The Swiss voice in the world since 1935
Swiss Abroad
Top stories
See all Swiss abroad stories
Stay in touch with Switzerland

How are married couples taxed in your country of residence? What are the pros and cons of this system?

Hosted by:

As a correspondent at the Federal Palace for SWI swissinfo.ch, I report on federal politics for the Swiss Abroad. After studying at the Academy of Journalism and Media at the University of Neuchâtel, my career path initially took me to various regional media, working in the editorial offices of Journal du Jura, Canal 3 and Radio Jura bernois. Since 2015, I have been working in the multilingual editorial department of SWI swissinfo.ch, where I continue to practise my profession with passion.

On March 8, the Swiss will vote on the introduction of individual taxation for married couples. We’d like to know what the system is like where you live – and what you think about it.

In Switzerland, married couples are taxed jointly on the basis of a single tax return. This system penalises spouses who have two similar incomes and work at a comparable rate, according to those in favour of change.

The reform provides for each spouse to complete his or her own tax return. Conservatives believe it will create new inequalities, particularly for traditional families.

>> Our explainer of the reform:

More

We’d like to hear from you: how are couples taxed in your country of residence? Is the system the same as in Switzerland? What is your opinion on the matter?

Join the conversation!

Contributions must adhere to our guidelines. If you have questions or wish to suggest other ideas for debates, please, get in touch!
J
jose.zuccoli@yahoo.es

In Spain, married people obtain a deduction of aprox 3.000 euros on the income taxe ( IRPF - Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Fisicas) - of Income Agency - Agencia Tributaria. There is a national level of payment and a regional ( Autonomous Communities level, so we could say 50% of taxes each one). Meaning that is like to annual amout on salaries and other incomes, is reduce on 3 thousand. Also it is better to tribute on join married that on single one. Every marriage could tribute alone or on marriage. But it is almost 85% of times, is better to select married tributation. Knowing fiscal rules, in Spain, it could be better that a married people tribute alone when the join amount of both people exceds some high annual income thresold, so the percentaje of payments that each one should do to taxes agency ( aeat ), would be less if you count the annual income of each one ( for 35.000 euros annual each one the tax payment would be between 20% and 30% of salaries and income could go then to income taxes IRPF adding up national al regional ), but on certain join annual income threshold ( i would say 60.000 to 300.000 annual euros ), the payment to the income taxes could reach to 50% adding up national and regional level. so i both ones gets 300.000 euros, they could pay 150.000 on income taxes. if they tribute alone and one of the married gets less than 60.000 euros ( so the other 240.000 ), it could be better the 60 thousand incomer tributes alone. These is gross, without childrens, older people, savings to private social security, political parties and regional deductions ( new business investments, investments on arts, special investments vehicules, etc)

Zeev Greenberg
ZeeGee

In Isrsel:__A pair is a considered as a "single tax unit" for income tax calculations.__Any single get's a benefit "points" worth (anual) 2904 NIS which are deducted from the total tax amount. __Some other benefits for singles are also given for age above 60 years and more.__All passive income kinds from rent, interest rate, dividend etc. have a different taxation method.

dario giandeini
Dario Giandeini
The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.

Perhaps the evolution of society requires it, but I still have many doubts. The family has changed significantly. From being the 'fundamental unit' of society, it has evolved over recent decades. The joint taxation of the traditional and perhaps nostalgic "family unit" was a fundamental element. It was. The family, also known as a cultural element of Switzerland, has lost its social role. This is merely a consequence of the political choices to adhere to a capitalist system where finance and accounting aspects are central and outweigh all traditional values. The role of the family consisting of a woman and a man as the fundamental unit is almost dead. Proponents of individual taxation, as things stand, are entirely correct in their arguments. It becomes anachronistic to remain anchored to our traditions if the political vision is to adhere to Western values established by the elite of the Western system. Personally, I have already voted against individual taxation, but I admit that, alas, I will be disappointed by the result of the vote on 8 March 2026.

