Wage deduction for immigrants? An opposite of 10 million Switzerland is talking-that is what the Federal Council says
Wage deduction for immigrants? An opposite of 10 million Switzerland is talking-that is what the Federal Council says
Immigrants pay an access fee for eleven years: With this idea, FDP National Councilor Simon Michel wants to counter the initiative of the SVP. The Federal Council has already dealt with this.
FDP National Councilor Simon Michel gives an immigration fee of new political boost. Federal Councilor Beat Jans and SP-Co faction leader Samira Marti (from left) are moderately enthusiastic.
9,072,000 people currently live in Switzerland (constant resident population). It will be 9.5 million up to around five years. In the meantime, the people will vote on the 10 million initiative of the SVP. In the event of a yes, the Federal Council must take measures so that the population does not grow to 10 million by 2050. The initiative text explicitly demands the termination of the free movement of people if Switzerland cannot negotiate growth -damping protective clauses.
The Federal Council recommends the initiative to reject without a counter -proposal. As the “Switzerland on weekends” reported, the FDP, middle and GLP agree that a direct counter -proposal is needed.
The Solothurn FDP National Council and entrepreneur Simon Michel brings an idea into play for which he wants to make the most broadest possible political alliance: If you immigrated to Switzerland, you have to deliver a delivery of three percent to your income for eleven years. The amount of the immigration fee is based on the conscripts.
Immigration levy is to bring in around one billion francs annually, which would be distributed directly to the population in Switzerland, for example in the form of premium reduction. The FDP is open to an inspection of the immigration if it is a pure steering tax and thus reimbursed the population, says party president Thierry Burkart. He considers the “termination initiative” of the SVP to be extremely harmful to Switzerland.
Simon Michel also wants to win the SP for his plan. Co-President Cédric Wermuth did not comment on the proposal at the request of CH Media. Samira Marti jumped into the breach in the “Sonntagszeitung”. The SP-CO parliamentary group leader made the immigration fee a cancellation: « A special tax would be completely out of place here. » For example, she referred to nurses who came from neighboring countries to Switzerland and “the nursing emergency in old -age homes and hospitals”. Everyone benefited from this work.
In contrast, SP-Standentin Franziska Roth is generally open to the debate about immigration levy. However, it should not violate the contracts with the EU and should be covered by the employers and not the employees.
Federal Council relies on his own protective clause
It is important that such a supply tax « does not hit the wrong one, » said Roth. It must be ensured that they are not paid by the employees, but by the employers. Under no circumstances should she violate the contracts with the EU.
The Federal Council has already positioned the immigration fee several times. In a report, he listed several advantages three years ago: Depending on the design, the economy could participate in the costs that arise from immigration and thus promote long -term employment relationships. At the same time, the workforce potential in Germany could be better exploited and thus increasing social acceptance of immigration.
For one reason, however, the admission fee for the Federal Council is not an option: it would not be compatible with the agreement on free passenger transport, which the state government regards the central for the competitiveness of the economy.
The Federal Council cannot draw the topic of immigration fee. Against his will, he has to present advantages and disadvantages and possible variants in a new report. The Council of States accepted a postulate a year ago with a corresponding claim by Andrea Caroni (FDP, AR). Justice Minister Beat Jans was convinced in the small chamber: the EU does not offer a hand for such a solution. Michel, Burkart and other politicians find, however, you should risk that Brussels does not allow this.
The Federal Council prefers to focus on its own protective clause. This communicated after the negotiations with the EU last December. However, it is not yet known how exactly this precise and independently triggered protective clause should work. Middle President Gerhard Pfister has a concrete recipe as a direct counter-proposal to the 10 million-Switzerland initiative: Switzerland should be able to brake immigration if it is above average in certain industries and cantons.
