Keller-Sutter launches the No campaign against the taxation of married couples

Context

TL;DR

• Keller-Sutter launches the No campaign in Bern.
• The vote by the people and the cantons is scheduled for November 29.
• On March 8, 2026, 54,2% approved individual taxation.
• The FDF challenges the coexistence of two tax systems.

Key facts

• Subject of the proposal: to make federal taxes fair for married couples and put an end to marriage discrimination
• Date of the vote: November 29
• Approval of individual taxation: March 8, 2026
• Result: 54,2% in favor
• Tax concerned: direct federal tax (IFD)
• Conference venue: Bern
• Possible decrease in revenue: between 680 million and three billion francs

Following popular approval of the switch to individual taxation on March 8, 2026, with 54,2% in favor, Karin Keller-Sutter launched the No campaign in Bern against the initiative aimed at guaranteeing fair federal taxes for married couples and putting an end to marriage discrimination; the people and the Cantons will vote on November 29.

The Federal Councillor, head of the Federal Department of Finance and spokesperson for the government's position, considers the proposed constitutional amendment outdated following the March decision. The reasoning is straightforward: the system approved by the people should not coexist with a second tax system for married couples.

The content of the proposal is explicit: for the IFD, married couples should continue to be taxed jointly as an economic unit, with a constitutional guarantee that they will not receive less favorable treatment than cohabiting couples.

The issue of the two systems

“We do not want two separate tax systems in parallel,” Keller-Sutter said at a press conference in Bern. In her view, their coexistence would produce a worrying and complicated scenario. The minister acknowledged that constitutional law takes precedence over ordinary law, but stressed that the initiative concerns only direct federal tax (IFD).

Following the March vote, individual taxation will have to enter into force in the Cantons and municipalities in 2032. If the Centre's proposal were approved, however, this system could not be applied at federal level.

Parliament would have to take another decision to avoid the simultaneous application of two systems. The implementing legislation could then be challenged by referendum. Keller-Sutter described the risk as an endless discussion, a perpetuum mobile, arguing that a solution had already been reached after March 8.

The minister added that the Cantons, although they had opposed individual taxation, now do not want the coexistence of two systems. They would have to move forward with implementation at cantonal and municipal level without knowing whether, following a possible acceptance of the initiative, the federal model would actually be introduced. Keller-Sutter also expressed skepticism about the possibility that Parliament would abolish individual taxation after popular approval.

Operational details

To find one's bearings, the first distinction is not between one family and another, but between the levels of taxation. The initiative concerns the DFT; the individual taxation approved by the people must instead be implemented, after the March vote, at cantonal and municipal level in 2032. A possible yes vote on the initiative would alter the federal path, while the cantons would have to continue preparing their own transition without certainty about the next steps at national level.

The comparison between the levels

The second dimension concerns the family. The initiative wants spouses to continue to be taxed jointly as an economic unit for the DFT and not be treated less favourably than cohabiting couples. The FDF's position reverses the criterion: according to Keller-Sutter, the solution would ultimately favour married couples, whereas the state should not judge marital status through tax law. For those in a couple, the comparison is not limited to the outcome of the calculation alone: it concerns the relationship between marriage, cohabitation and methods of taxation.

For Keller-Sutter, in dual-income couples, joint taxation can discourage both spouses from increasing their employment rate. The second income earner is, in most cases, a woman: the tax obstacles associated with that income can weaken both spouses' financial independence, undermining their retirement security in old age and financial protection in the event of divorce. Equality between women and men is also more difficult to achieve as a result.

The method remains undecided. Parliament could choose full splitting, partial splitting or an alternative tax calculation. The latter would simulate joint and individual taxation, then apply the lower amount to the spouses. Until the model is chosen, it is not possible to determine a precise amount for each couple. The source nevertheless indicates a possible decline in revenue ranging from 680 million to three billion francs, depending on parliamentary decisions.

To turn this distinction into a personal comparison, the reader can keep dichiarazione delle imposte and the assessment of previdenza e rendita side by side. These are two perspectives consistent with the consequences indicated: the tax relationship on the one hand, protection in old age and in the event of divorce on the other.

Recommended tools

For an updated estimate, use the net salary calculator and the CHF-EUR exchange comparator.

Useful tools to protect your net income

To reduce FX leakage, compare CHF-EUR exchange options and banks for cross-border workers.

Key points

Anyone following the vote can turn the debate into a sequence of checks, without anticipating the effects of a law that, if accepted, Parliament would still have to draft. The procedure serves to distinguish the federal question from the consequences that also affect the cantonal and municipal levels.

Four operational steps

1. Define the question. On November 29, voters will vote on the initiative calling for fair federal rules for married couples. The matter concerns federal direct tax and should not be interpreted as an undifferentiated vote on every tax.

2. Separate the levels. In your comparison, keep federal direct tax, cantonal taxes and municipal taxes separate. The source indicates that individual taxation will enter into force for the latter in 2032, while the initiative concerns only the federal level.

3. Map the family and income situation. It is necessary to distinguish between a married couple and a cohabiting couple, then consider whether both spouses earn an income. The FDF’s position in fact links joint taxation to the choice to increase the employment rate and to the effects on the second income.

4. Monitor the legislative process. If the initiative were accepted, Parliament would be responsible for translating it into a law. The models under consideration include full splitting, partial splitting and alternative calculation; subsequently, the implementing law could be put to a referendum.

For cantons and municipalities, the subsequent check consists of following the implementation planned for 2032 without confusing it with the outcome of the federal vote. The possible coexistence of two systems is precisely the uncertainty flagged by Keller-Sutter: before attributing a tax effect to your family, you need to know which model Parliament will choose.

The same caution applies to work. If the second income is an element of the family decision, the comparison must include not only tax, but also financial independence, old-age provision and coverage in the event of divorce. busta paga svizzera is available for organizing the section relating to income from work.

After distinguishing the two levels and your family situation, run a simulation with calcolatore stipendio e imposte

Source: tio.ch