Popular Vote: November 30th 2025

The initiative proposes expanding mandatory civic duty to include women and more non-military services, but it faces massive opposition over concerns that it will double government costs.

Since the 1970s, there has been a trend towards abolishing National Service amongst OECD countries; however, Switzerland remains one of the few countries to retain it. So you might imagine the next step here would be to do the same.

Well, you’d be wrong, because this initiative is actually looking to expand civic duty in Switzerland, specifically by including women.

Not only that, but the proposal also wants to broaden the definition of national service to areas such as climate protection, food security, and caregiving. Whereby individuals would be free to choose which service capacity to dedicate themselves to. Rather than focusing primarily on military service.

In 100AD Plutarch, the Greek/Roman philosopher, made the argument for mandatory service as favouring mixing the rich and poor, plebeians and patricians, in the same army to foster reconciliation and unity. It’s in this same spirit of egalitarianism that the proponents of this initiative are making their case, and on the face of it, it does seem fair to question why this service should be mandatory for men and not for women.

But that doesn’t seem to be an opinion shared by the majority, with 64% of those polled indicating they’re against the initiative. Support in Parliament looks equally bleak as well, with the proposal only being supported by the Greens and the Evangelical Party.

I suppose this weekend we’re likely to have an answer to the old question of whether or not Turkeys would vote for Christmas.

The opposition is arguing that this would represent a reckless increase in government expenditure by essentially doubling the number of citizens recruited. Annual expenditure on loss of earnings compensation and military insurance would double, reaching CHF 1.6 billion and CHF 320 million respectively.

Interesting that the costs seem to be the main sticking point, with counter arguments suggesting mandatory time committed per person etc., could be reevaluated to account for the increased headcount. Especially interesting that only 2 months ago, the electorate voted in favour of rewriting the housing taxation system, representing a CHF 2 billion hole in the government’s coffers. So maybe there’s more beneath the surface of the no vote that meets the eye.

In that light, there is also an argument being made that this would represent a red herring in terms of equality progression in society. With the total labour expectations for women unfairly increasing, as they already perform a large proportion of unpaid work [*].

The 'Initiative for the Future' proposes introducing a new federal 50% inheritance and gifts tax (exempting the first CHF 50 million) to fund climate crisis measures, but it is deeply unpopular, with opponents fearing it would force the sale of inherited businesses and encourage the wealthy to leave Switzerland.

Currently, Switzerland is unusual among OECD countries in having no federal inheritance tax. Instead, the cantons (and some municipalities) set their own rates, which vary widely.

This initiative seeks to address that by introducing a federal-level inheritance and gifts tax. It envisions a 50% tax on estates and gifts with the first CHF 50 million exempt (you can breathe a sigh of relief), meaning taxation would only be payable on the amount exceeding CHF 50 million.

According to the initiative text, the revenue from the new estate and gift tax must be used “to combat the climate crisis in a socially just manner and to restructure the economy as a whole as necessary to achieve this goal”.

The concept of an inheritance tax was introduced historically in both the UK (1694 - Probate Duty to help finance the Nine Years War) and the US (during the Civil War and Spanish-American War) as an emergency revenue generator for war financing. So it’s perhaps apt that the youth wing of the SP are trying to levy this tax against the war on climate change and an unsustainable future.

However, there’s a historical precedent for Swiss voters rejecting inheritance taxes. In 2015 7/10 voters rejected a proposal to levy federal inheritance taxes to pay for a creaking old-age pension scheme. Polling indicates a heavy defeat for this initiative as well, with a latest poll by the gfs.bern Research Institute indicating a mighty 68% of the electorate being against the proposal.

Rather morbidly, there is set to be a Tsunami of generational wealth transfer over the next few decades. With baby boomers holding more than 51% of total wealth, as the members of this generation reach the evening of their days, “the looming inheritances from the baby-boomer generation represent the largest transfer of wealth in financial history” according to EY Switzerland. So, it's understandable that states across the Western world are licking their lips at the prospect of a cash grab over the coming decades.

In addition to the issue of balancing the books, there is an important moral argument for the positioning of this taxation initiative. Many feel it is the baby boomer generation who have taken us on our pathway towards unsustainability, and thus it should be their wealth that is used to course correct, posthumously or not.

According to polling, more than two-thirds of the electorate fear that people inheriting a business will not have enough cash to pay the tax and will be forced to sell it. Meaning it would act as an impediment to the relentless force of commerce and trade that is the Swiss economy.

We also have our old friend, the tax effectiveness sceptic, entering the debate here as well. With doubts surrounding the effectiveness of such a tax, and fears that the wealthy would avoid it altogether by leaving Switzerland.