Forse l'evoluzione della società lo richiede, ma mi restano molti dubbi. La famiglia è cambiata fortemente. Da "cellula fondamentale" della società si è evoluta negli ultimi decenni. La tassazione comune del tradizionale e forse nostalgico "nucleo famigliare" era un elemento fondante. Era.__La famiglia, conosciuta anche come elemento culturale della Svizzera ha perso il suo ruolo sociale. Non è che una conseguenza delle scelte politiche di aderire ad un sistema capitalistico dove oggi la finanza e gli aspetti contabili sono centrali e superano ogni valore tradizionale. Il ruolo della famiglia fatta da una donna e un uomo come nucleo fondamentale è quasi morto. I fautori della tassazione individuale, allo stato delle cose, hanno pienamente ragione con i loro argomenti. Diventa anacronistico rimanere ancorati alle nostre tradizioni, se la visione politica è di aderire ai valori occidentali stabiliti dall'élite del sistema occidentale. Personalmente ho già votato contro la tassazione individuale, ma ammetto che ahinoi rimarrò deluso dal risultato della votazione dell'8 marzo 2026.

P
Ppb85
@Dario Giandeini

If you see (the traditional form of) family as something worth preserving, would this initiative not make it more attractive (or rather: less unattractive) to get married, by not punishing married couples anymore

N
nicole
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.

In Spain, when filing their tax returns, married couples can choose between filing jointly or individually, depending on what is in their best interests. I consider this to be fairer, as filing jointly inevitably pushes them up the tax scale and penalises the couple. It is clear discrimination against married couples. Furthermore, it is clear that many couples choose to live together without getting married precisely because of tax issues. I also do not understand why they say that it would penalise marriages where the wife does not work. The husband's or wife's salary would be taxed less.

en españa, un matrimonio, a la hora de realizar la declaración de renta puede elegir entre tributar conjuntamente o individualmente según como le interese. Lo considero más justo ya que al tributar conjuntamente, forsozamente se sube en la escala tributaria y se castiga al matrimonio. es una discriminación clara en contra de los matrimonios. además, se ve que muchas parejas optan para vivir juntos si casarse por justamente una cuestión de impuestos.__tampoco entiendo porque dicen que fiscalizaría al matrimonio cuya mujer no trabaja. el sueldo del marido 0 de la mujer tributaría menos.

D
DOm09
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

As I live in Switzerland, I am unfortunately unable to provide any additional input. However, I find it offensive that the article suggests that individual taxation, as it is now being put to the vote in our country, is already established law in other countries, particularly in Europe. In fact, none of the examples described correspond to the current proposal, which completely ignores marital status (with the exception of Sweden, which is mentioned in the Federal Council's explanatory report). Rather, some countries (Spain, Ireland, Germany, Luxembourg) seem to have an "optional model" that roughly corresponds to the aims of the Mitte initiative. Others, on the other hand, have individual taxation but allow various family-related deductions to be applied (e.g. Austria), deductions to be divided among family members as desired (Netherlands) or tax credits to be distributed accordingly (Italy). The bill now being put to the vote does not provide for anything of the sort and cannot therefore be equated with these models.

Da ich in der Schweiz wohne, kann ich leider keinen Zusatzinput geben.____Allerdings halte ich es für stossend, dass der Artikel suggeriert, die Individualbesteuerung, wie sie nun bei uns zu Abstimmung gelangt, sei in anderen Ländern und insb. in Europa bereits geltendes Recht. ____Tatsächlich entspricht keines der daraufhin beschriebenen Beispiele der aktuellen Vorlage, welche den Zivilstand gänzlich ausblendet (mit Ausnahme von Schweden, welches im erläuternden Bericht des Bundesrates aufgeführt wird). Viel mehr scheinen einige Länder (Spanien, Irland, Deutschland, Luxemburg) das "Wahlmodell" zu kennen, welches in etwa dem Anliegen der Mitte-Initiative entspricht. Andere wiederum kennen zwar die Individualbesteuerung, lassen aber diverse familienbezogene Absetzbeiträge zur Anwendung kommen (bspw. Österreich), Abzüge untereinander beliebig aufgeteilt werden können (Niederlande) oder Steuergutschriften entsprechend verteilt werden (Italien). Die nun zur Abstimmung gelangende Vorlage sieht nichts dergleichen vor und kann mithin mit diesen Modellen nicht gleichgesetzt werden.

