I’ve always had a soft spot for Switzerland. The nation’s decentralized structure shows the value of federalism, both as a means of limiting the size of government and as a way of promoting tranquility in a nation with several languages, religions, and ethnic groups. I also admire Switzerland’s valiant attempt to preserve financial privacy in a world dominated by greedy, high-tax governments.
I now have another reason to admire the Swiss. Voters yesterday overwhelmingly rejected a class-warfare proposal to impose higher tax rates on the income and wealth of rich residents. The Social Democrats did their best to make the hate-and-envy scheme palatable. Only the very richest taxpayers would have been affected. But Swiss voters, like voters in Washington state earlier this month, understood that giving politicians more money is never a solution for any problem.
Here’s an excerpt from Bloomberg’s report on the vote.
In a referendum today, 59 percent of voters turned down the proposal by the Social Democrats to enact minimum taxes on income and wealth. Residents would have paid taxes of at least 22 percent on annual income above 250,000 francs ($249,000), according to the proposed changes. Switzerland’s executive and parliamentary branches had rejected the proposal, saying it would interfere with the cantons’ tax-autonomy regulations. The changes would also damage the nation’s attractiveness, the government, led by President Doris Leuthard, said before the vote. The Alpine country’s reputation as a low-tax refuge has attracted bankers and entrepreneurs such as Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish founder of Ikea AB furniture stores, and members of the Brenninkmeijer family, who owns retailer C&A Group.
It’s never wise to draw too many conclusions from one vote, but it certainly seems that voters usually reject higher taxes when they get a chance to cast votes. Even tax increases targeting a tiny minority of the population generally get rejected. The only exception that comes to mind is the unfortunate decision by Oregon voters earlier this year to raise tax rates.
[…] That last sentence deserves some elaboration. The authors are noting (“overcrowding access to the tax side”) that it is possible to increase spending by increasing taxes, but that’s not an easy option in Switzerland because voters can use direct democracy to reject tax hikes (as they have in the past). […]
[…] That last sentence deserves some elaboration. The authors are noting (“overcrowding access to the tax side”) that it is possible to increase spending by increasing taxes, but that’s not an easy option in Switzerland because voters can use direct democracy to reject tax hikes (as they have in the past). […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] map focusing on tax burdens in Europe. The darker the nation, the more onerous the tax (notice how Switzerland is a light-colored oasis surrounded by dark-colored tax […]
[…] First, high tax rates are very costly because high-value taxpayers are far more likely to move. This means there are greater-than-ever penalties for bad policy and greater-than-ever rewards for good policy. Bad news for states like New Jersey and nations such as France. Good news for Florida and Switzerland. […]
[…] P.P.S. There’s a debate whether ballot initiatives and other forms of “direct democracy” are a good idea. Professor Garett Jones of George Mason University persuasively argues we’ll get better governance with less democracy. On the other hand, Switzerland is a very successful, very well-governed nation where voters directly decide all sorts of major policy issues. […]
[…] El libro de PS Garett sufre un pecado de omisión. Hubiera apreciado un capítulo sobre la anomalía de Suiza. Es una nación muy exitosa y muy bien gobernada, pero tiene un nivel extremadamente alto no solo de democracia, sino de democracia directa. Los votantes deciden directamente todo tipo de cuestiones políticas importantes. […]
[…] P.S. Garett’s book does suffer from one sin of omission. I would have appreciated a chapter on the anomaly of Switzerland. It’s a very successful, very well-governed nation, yet it has an extremely high level of not just democracy, but direct democracy. Voters directly decide all sorts of major policy issues. […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] Regardless, it’s still very unfortunate when it happens because it shows an erosion in the American spirit (we should be more like Switzerland!). […]
[…] It has a flat tax and many other good policies. It’s also no surprise to see New Zealand and Switzerland near the […]
[…] in 2010, nearly 60 percent of voters shot down a class-warfare proposal for higher taxes on the […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] those sensible Swiss voters. Not only are they against tax hikes and regulatory intervention, but they also reject licensing and support the right to purchase […]
[…] Swiss people are eminently sensible, as seen by their votes in favor of a spending cap and against class-warfare taxation, minimum-wage mandates, single-payer healthcare, and the death […]
[…] Swiss people are eminently sensible, as seen by their votes in favor of a spending cap and against class-warfare taxation, minimum-wage mandates, single-payer healthcare, and the death […]
[…] In 2010, nearly 60 percent of the electorate rejected a class-warfare income tax proposal. […]
[…] lowest-level employees… Since Swiss voters already have demonstrated considerable wisdom (rejecting a class-warfare tax proposal in 2010 and imposing a cap on government spending in 2001), I predicted they will reject the plan. And I […]
[…] Swiss voters already have demonstrated considerable wisdom (rejecting a class-warfare tax proposal in 2010 and imposing a cap on government spending in 2001), I predicted they will reject the plan. And I […]
