Taxation and married couples: opponents launch their campaign

Context

TL;DR

• The opposing committee presented its arguments in Bern
• The federal vote on the initiative is scheduled for November 29
• Individual taxation will enter into force from 2032
• The opponents' estimate ranges from 700 million to 3 billion annually

Key facts

• Proponent: Il Centro
• Opponents: PLR, PS, Verdi, Verdi liberali, business organizations and trade unions
• Objective: eliminate the tax discrimination against married couples
• Announced model: individual taxation from 2032
• Levels involved: federal, cantonal and municipal
• Initiative: direct federal tax only
• Planned method: aggregation of spouses' incomes in the tax return
• Scenario indicated: up to three income tax returns

The conference in Bern

In Bern, on Monday, the cross-party committee opposed to Il Centro's initiative presented its arguments ahead of the federal vote on November 29. The proposal under discussion aims to eliminate tax discrimination against married couples; the committee, however, considers it unnecessary and too costly.

The coalition brings together representatives of PLR, PS, Verdi and Verdi liberali, as well as business organizations and trade unions. According to the committee, the popular vote last March, which approved the transition to individual taxation, has already removed the marriage penalty.

In August, the government announced that this model would take effect from 2032. The change will affect the three levels of government indicated in the source: federal, cantonal and municipal. For the opponents, the distinction between the model already approved and the initiative now being put to a vote is central.

Il Centro's proposal, in fact, concerns only direct federal tax and provides for the aggregation of spouses' incomes in the tax return. The campaign presented in Bern is therefore based on two verifiable elements: extending the model to the three levels and the initiative's narrower scope, limited to the IFD. The committee also indicates a loss of revenue for the Confederation, ranging from 700 million to 3 billion francs per year.

Operational details

The comparison between the two scopes

A three-level reform and a text limited to IFD

The point that emerges from the committee's arguments is a comparison of scope, not a comparison between two tax figures reported in the source. The model of individual taxation is described as a change valid at the federal, cantonal and municipal levels. The Centro initiative, on the other hand, concerns only direct federal tax and provides for adding the spouses' incomes together in the tax return.

| Element | Individual taxation | The Centro initiative | | Scope | Federal, cantonal and municipal | Direct federal tax only | | Status indicated | Approved in a popular vote last March | Ahead of the November 29 vote | | Spouses' incomes | The text does not specify a method here | Aggregation in the tax return |

The table highlights a precise difference: the first model concerns all three levels of government, whereas the Centro proposal operates at only one. The source does not provide tax rates, amounts per family or simulations; therefore, the documented comparison concerns institutional scope and the treatment of incomes in the tax return.

This difference in scope gives rise to the opponents' criticism. If the initiative were accepted, the committee argues that it would create tax chaos with up to three income tax returns. The same argument adds that, even if the yes vote were to prevail, the cantons and municipalities would nevertheless have to introduce individual taxation.

The outcome envisaged by the opponents is therefore a possible coexistence between the aggregation provided for by the initiative for IFD and individual taxation, which would also have to be introduced at cantonal and municipal level. This is the concrete relationship indicated in the source: not a calculation of the benefit for a single couple, but a difference between scope and filing method.

Key points

Benefits, marriage and revenue shortfall

The «marriage bonus»

The opposition's second line of argument concerns the alternative calculation method provided for by the initiative. The committee argues that this method would introduce a «marriage bonus». In the argument presented in Bern, the bonus would have a specific effect: it would once again disadvantage unmarried couples.

The opponents add that the benefits would be concentrated mainly among taxpayers with higher incomes, while they would be modest for the middle class. This is an indication of how the benefits would be distributed, not a quantification: the text provides no percentages, amounts by income bracket or examples of individual tax returns. The committee's claim therefore remains tied to the comparison between the categories cited in the source, namely married and unmarried couples, taxpayers with higher incomes and the middle class.

The estimate for the Confederation

As regards public revenue, the committee points to a loss of revenue for the Confederation. The figures presented by the opponents are based on estimates by the Federal Tax Administration, the FTA, and indicate a range between 700 million and 3 billion francs per year.

The difference between the two extremes is 2,3 billion francs per year: the calculation derives from the difference between 3 billion and 700 million, the only monetary values indicated for this effect. The source does not select a central amount and does not detail a breakdown by cantons, municipalities or individual families. The documented figure is therefore a broad estimate attributed to the opponents and based on the FTA's assessments, not an individual amount associated with the vote.

The two aspects of the criticism thus remain distinct: on the one hand, the committee disputes the possible return of a disadvantage for unmarried couples and considers the benefit for the middle class limited; on the other, it quantifies the Confederation's lost revenue. To follow the issue from the perspective of tax practice, the reference is tax return.

Source: rsi.ch