Popular Vote: September 28th 2025

The new e-ID is a state-controlled digital identity card for online use. Supporters say it's a secure way to modernise transactions, while opponents fear it could create a "surveillance economy" by normalising digital ID for private companies.

Coming into effect in the summer of 2026, the e-ID promises to work like an official digital identity card. 

With it, you’ll be able to seamlessly validate your age or identity online to commercial entities or otherwise, the same way you would when you’re asked for ID when buying alcohol. Who out there remembers what that feels like? 

Now, there’s some history to this proposal as there was an initial attempt to pass it back in 2021. Back then it was rejected due to concerns the digital ID infrastructure would have been built and administered by private companies.

Accordingly, the government has redeveloped their proposal so that the platform is controlled and maintained entirely in-house. They now claim; “the e-ID is designed to meet the highest standards of security, data protection, and trustworthiness” *. It would be fair to say there is also an across the board consensus that this is indeed the case.

The 2025 iteration boasts:

🔐 Higher security standards, than most logins that you’ll already use. 

✍ Optional registration, unlike your physical ID (more on this later). 

💾 Data collection control, as you control what is being shared 

🕊 It’s free 

The argument holds that this is a necessary part of modern digital life. It will replace the tedious act of uploading images of your physical ID when you wish to access an online (private or government) service, and could even be used at supermarket self-checkouts when you need to validate your age. 

There are even discussions for future use in simplifying the ordering of a debt collection extract (the dreaded Betreibungsauszug for those of you familiar with moving into a new apartment), and for online voting in referendums and initiatives. 

Globally and historically, there have been two currents of concern for electronic or mandatory physical identification. One being that it will be misused by the state, the second being that it will be misused by private companies. 

We live in a high political trust direct-democracy in Switzerland, so naturally the concern here is predominantly for the latter. 

The opposition sees e-ID as a stepping stone towards a surveillance economy. For them, this normalises electronic identification which enables commercial companies (like big tech) to demand e-ID in exchange for their services. In short, it will come to question the democratisation of the internet.

There is also some skepticism of government claims this is to better handle online transactions between the citizen and the state, for which the opposition claim is not necessary as administrative tasks are already well handled well by the AGOV platform.

Outside of Die Schweiz, arguments against e-ID often come from voices primarily concerned with overreaching Orwellian states. This does not seem to be a major factor in Switzerland’s opposition.

In the UK, physical identity cards were issued in 1939 (for obvious reasons) and eventually scrapped in 1952 by Winston Churchill’s government. In order to, by his words, “set the people free”. When the last person to be prosecuted for not possessing the ID card, Harry Willcock in 1950, took his case to the highest court he was greeted with sympathy, with the judge saying “the 1939 Act was never passed for the purposes for which it is now being used”. So there is a historical precedent for mission creep with this type of thing.

Maybe some food for thought for our Swiss neighbours. 

Proposal to eliminate the imputed rental value tax on homeowners. This would simplify the tax system and limit tax deductions on mortgages. The change aims to provide relief to homeowners, but opponents are concerned it will disproportionately benefit the wealthy and could lead to a loss of government revenue. 

The eternal struggle between home owners and renters continues, and the dimensions of this particular battle are fairly complicated, so bear with me here. 

Currently, homeowners pay an imputed rental value tax on their property. Meaning although owners might live in their own property, it is taxed as if it was rented out at an estimated market rental price. This applies to both primary and secondary properties. However, other expenses can also be levied against that tax, such as mortgage interest payments or renovations. Sometimes this means that tax deductions can be higher than the imputed rental tax that one would pay. 

The new law proposes to no longer tax the imputed rental value. Whilst tax deductions for scenarios such as mortgage rate interest will be restricted. 

The change will also allow cantons to introduce their own new tax on second homes at their own discretion. The promise, in theory, is that this new special tax and restrictions on tax deductions will offset the revenue loss from discontinuing the imputed rental value tax, and thus balance the books. The bill should also disincentivise people from taking on long-term debt and provide financial relief for those without debt, which particularly affects pensioners. 

Another criticism of the current tax is that it is variable depending on property/rental value, which itself can fluctuate. This variability is not necessarily coupled to the income of the home owner, meaning their tax contributions can increase year on year without their income increasing. Thus creating a significant financial strain on those who may be “house rich but cash poor”, such as pensioners who often have a fixed or dwindling income. 

This all took a fair bit of time for me to get my head around, and I’m not sure I fully understand it yet. So here’s a useful explainer video that can fill in some of the blanks for you.

I don’t know about you, but I rarely catch myself thinking “hey, you know what the world needs, at least one more law that favours property owners and the rich”, and this sentiment seems to be the primary cause of agitation for the opposition. 

Despite real concerns that this bracket of law changes will result in a loss of revenue for federal, cantonal and municipal coffers, there is a criticism that it will only benefit home owners. Home owners represent about ⅓ of the population in Switzerland, so a minority in themselves. But this isn’t the type of minority struggle that will summon the energies of the likes of Great Thunberg. As in most countries, the home owner minority in Switzerland represent some of the wealthiest people in the country. 

It is also unclear whether the new special cantonal tax will offset the loss in revenues from the imputed rental tax loss. With most of these tax revenues going to Cantons and local Municipalities already, there will potentially be a steep loss for ‘tourist Cantons’ over others. With the Confederation of Alpine Cantonal Governments criticising this new tax as a false and ill-conceived solution.