UDC rejects VAT hike to fund 13th AVS pension; vote Nov 29

Context

TL;DR

• UDC says no to the VAT increase for the 13th AVS pension
• The people vote on the proposal on November 29
• In Bulle, the no vote passes by 290 votes to 3
• The Udc says yes to Centro's initiative

Key facts

• Subject → financing the 13th AVS pension through VAT
• UDC decision → no, with 290 votes against 3
• Vote → November 29
• Location → Bulle assembly (Fr)
• AVS fund → finances 80% of the 13th pension
• UDC alternative → savings in international cooperation and asylum
• Maillard alternative → higher taxation of high incomes
• Centre initiative → yes, with 274 in favor, 9 against and 3 abstentions

With 290 votes against 3, UDC delegates recommended voting no on financing the 13th AVS pension through an increase in value-added tax. The decision was taken at the party assembly held Saturday in Bulle (Fr), while voters will go to the polls on November 29.

The issue under discussion is not the mere existence of the 13th pension, but its funding mechanism. The proposal put to the vote in fact provides for an adjustment to VAT. UDC chose to reject it and turned the no into an official recommendation to voters.

During the assembly, Fribourg National Councillor Nicolas Kolly argued that the Confederation should make better use of the money entrusted to it by the Swiss. In his view, approval of the principle of a 13th AVS pension did not amount to consent to a new tax increase. For this reason, UDC would have preferred the Federal Council to finance the benefit through savings, citing funds earmarked for international cooperation and the asylum sector.

Pierre-Yves Maillard, a Vaud Socialist and Council of States member as well as president of the Swiss Trade Union Federation, would have opted for higher taxation of high incomes. However, he stressed the need to identify an additional source of funding, given that the AVS fund already covers 80% of the 13th pension.

Two recommendations on the same date

The result in Bulle therefore yields two distinct recommendations: no to financing the 13th AVS pension through VAT, yes to the Centre initiative. The two recommendations should not be confused: the first item concerns the pension's funding source, the second fiscal fairness between spouses.

Operational details

Three questions for assessing the proposal

To interpret the vote from the perspective of someone living in Switzerland, it is useful to keep three aspects separate. The first is the benefit: the 13th AVS/AHV pension. The second is the financing: the VAT increase provided for by the proposal. The third is the political choice of the source of the funds: VAT, the savings indicated by the Udc, or higher taxation of high incomes. This distinction prevents the vote on financing from becoming an undifferentiated judgment on the AVS.

The text brings the decision to the national level. VAT is a federal lever; it is not the same as direct federal tax and is not a change decided autonomously by the Cantons. When assessing the cost of living, the point to isolate is therefore the tax channel chosen to support the 13th pension. The news makes it possible to compare the mechanisms without turning the debate into a personal calculation.

| Option | What the source indicates | Related position | | Avs increase | Financing the 13th Avs pension | Proposal put to the vote | | Savings | International cooperation and asylum sector | Udc preference, as reported by Kolly | | High incomes | Higher taxation to find resources | Maillard's preference | | Avs fund | Coverage of 80% of the pension | Data cited by Maillard |

This comparison also clarifies the role of the Federal Council in the Udc's reasoning: according to Kolly, it should seek the necessary savings instead of supporting a new tax increase. Maillard's position starts from a different premise: an additional source remains necessary, even though 80% of the 13th pension is already financed by the Avs fund.

For a resident, the choice therefore does not boil down to the question of whether the 13th pension is desirable. It is necessary to assess which of the indicated sources should be placed at the center. The reference to VAT makes the issue federal; the reference instead to taxation of high incomes and savings shifts the comparison to the distribution of the financial burden. These are the three elements to keep together before casting the vote.

Key points

Four steps before November 29

1. Pin down the first issue: the vote concerns financing the 13th AHV pension through VAT, not a general question about social security.

2. Separate the benefit from its financing. You can consider separately the principle of the 13th pension and the method proposed to finance it.

3. Compare the alternatives mentioned in the debate: the SVP's opposition to a VAT increase, the savings in international cooperation and asylum cited by Nicolas Kolly, or higher taxation of high incomes, preferred by Pierre-Yves Maillard.

4. Keep the second initiative separate. The Centre proposes the text on fair taxation for spouses and the SVP recommends voting yes; this position does not coincide with the no vote expressed on financing the 13th AHV pension.

The first step is meant to prevent reading the SVP's no as an undifferentiated rejection of the pension. The position approved in Bulle concerns financing it through VAT. The second helps to understand the point raised by Kolly: for the SVP, approving the principle of the 13th pension did not entail accepting a new tax increase.

In the third step, noting the different sources avoids confusing a savings proposal with a proposal for higher taxation. The figure indicating that 80% is financed by the AHV fund should be read together with Maillard's request to identify an additional source nonetheless.

Finally, anyone assessing both issues must treat them as two separate choices, also because the SVP's recommendation changes from one issue to the other. To connect the pension debate to your own situation, consult guida AVS/LPP and calcolatore stipendio/imposte.

Source: laregione.ch