The marriage penalty relates to the direct Federal tax. Today, couples in which both partners are working and the household income is higher, more direct Federal control than pay the same income cohabiting couples must. If this disadvantage is more than ten percent, it is called the marriage penalty. The maximum degree of discrimination is 84 percent. He relates to those marriages in which each spouse 75’000 to 125’000 CHF annual income.

Even if the CVP was the Initiative be rejected and the Federal court has declared the vote invalid: The Federal Council wants to abolish the tax discrimination. He suggests that he created in the future, two tax bills: first, the joint assessment as a Married and then the alternative tax burden as a cohabiting couple. Would have to pay the married couples then the deeper contribution. The Federal Council estimates that it will cost that every year, around 1.15 billion francs. The advice template is currently suspended in the stand ätlichen economic Commission. (sf)

Actually, you will find every unjust – but how it is better to go, is highly controversial. The speech is from the marriage penalty, which ensures that some married couples to pay more taxes, just because you wear rings on your fingers (see Box).

The business has been controversial for years – and it was not better than, the Federal court declared for the first time in the history of Switzerland held a referendum invalid. Reason: The Federal Council had operated with false Numbers (LOOK told).

Back to the sender!

Nevertheless, the government has placed a proposal on the table, how you want to end the marriage penalty. His solution: tax offices shall in the case of married couples double charge: once to Ehetarif, once the Cohabiting rate. Would have to pay the Couple the smaller amount.

But that’s not good: Different parties demand that a General individual taxation is introduced and wanted to instruct the Federal Council to. It was conceivable rejected almost with the casting vote of the President of the economic Commission (WAK), Pirmin Bischof (60, CVP).

No cohabiting penalty

Also during the consultation, the Details, the Commission adopted a Change to: unlike the Federal Council wants to maintain the Parents ‘ rate and not a new single trigger to replace it. Of this Change, the CTE agreed with the President’s casting vote.

With the proposal of the Federal Council, would cohabiting couples with children is poor, said Bishop. The backrest of the Commission. You wool, the married couples with children and cohabiting couples with children are treated the same.

The Federal Council justified its Version in the message so that cohabiting couples would be relieved with today’s children excessively. This is one of the reasons that some couples are at a disadvantage.

It is expensive

the Version of The Commission would lead to higher Tax losses. Can’t quantify the CTE of the costs, however, as Bishop said. With the proposals of the Federal Council, the Reform would result in the direct Federal tax, to a loss of revenue of around 1.5 billion Swiss francs. Of this, around 1.2 billion was accounted for by the Federal government and 300 million francs to the cantons.

The voting public has rejected in 2016, a national initiative of the CVP to the abolition of the marriage penalty, nearly. Because the Federal government had submitted the wrong Figures, decided by the Federal court, but that the vote must be repealed.

Is not withdrawn, the Initiative needs to be repeated in the vote. If the CVP pulls the Initiative depends on the outcome of the parliamentary deliberations on the bill of the Federal Council.

About 700’000 gestrafte couples

According to the new information provided by the Federal government around 454’000 two-earner married couples and 250’000 pensioner couples are at a disadvantage compared to unmarried couples through a tax load of more than ten percent.

in addition to the marriage penalty, there is a marriage advantage: Around 200’000 single earner and 124’000 for two-earner married couples, and 58’000 pensioner married couples benefit from a reduction in load of more than 10 percent compared to a cohabiting couple in the same economic circumstances. The bottom line is around 704’000 couples suffer from the marriage penalty, around 382’000 to benefit from the marriage advantage. Sure the Federal government is not, but again (VIEW reported).

Delicate Ehedefinition

The people’s initiative, the CVP, in addition to the abolition of the marriage penalty, the abolition of discrimination in social insurance, The draft law of the Federal Council sees no Changes: From the point of view of the Federal Council married couples in the social insurance funds are not disadvantaged.

the text of The Initiative is also controversial because it contains a Definition of marriage as a Union between a man and a woman. This would prevent the Opening up of marriage for same-sex couples, in favour of a majority of the CVP-base.

(SDA/sf)