P
Peter1

In Australia people are taxed separately but there are limits to some concession and how claims for children are made. Also, pensions are treated as a couple as it is thought that a couple living together have lower costs such as housing, food, travel and use of utilities. Pensioners for a couple are lower than for two single persons. __For high earners and in a progressive tax system there are ways to distribute income to to even the tax take. One way is to have a trust (family trust) which spreads income between family members. Another way is to have a registered partnership which operates in the way of a company. For example a very high earner (male) with a stay at home wife that has no earnings while looking after children can be a consultant on contract and his wife a can be a partner that looks after finances and expenses. The net income of the partnership can be split so the partners are taxed at a lower rate. __I suggest it is of benefit for the country that couples who have children are taxed at a lower rate.

Y
Yes we can
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

In Canada, married couples or common-law partners file separate tax returns but must declare their status as a couple, which allows them to maximise certain credits. Tax rates remain individual, but marital status allows for the transfer of credits, the splitting of pension income and the pooling of medical expenses, which is often advantageous.

Au Canada, les couples mariés ou conjoints de fait produisent des déclarations de revenus individuelles, mais doivent déclarer leur statut de couple, ce qui permet de maximiser certains crédits. Les taux d'imposition restent individuels, mais le statut d'union permet de transférer des crédits, de fractionner le revenu de pension et de combiner des frais médicaux, souvent avantageux

A
AndrewintheAlps
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.

Gemini____Marriage Taxation: Spain vs. Switzerland__Conversation with Gemini__Hello, how are you? Can you help me? I need to know how marriages are taxed in Spain and if there are any penalties for retiring because you are married. Then, compare it with Switzerland____Hello, how are you? It's a topic that generates a lot of curiosity (and the occasional headache) because the systems are very different. In Spain, marriage is usually a financial choice, while in Switzerland it can, paradoxically, be a tax "burden".____Here's a detailed breakdown of how it works in both countries:____1. Taxation of married couples in Spain__In Spain, the system is flexible. Married couples can choose the option that suits them best each year:____Individual tax return: This is the default option. Each spouse is taxed on their own income. This is the most cost-effective option if both spouses have similar, medium/high salaries, as it prevents the income tax bracket jump from triggering a higher tax rate.____Joint tax return: All income is added together. This is usually beneficial if one of the spouses has no income or a very low income (less than €3,400 per year), as it allows for an additional reduction in the tax base of €3,400.____Is retirement penalised in Spain?__There is no direct penalty for being married. In fact:____Dependent spouse supplement: If you retire and your partner has no minimum income, your minimum pension may increase (it is higher than that of someone "without a spouse").____Maximum pension: The public pension limit is individual. If you have both contributed to the maximum, each of you will receive your full pension without any cuts for living under the same roof.____I don't understand why married couples are penalised in this way here in Switzerland. In fact, I live with my partner and this discourages us from getting legally married.____Best regards

Gemini____Tributación Matrimonial: España vs. Suiza__Conversación con Gemini__Hola, que tal compi. Me puedes ayudar? Necesito saber cómo tributan los matrimonios en España y si penalizan de alguna manera al jubilarse por el hecho de estar casados. Luego, hacer comparativa con Suiza____Hola, ¿qué tal? Es un tema que genera mucha curiosidad (y algún que otro dolor de cabeza) porque los sistemas son muy distintos. En España, el matrimonio suele ser una elección financiera, mientras que en Suiza puede ser, paradójicamente, una "carga" fiscal.____Aquí tienes el desglose detallado de cómo funciona en ambos países:____1. Tributación de matrimonios en España__En España, el sistema es flexible. Los matrimonios pueden elegir cada año la modalidad que más les convenga:____Declaración Individual: Es la opción por defecto. Cada cónyuge tributa por sus propios ingresos. Es lo más rentable si ambos tienen salarios similares y medios/altos, ya que evita que el salto de tramo en el IRPF dispare el tipo impositivo.____Declaración Conjunta: Se suman todas las rentas. Suele compensar si uno de los dos no tiene ingresos o estos son muy bajos (menos de 3.400 € anuales), ya que permite aplicar una reducción adicional en la base imponible de 3.400 €.____¿Penaliza la jubilación en España?__No existe una penalización directa por estar casado. De hecho:____Complemento por cónyuge a cargo: Si te jubilas y tu pareja no tiene ingresos mínimos, tu pensión mínima puede aumentar (es más alta que la de alguien "sin cónyuge").____Pensión máxima: El límite de la pensión pública es individual. Si ambos habéis cotizado para la máxima, cada uno recibirá su pensión completa sin recortes por vivir bajo el mismo techo.____No entiendo por qué aquí en Suiza se castiga de esta manera a los matrimonios. De hecho, yo vivo en pareja y esto nos desmotiva bastante a casarnos legalmente.____Saludos

