I am the state (partially) and so the state must do the same to me and moderate itself. As long as subsidies make up 1/3 of the federal budget, there is plenty of room for cuts - the parliament's imagination is required. Speaking of direct federal tax; this was introduced temporarily and has actually long been repealed - it would also be worth an initiative...
• ↳ Oli Christen (2026-02-15): I agree, if costs rise but services do not, then something is wrong and savings must be made. However, this is not the case. The current expenditures including subsidies are democratically legitimized. One can like or reject them. But now there are also additional services that are democratically legitimized (13th AHV, higher military spending), so additional revenues are legitimate. If the direct federal tax were abolished, services would also have to be cut. Which ones - besides subsidies - would you reduce?
• Willy Bischofberger (2026-01-08): Save costs by cutting down no longer efficient positions/expenses, e.g. health prevention. The topic is important, has been sufficiently addressed, the population is now sufficiently sensitized, it is no longer needed. And there are many things that were started once and cannot be undone because the civil servants employed there defend their positions (understandable, I would too). New state services should therefore always be time-limited, achieve their goal, and then be dismantled again (project character).
• Raphael Renaud (2025-12-21): Personally, I don't think that's a good idea. "Temporary" tax increases are practically never reduced afterwards because people get used to them and later too many special interests are satisfied with the money, which are hardly reviewed afterwards. I am quite sure that it would be more sensible to define clear KPIs for large budget items and see whether the investments are really worth the money. Without knowing the details, I would assume that there is at least 10-20% savings potential in the federal budget without having to reduce any services. The more money is available, the less effort there is to really prioritize; that's pure psychology. Therefore, a certain budget pressure is sensible so that the pressure to question expenditures also increases.
• ↳ Oli Christen (2025-12-21): I actually also see it critically with getting used to the expenses. However, I see the savings potential rather critically. On the one hand, many expenses are legally bound. On the other hand, as can be seen in the current savings package, only minimal savings measures have majority support. Each party probably sees 10-20% savings potential, but the majority-supported overlap is small. So only additional expenses remain. These must be covered by additional income or debt. A relaxation of the debt brake also does not seem to have majority support. And additional income through an increase in VAT seems to me to be the lesser evil than an increase in the maximum federal tax.
• ↳ Raphael Renaud (2025-12-21): That's true. Nevertheless, I don't think it's good to spend more and more money. The problem here is, similar to negative effects that the economy can externalize, that the impacts of the problems that arise are rarely a problem for the people who decide. Not even in democracy, since people have an expiration date and therefore debts rarely hurt oneself. And even if they do, most do not understand the connection between decisions and the effect on themselves. You become poorer through tax increases and rising costs, but don't really know which factors are all connected to it. But simply raising taxes for that reason seems to me the wrong strategy. Maybe rather budget transparency per capita, so that politicians and voters can see the orders of magnitude of budget items and become active because of that?!
• Oli Christen (2025-12-21): According to source #1 (Federal Constitution Art. 128), the federal tax for natural persons is limited to 11.5% of income. This means that the progression flattens out from a certain income level. Doesn't this contradict Art. 127, which states that everyone must be taxed according to their ability to pay? From my point of view, the maximum tax rate should be increased somewhat.
• ↳ Oli Christen (2025-12-21): But the progression says that the more you earn, the more you can contribute to the federal budget proportionally - not just absolutely. Why should this no longer apply from a certain income? And how is this maximum income determined?
• ↳ Raphael Renaud (2025-12-21): I'm not saying that a higher progression would contradict this, I'm just saying that according to the definition this is already fulfilled now. The article would even be fulfilled if there were no progression, because it only states that more money = more taxes must apply, which is given if there is no absolute cap.
• ↳ Oli Christen (2025-12-21): Probably according to the wording. But in terms of meaning, one is proportionally (and not just absolutely) economically more capable the more income one earns.