[…] que los votantes suizos han demostrado una gran sabiduría ( rechazo de una propuesta fiscal de guerra de clases en 2010 y la imposición de un límite a los gastos del gobierno en 2001 ), […]
[…] Swiss voters already have demonstrated considerable wisdom (rejecting a class-warfare tax proposal in 2010 and imposing a cap on government spending in 2001), I predicted they will reject the plan. And I […]
[…] to report that Colorado voters are even wiser than Swiss voters. A take-hike referendum in 2010 was defeated in Switzerland by a 58.5-41.5 margin. Colorado voters easily exceeded that margin, rejecting the tax hike in a […]
[…] sensible people from Switzerland. When faced with a class-warfare tax hike referendum in 2010, they voted against it by a very strong 58.5-41.5 […]
[…] veille à ce que les différents taux d'imposition ne soient pas trop élevés. En raison de ces bonnes politiques, la Suisse est épargnée par la crise financière qui sévit dans le reste du […]
[…] taxes could be hiked to allow more spending, but that hasn’t happened. The Swiss are very good about voting against tax increases, so the politicians don’t have much ability to boost the revenue […]
[…] among the cantons ensures that sub-national tax rates don’t get too high. Because of these good policies, Switzerland completely avoided the fiscal crisis plaguing the rest of the […]
[…] clear example of Switzerland’s sensible approach is that voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2010 referendum that would have imposed a minimum federal tax rate of 22 percent on incomes above 250,000 Swiss […]
[…] clear example of Switzerland’s sensible approach is that voters overwhelmingly rejected a 2010 referendum that would have imposed a minimum federal tax rate of 22 percent on incomes above 250,000 Swiss […]
[…] I’ll be very curious to see what happens this November when the people of California vote in the referendum. Will they be like the morons in Oregon, who approved a class-warfare tax hike? Or will they be like the voters of Switzerland and reject class warfare? […]
[…] I’ll be very curious to see what happens this November when the people of California vote in the referendum. Will they be like the morons in Oregon, who approved a class-warfare tax hike? Or will they be like the voters of Switzerland and reject class warfare? […]
[…] I’ll be very curious to see what happens this November when the people of California vote in the referendum. Will they be like the morons in Oregon, who approved a class-warfare tax hike? Or will they be like the voters of Switzerland and reject class warfare? […]
[…] out that the residents of Zug are not some sort of anomaly. The rest of Switzerland is filled with people who recognize the value of limited government. …the Swiss are mostly holding fast to their fiscal beliefs. Last November, in a national […]
[…] out that the residents of Zug are not some sort of anomaly. The rest of Switzerland is filled with people who recognize the value of limited government. …the Swiss are mostly holding fast to their fiscal beliefs. Last November, in a national […]
[…] central government is smaller than the local/regional governments. This is one of the reasons why Switzerland is so admirable, as partly explained in this Center for Freedom and Prosperity article on the Swiss tax […]
[…] central government is smaller than the local/regional governments. This is one of the reasons why Switzerland is so admirable, as partly explained in this Center for Freedom and Prosperity article on the Swiss tax […]
Extremely interesting post… It is the is the political class that is leftist, not the people. And since being leftist usually means increasing the power of the political class then it is not surprising that the political class so often is “leftist” (because it increases its own power).
I think the USA and Switzerland have such descentralized federal systems because in those countries the people actually has the power to limit the power of the political class… If the people has not such power, the political class increases its own power transforming federal systems into extremely centralized systems.
Moral issues aside, I hope Swiss voters perhaps understood the tradeoff between immediate redistribution and the pernicious effect of a relentlessly compounding lower growth rate.
Switzerland is an island of hope in a fast declining continent. However, Switzerland is also in a very precarious position, surrounded by a declining EU empire which, in sharp contrast to the constitutionally decentralized Swiss, has resurrected the grossly obsolete notion that the key to prosperity is centrally planned harmonization and homogenization into one big economic empire. EU citizens, perhaps sincerely mislead, grossly misread American success and attributed it to, well… Union. Those poor EU denizens did not understand that America became most prosperous nation in spite of union, not because of it. They succeeded in spite of the only-partially successful homogenizing and harmonizing attempts of the Federal government, because Americans had the one time grand fortune of being endowed with an extraordinary amount of individualism and personal freedom at the creation of their republic. Now, that one time infusion all but used up, the US too seems to be catching up with Europe on their race towards economic marginalization, drowned by the emerging gigantic economic activity of 3 billion people in Asia who finally went from once dismal incentives to produce to now moderate incentives.
So Switzerland needs to be very careful. Declining Empires, and especially Collectivist Declining Empires, have the tendency to turn quite nasty in their death throes, a correlation that European collectivism has demonstrated many times. I certainly hope Switzerland escapes once again.