Lynx Vegas
LynxVegas

Everyone of working age should be taxed individually. It's the only fair way. If someone is married, but not working - a house-person - they work by doing the shopping, cleaning, looking after kids, etc and should be taxed as if they were earning e.g. 5000chf/month. For too long, those who live with someone, who can afford their own home, have kids, etc, end up paying less tax than a single person, renting somewhere. This inequality should stop. Plus, everyone should have a say where their taxes are spent. Mine - not on anything that helps those with children or anyone on benefits, but on things I need.

Fran Senep
Fran✨
@LynxVegas

I understand this I used to think the same in the past. when you are single and see your paycheck, it is easy to feel like you are subsidizing others' lifestyles while your own costs (like rent) remain high.__However, even from a pragmatic perspective focused on the individual benefit of someone without children, there are strong economic arguments for supporting the nuclear family.____1. The "Aging Tax": Why families save you money later__If the nuclear family structure is not supported, the economy faces a demographic collapse. For a single person, this is a long-term fiscal trap:____* System Sustainability: The children of those families are the ones who will maintain the infrastructure, public services, and social security systems you will use in the future. ____* Labor Force: A healthy birth rate is a primary driver of economic growth. Without a new generation of workers, the state will be forced to drastically increase taxes on childless individuals to compensate for the shrinking pool of taxpayers. ____* Cost of Care: When families cannot support their own dependents, the State must step in. This would skyrocket public spending and your taxes to pay for professional care that families currently provide for "free"____2. The Trap of Taxing "Shadow Labor"__Taxing a stay-at-home spouse on a "fictional" salary of 5,000 CHF is technically and economically risky:____* Economic Insolvency: If you tax money that doesn't actually exist in the household's bank account, you push families toward bankruptcy or state welfare. Ironically, your taxes would then go toward funding the subsidies needed to help them pay that very tax.____* Internal Consumption: Families are the "engine" of capitalist economies. Their spending on housing, food, and education sustains the businesses and jobs that single people also rely on for their own income. [1, 4, 5] ____3. The "Insurance Policy" of Public Spending__While you may not need child benefits now, they act as a stabilizer for the society you live in:____* Social Stability: Systems that support families reduce poverty and hardship, which are directly linked to lower crime rates and higher social peace. You are effectively "buying" a safer, more stable environment for yourself.____* Shared Infrastructure: Many services you enjoy (efficient public transport, healthcare, advanced technology) only remain affordable because a large population (largely comprised of families) creates the "mass" needed to fund them. ____Look, let’s be real: things used to actually work because, in the past, politicians actually supported the nuclear family as the backbone of a stable economy. Back then, a single income could support a household, buy a home, and build a future. But for the last few decades, bad politicians have flipped the script. They’ve turned "supporting the family" into a lazy excuse to stop working for the actual citizens, using it as a shield to hide the fact that they are running the economy into the ground.__It’s the ultimate political scam, and here is how it's rigged against us singles:__.____The Single Person as a Cash Cow: They hit you with a massive "Solo Penalty." In places like Germany or Belgium, singles pay up to 15-20% more in taxes than married couples. This isn't about "helping kids" anymore; it’s about politicians using your paycheck to plug budget holes because they’re too incompetent to manage the national debt.__.____*The Death of Ownership: By over-taxing singles and ignoring affordable solo-housing, they’ve created a trap. If you’re solo, you’re forced to be a permanent renter. You pay the highest taxes but you're the last in line to own anything. You’re basically stuck paying your landlord’s mortgage while the state siphons off half your salary.__.____* Inflation Hits You Double as a single person: When food and energy bills skyrocket, a couple splits the pain. A single person takes the full hit alone. Politicians ignore this... and ride taxes to singles, because it’s easier to give a tiny tax break to a family than to actually fix the inflation that is making life impossible for anyone trying to live independently.. so is better to support the nuclear family, we should go back to that and fix the economy that lady politicians push so they can have us paying taxes for being single.____.__* The "Own Nothing" Future: This system is designed to keep you on a treadmill. You work the hardest, pay the most, and yet you’re the most vulnerable. One rent hike can ruin you because the state has stripped away your ability to save.__.____The Bottom Line: It was better before because the system was balanced. Now, politicians use the "family is bad" narrative to justify a status quo where you pay for everything and own nothing. They’ve made it so that unless you’re part of a traditional unit, you’re a second-class citizen meant to bankroll their failures.__It’s time to stop letting them use " the family is bad or not modern" to hide the fact that they’ve made it impossible for a single, hardworking person to actually own their life...

