Of Arthur Schopenhauer comes to the sentence: “to Marry means the right half and the obligations double.” Whether the famous philosopher, born 231 years, this phenomenon as a marriage penalty referred to is not known.

it is Clear, however, what politicians in Bern to understand the marriage penalty: namely, the alleged fact that 700’are at a disadvantage 000 married couples over unmarried for tax purposes. I say “supposedly”. So clearly it’s not. As we on 28. February 2016 on the CVP Initiative “For marriage and family against the marriage penalty” voted, was of 80’000 men talk to married couples, the tax were at a disadvantage. For us, urn-goers, this was apparently something of a Quantité négligeable. The Initiative was rejected by a wafer-thin.

Actually, it doesn’t need any national initiative to create the tax discrimination against married couples get out of the way. You would only have to implement the Constitution: in 1984, 35 years ago, was the Federal court that married couples may not be more burdened than cohabiting couples. You must know that all of the cantons have implemented this; only in the case of the direct Federal tax, it doesn’t work.

On Monday, the Council of States debated once again on this vexed subject, but rejected the proposal of the Federal Council. The topic will occupy us still.

However, the real marriage penalty is not in taxation, but in the case of the AHV. While cohabiting couples are getting a monthly pension of a maximum of 2370 Swiss francs, a total of 4740 francs, couples a on 3555 Franks, 150 percent of the maximum full pension.

Also, this marriage penalty, many wish to abolish it. The Canton of Aargau has launched a state initiative. It requires the discrimination of married couples compared to cohabiting couples ” – both in tax and in social security to eliminate the legal aspect.” In mid-may, the national Council of the Initiative has given a result.

How to do that? In theory quite simple: It is limited to the old-age pensions in the case of cohabiting couples towards the top, as is the case with married couples. Or it lifts the Ceiling of the pensions for spouses.

This Entplafonierung of the AHV old-age pensions would have been for the AHV annual expenditures of 2.7 billion Swiss francs. Will someone explain to me how you want to Finance it, if the councils in the Federal government in Bern, be and are already unable to agree on a majority of eligible measures for the rehabilitation of the AHV.

plafonieren So the pensions for cohabiting couples? This, in turn, equal to a reduction of benefits, and is politically also have no Chance. In the end, once again, Schopenhauer: “We seldom think of what we have but always of what we lack.”