Mr. Big, are you against compromise in politics?
I am very good solutions and I am also a compromise, but what we vote on here is not a compromise, but a rotten Deal.
Why? Both Civil as well as Left have caved.
In a compromise, you have to go to each other. Here, it was simply associating a template with a bad business. At the time of retirement do we do with this horse-trading a step backwards. You charged the workers with almost half a billion Swiss francs per year. And employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, must still contribute nearly half a billion, and to secure the without counter-performance, i.e., without the AHV in the long term. The money goes into a bottomless pit. This brings nothing.
The state pension accounts would have been stabilized for some years.
Yes, but we will have to move, particularly the discussion of what is sustainable remediation is necessary. The Left has repeatedly stressed: In the case of a Yes, an adjustment of the retirement age to the present-day realities from the table. This price is too high for me.
The consideration of the left is that corporate taxes decrease. In return you do something for the AHV, which is the lower end of the income important.
That’s not true. In Bern, the necessary reduction of the tax was rejected, opposed by the left. Entrepreneurs have to pay with this template more, not less taxes, because the taxation of Dividends increases. And then we pay even more in the future in the AHV. It affects thousands of companies and their employees. The SMEs and the young pay the price for the template.
The proponents of the link to justify as a “counter-financing”.
This is not a “counter-financing”, but an additional issue. The tax reduction in the medium term will lead to more tax revenue, the Federal Council says. I don’t see that with my company, If I pay less taxes, is the money, Yes, but is invested, whether in staff or in new innovative projects. Lower corporate taxes for all companies instead of tax privileges for the few Holdings are good, but not rigidly combined with higher charges in the AHV.
After the clear rejection of the last corporate tax reform, you had to go to the opponent.
You had to improve the rejected tax template, Yes, and that is what we have done. The control template alone would have the better chances at the ballot box than this rotten Deal. The is not honest. It is so done, as would be two problems solved. But this is not the case. This link would be a popular initiative that would have declared them legal to be invalid.
you now fight with the enemies of the template from the very left, which is to say, the control template is the Same as the rejected corporate tax reform.
I do not agree with their reasoning at all. The shows, however, how the template came into being. In the back rooms of the Council of States, two completely different topics were linked to, rather than a substantive compromise in the control template itself.
prevent a Reform.
We can also prevent an undemocratic Deal at the expense of the young. Without the AHV-part of it would be a good Reform. The link throws back, however, us in the case of the AVS, even with all the risks and side effects. This is a poisonous pill.
The template results so that all companies are taxed at the same rate.
This part is entirely in my mind. The abolition of the tax privileges is correct, and there is no political party in this respect other opinion. The only question is, how do we do that. So, how come now therefore, it is wrong.
We do this because of international pressure. In the case of a rejection of the template, the Switzerland lands on a black list.
It makes sense that tax competition international rules. No one is questioning that. I doubt, therefore, that we get a no on a black list, the Federal President Maurer has expressed recently. Our common desire for the abolition of the tax privileges is identified. The way this template is wrong.
He was a member of the National Council and Council of States approved.
don’t politicize Since I’ve never experienced such a dogmatic attitude of the parties as the originator of this deal. The Commission of the national Council was, in fact, ignored. You couldn’t even talk about the smallest of corrections. If it would be a compromise, would you listen to each other, and improvements approved.
If it already was difficult, what do you suggest if I said no?
You must concentrate on what you want: the tax privileges are abolished. You could bring the tax part. I would introduce the principle of the legal form of neutral taxation. That would be a fair concession to the left. Thus, the cantons remain flexible, without that, there is a dubious competition to lower corporate taxes.
Then the SP and the unions will be against it.
I don’t think so. The legal form of neutral taxation is also left supporters. Natural persons do not have to pay for the failures. However, it was impossible for this proposal to be in the template to bring, although I like almost all the pages were correct. The SP is satisfied, a sense to me. But I don’t understand why the FDP and CVP give up.
How is the pension reform?
The template is prepared by the Federal Council. It needs both more revenue as well as structural adjustments, not only in the case of the AHV, but also in the occupational Pension scheme. In order to get through, it takes a real willingness to compromise. This was once the attitude of the FDP and CVP, only you have to leave this way, unfortunately.
How would these reforms look like?
It needs an adjustment of the retirement age of women to 65 years, and a mechanism to raise it for both sexes gradually, as soon as it is, from a financial point of view, necessary. If it needs a moderate increase in the VAT, then that’s fine. This is, after all, more righteous than wage contributions, because the pensioners would also contribute.
And in the second column?
We need to lower the conversion rate and the co-ordination deduction, so that the young and people will no longer be at a disadvantage with several Points. If we give away now, the percentage of salary for the AHV, is it for years is no longer possible, such reforms. The will have to deal with the boy later. The template is a Bschiss.
(editing Tamedia)
Created: 27.03.2019, 19:54 PM