Maria Isabel Rivas de Frei
Maria Rivas
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.

I will quote the Swiss Constitution: ____3. Men and women have equal rights. The law shall guarantee their equality, both in law and in practice, especially in the family, in education and in the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal remuneration for work of equal value. If this new law is applied, I see it as inequality because women who decide to stay at home to help our partners and raise good citizens will find that this law will generate conflict in society. It is not fair. __1. The contribution that women make in the home produces economic value and generates wealth. They work 24-hour days, cooking, washing, helping with chores and looking after the children's health. If this were monetised, it would be called a contribution in kind, otherwise they would have to pay for a cook, a nanny and transport, and the salary would not be enough to cover anything. After paying taxes at the rate applicable to a single person, it would be unfair. In the future, Switzerland could be left without a young population to help and contribute to pensions.

Voy a citar la Constitución de Suiza ____3. Hombres y mujeres tienen los mismos derechos. La ley garantizará su igualdad, tanto en la ley como en la práctica, especialmente en la familia, en la educación y en el lugar de trabajo. Hombres y mujeres tienen derecho a igual remuneración por trabajo de igual valor.__De aplicarse esa nueva Ley lo veo como una desigualdad porque las mujeres que decidimos quedarnos en casa para ayudar a nuestra pareja y formar buenos ciudadanos esta ley va a generar conflicto en la Sociedad no es justa. __1. El aporte que hace la mujer en el hogar produce valor económico y genera riqueza, cumple jornadas de 24 horas cocina, lava, ayuda con tareas y cuida la salud del nin̈o, sibse monetiza esto se llamaria aporte en especie, sino tendrían que pahar, una cocinera, una niñera y el transporte y el sueldo no alcanzaria para nada y después de pagar los impuestos con el porcentaje que corresponde a una persona soltera sería injusto. Y Suiza en futuro podría quedarse sin población joven que ayude y aporte a las Pensiones.

S
Soph

I think the government and the federal system should stop ignoring that one of its main tasks is to incentivise the population into certain behaviour. We all know how the birth rate is going down in Switzerland and marriage is an important factor that boosts the amount of babies, and one of the main reasons many even marry in the first place; because they want to start a family. Think about the long term future of Switzerland and all the adverse effects of a declining Swiss population. I am for a system that removes the marriage penalty for dual earners (to incentivise initial marriage in the current reality where gender equality allows for similar work and salary) but also tax benefits depending on the amount of children that you have together at home (similar to Germany) and if one parent stays at home (to incentivise child rearing).

D
Delphine
@Soph

I find it impossible to understand how marriage can produce babies, last time I checked babies were either produced by medical procedures or “traditional” coitus.

S
Sam_Washington
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

I don't know. Never married and without children, I have been looking for a wife for a long time to give me some.____Yet I had never been ugly.____Sam Washington__jsd.iurisdition@hotmail.com__Paris, France

Je ne sais pas. Jamais marié et sans enfants je cherche une épouse depuis longtemps pour me les donner.____Pourtant, je n'avais jamais été moche.____Sam Washington__jsd.iurisdition@hotmail.com__Paris, France

S
Sam_Washington
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

I don't know. Never married and without children, I have been looking for a wife for a long time to give me some.____Yet I wasn't ugly.____Sam Washington __jsd.iurisdition@hotmail.com__Paris, France

Je ne sais pas. Jamais marié et sans enfants je cherche une épouse depuis longtemps pour me les donner.____Pourtant, je n'avais été moche.____Sam Washington __jsd.iurisdition@hotmail.com__Paris, France

M
Martha13

I am from Mexico and we are taxed based on our individual personal income. It doesnt matter if you income comes from Salary, dividends, rents etc. I find it fair because at the end of the day if you work you are taxed according to your job and tax range, also deductions is according to your preferences and in this matter each individual can have different visión within a relationship. Maybe your partner doesn't want to save on 3rd pillar, dont want to buy a house or invest in education. So, you are end up playing more because your partner choices.

