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.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: "143471359017969", status: true, cookie: true, xfbml: true}); }; (function() { var e = document.createElement("script"); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js"; document.getElementById("fb-root").appendChild(e); }()); Related Posts Class Warfare Tax Policy May Be Emotionally Satisfying to Some People, but It Is Bad EconomicsWill America Copy England's Self-Destructive Class-Warfare Tax Policy?Latvia Retains Flat Tax, Disappointing Class-Warfare AdvocatesAnother Tax-Hike Scheme from Another 'Bipartisan' Group of Washington InsidersWhy Some People Think NPR Exhibits BiasRelated Content from Cato.orgObamanomics Leaving World NervousDoes Congress Deserve a Pay Hike?Hike Trade With Korea, Check ChinaVoters Are the Cause of America's Fiscal MessHow Obama's Soak-The-Rich Plan Will End Up Hurting Middle Class Cato Institute Home Contact Cato @ Liberty Cato on Facebook Cato on Twitter Cato on YouTube Cato Unbound - Leading Thinkers, Big Ideas Free Newsletters from Cato Syndicate RSS Customize your Cato @ Liberty RSS feedReceive Cato @ Liberty posts via email:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Recent Posts Three Cheers for Switzerland as Voters Reject Class-Warfare Tax Hike in National Referendum O’Grady on the US-Colombia FTA Obama Adopts Cato Pay Proposal Diane Ravitch Is Right on Republicans and NCLB The Consumer Spending Fallacy behind Keynesian Economics What Austrian Economics Is TSA’s Strip/Grope: Unconstitutional? Lame Ducks and Locavores On Food Safety High-Speed Federalism Fight David Wessel’s Curious Defense of the Fed’s Ambiguous Mandate Cato TweetsCato Institute - 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. - Washington D.C 20001
Receive Cato @ Liberty posts via email:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Cato Institute - 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. - Washington D.C 20001 Read Full Article »
