{"id":236447,"date":"2026-01-31T12:13:54","date_gmt":"2026-01-31T12:13:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/swissfederalism.ch\/tassazione-individuale\/"},"modified":"2026-01-31T12:30:42","modified_gmt":"2026-01-31T12:30:42","slug":"individual-taxation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/swissfederalism.ch\/en\/individual-taxation\/","title":{"rendered":"Individual taxation as an assault on families and federalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Individual taxation as an assault on families and federalism<\/span><\/h1>\n

Bureaucracy, billion-franc costs and social injustice: why we must say NO to individual taxation and YES to fairer, federal solutions<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n
\"Savoring
<\/span> Savoring the mountains as a family Image by Stefan Schweihofer from Pixabay<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The proposal to introduce individual taxation for married couples<\/strong> should be rejected because it would create serious disadvantages for families, the middle class, and federalism<\/strong>, without providing any tangible benefits. Instead of simplifying the tax system, the reform would make it more complex<\/strong>, generating new injustices and creating a huge bureaucratic burden<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

To apply individual taxation<\/strong>, couples\u2019 assets would need to be divided as in a divorce<\/strong>, including bank accounts, real estate, and other property. This would make tax administration not only complicated<\/strong>, but also expensive<\/strong>, with the obligation to file 1.7 million additional tax returns<\/strong> each year. Cantons and municipalities would need to hire thousands of new officials<\/strong> and completely revise tax deductions, insurance premiums, and contributions for education and child care<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

From a social perspective, the reform would be unfair<\/strong>: it would penalize families with a single main income or a modest second income<\/strong>, while favoring high-income couples without children<\/strong>. In this way, it would particularly hit the middle class and traditional families<\/strong>, exactly those who already support a large part of the tax system.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the reform would undermine federalism<\/strong>, imposing uniform rules<\/strong> that would eliminate already functioning and flexible cantonal models<\/strong>, which have effectively mitigated the so-called \u201cmarriage penalty.\u201d<\/strong> It is therefore not surprising that 21 out of 26 Cantons rejected the proposal<\/strong> during the consultation, considering it a bureaucratic and costly solution<\/strong> that does not solve existing problems.<\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cmarriage penalty\u201d<\/strong> can be eliminated with simpler, fairer solutions that respect federalism<\/strong>, without harming families<\/strong> or unnecessarily increasing the complexity and cost of the state<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

2026 as a milestone for federalism and direct democracy in Switzerland<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A historic rejection by the cantons<\/span><\/h2>\n

For the second time since 1874<\/strong>, as many as 10 Cantons have decided to hold a cantonal referendum<\/strong>. A very rare event, sounding like an institutional alarm bell<\/strong>. The Conference of Cantonal Governments (CCG)<\/strong> rejects individual taxation<\/strong>, as do 21 out of 26 Cantons<\/strong> during the consultation process. Supporting the \u201cNo\u201d vote were also the FDK<\/strong>, the commerce sector (SGV)<\/strong>, and agriculture (SBV)<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The message is clear: this reform represents an attack on federalism and cantonal fiscal sovereignty<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

A direct attack on families and the middle class<\/span><\/h2>\n

Individual taxation dismantles marriage fiscally<\/strong>, treating spouses as separate individuals<\/strong> rather than an economic and supportive community<\/strong>. Traditional family models, in which one partner performs care and household work<\/strong>, would be penalized<\/strong>. Far from promoting fairness, the reform reduces freedom of choice<\/strong> and devalues the diversity of life plans<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Who really pays the price<\/span><\/h2>\n

The data are clear:<\/span><\/p>\n