V
Vgn97

As a foreigner living in Switzerland, I was shocked to find out that here you get penalised for getting married. In countries like the UK, it's the complete opposite. Furthermore, as a working woman, I find it incredibly archaic for the concern to be the penalisation of the "traditional family". I will be significantly penalised tax-wise when my fiance and I get married in a few months, all because this country wants to encourage women to be stay at home mothers rather than have a job. I plan on having children, and fill need to pay extortionate amounts for a creche for them, all because I didn't get a master's degree to then be a full time housewife.

A
AndrewintheAlps
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
@Vgn97

I completely agree. The sad thing is that there are women who agree with such a law. The country has a serious problem with low birth rates, but they don't seem to realise it and are pushing for a limit of 10 million inhabitants. Foreigners who come to work in Switzerland start to do their research and seek advice before making any false moves. And getting married is clearly a quagmire that I am in no hurry to get into. That being said, I think that those who can should vote for a law or initiative that encourages housing for those foreign workers who do the jobs that no Swiss person or the vast majority of Swiss people want to do. I'm talking about hotel room cleaning (housekeeping), or jobs with salaries below 4,000 CHF or even 3,000 CHF/month, where they have to share flats between four people because they can't afford a house with a garden and barbecue like we've been lucky enough to get, but at least something with a basement where you can store your ski equipment or the extra mattresses you use only when your family visits for a few days to sleep on the floor. Holiday rentals, for example, are already limited in Interlaken, but not in the adjacent neighbourhoods and villages (Matten, Wilderswill, Ringgenberg, Bonigen), if I am not mistaken. Finding accommodation in tourist areas such as Grindelwald, Wengen or Mürren is logically impossible. The land is too valuable. That's understandable. But when people have to take a bus and several trains for four hours a day to get to and from work, for example to Jungfraujoch, it should come as no surprise that they end up getting tired and looking for other options.Seasonal jobs are very convenient for employers, but the RAV (Regional Employment Agency) has to bear more and more unemployment costs, as many migrants do not have their qualifications from their home country recognised or have not yet mastered the language. But that is obviously another issue for another law.

Totalmente de acuerdo. Lo triste es que haya mujeres que esten de acuerdo con una ley así.__El país tiene un problema serio de baja natalidad, pero no parecen darse cuenta y cobra fuerza poner un límite de 10 millones de habitantes.__Los extranjeros que venimos a trabajar a Suiza empezamos a investigar y asesorarnos bien antes de hacer ningún movimiento en falso. Y casarse está claro que un fango en el que no tengo ninguna prisa por meterme.____Ya puestos, opino que deberían votar los que pueden claro, por alguna ley/iniciativa que incentive las viviendas para esos trabajadores extranjeros que hacen los trabajos que ningún suizo o la inmensa mayoría quiere. Hablo de limpieza de habitaciones de hotel (housekeeping), o puestos con el salario por debajo de 4.000 ch o incluso 3.000 ch/mes, que tienen que compartir apartamentos entre 4 personas porque no se pueden permitir ya no digo una casa on jardín y barbacoa como hemos tenido la suerte de conseguir nosotros, si no algo con sótano que te permita guardar por ejemplo tu equipo de esquí o los colchones extra que usas solo cuando tu familia te visita unos días para dormir en el suelo.__El alquiler vacacional por ejemplo, está ya limitado en Interlaken, pero no en los barrios y pueblos adyacentes (Matten, Wilderswill, Ringgenberg, Bonigen) si no me equivoco. Conseguir alojamiento en zonas turísticas como Grindelwald, Wengen o Mürren es imposible logicamente. El terreno es demasiado valioso. Se entiende. Pero que una persona se tenga que meter en un bus y varios trenes 4 horas al día para tener que subir y bajar del trabajo, por ejemplo a Jungfraujoch, no deberia sorprender que acaben cansando y busquen otras opciones.__Los trabajos de temporada son muy cómodos para el empresario, pero la RAV cada vez tiene que asumir más costes por desempleo, ya que muchos emigrantes no tienen la cualificación de su país convalidada o aún no dominan el idioma.__Pero ese será otro tema para otra ley, obviamente.

D
Delphine
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.

A strictly individual tax system would not only be more consistent, but also more honest. It would treat citizens as responsible individuals, rather than as elements of a normative family structure. More fundamentally, the system of state-sanctioned marriage reveals a broader problem. Marriage, as a legal institution, has no reason to exist. It is a mechanism through which the state permanently imposes its preferences and religious biases on human relationships by regulating intimacy.

Une imposition strictement individuelle serait non seulement plus cohérente, mais aussi plus honnête. Elle traiterait les citoyens comme des individus responsables, et non comme des éléments d’un schéma familial normatif.__Plus fondamentalement, le système du mariage par l'état révèle un problème plus large. Le mariage, en tant qu’institution juridique, n’a aucune raison d’exister. Il s’agit d’un dispositif par lequel l’état octroie durablement aux relations interhumaines, en réglementant l’intimité, ses préférences et biais religieux.

Katy Romy
Katy Romy SWI SWISSINFO.CH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@Delphine

Hello and thank you for your comment! If I understand correctly, you are in favour of the outright abolition of marriage.

Bonjour et merci de votre commentaire! Si j'ai bien compris, vous êtes donc pour l'abolition pure et simple du mariage

D
Delphine
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@Katy Romy

Yes, it seems impossible to me to create a legal system that attempts to regulate the cohabitation of individuals in private.

Oui, il me semble impossible de créer un système légal qui tente de régler la cohabitation d'individus dans le privé.

A
Anne7

I am a US expat living in Switzerland. In the US married couples are often taxed at a lower rate than single people but not always depending on individual circumstances such as income, children, and various deductions. Married couples can choose whether or not to file jointly or separately. ____Personally I find the Swiss tax system to be incredibly unfair to married couples. It is not reasonable to design a tax system that assumes most women do not work in the year 2026. My partner and I were shocked when we calculated that our tax bill would be 40% higher if we married! Needless to say we will not legally marry unless until Switzerland reforms its archaic tax system. ____I think a fair tax system should disregard marital status in order to not advantage any particular group. The only group that should receive a deduction are people with children living in their household. Raising children is quite expensive so there should be tax credits given to both parents.

S
Simon444
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.
@Anne7

I agree completely. However, I would also say that children who do not live in the household also count, as they also incur maintenance costs, etc.

Sehe ich ganz genauso. Würde ggf. aber auch sagen das Kinder die nicht im Haushalt leben auch zählen, da diese ja auch Unterhalt usw. kosten.

Katy Romy
Katy Romy SWI SWISSINFO.CH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@Anne7

Thank you for your interesting contribution on the American system.

Merci pour votre contribution intéressante sur le système américain.

A
AndrewintheAlps
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
@Anne7

I completely agree. We're not going to get married either until this changes. Best regards.

Totalmente de acuerdo.__Nosotros tampoco nos vamos a casar hasta que esto cambie.__Saludos

D
Don Ron
The following contribution has been automatically translated from DE.

Here in Spain, you are free to choose what is best (in terms of tax savings) for you as an individual. The same applies in Ireland. Switzerland clearly has a problem with such simple rules. The same applies to the marriage penalty in the AHV. This is completely unacceptable for a democratic and wealthy country.

Hier in Spanien kann man frei wählen was besser (Steuern sparen) ist für die jeweilige Person. Ebenso ist es dasselbe in Irland. Die Schweiz hat offensichtlich mit solchen einfachen Regeln ein Problem. Ebenfalls mit der Heiratsstrafe bei der AHV. Absolut unwürdig für ein Demokratisches und Reiches Land.

Katy Romy
Katy Romy SWI SWISSINFO.CH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@Don Ron

Thank you for clarifying that. Do you think Switzerland should take inspiration from the Spanish system?

Merci pour cet éclairage. Pensez-vous que la Suisse devrait s'inspirer du système espagnol

M
Manuel lema
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.

In Spain, we do them separately or together, whichever suits us best.

En España, las hacemos por separado o juntas, según lo que nos convenga más.

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR

SWI swissinfo.ch - a branch of Swiss Broadcasting Corporation SRG SSR