Switzerland backed an end to the marriage tax penalty. Why is it voting again?

Switzerland has voted to abolish the marriage tax penalty, but the argument over how to do it is reopening. On Monday, 19 October, representatives of the FDP, Green Liberals, Social Democrats and Greens gathered in Bern to reaffirm their opposition to the Centre Party’s Fairness Initiative. It goes to a nationwide vote on 29 November, just over eight months after voters approved individual taxation. Married couples and tax authorities again face uncertainty over how spouses will be assessed.

Both proposals share a stated aim: married couples should not pay more tax than unmarried partners. Their approaches differ fundamentally, however. The approved reform taxes spouses separately; the Centre Party retains joint taxation. Its initiative also concerns federal taxes alone, rather than cantonal and municipal taxes.

One public decision, two different routes

On 8 March, voters approved individual taxation with just over 54 per cent in favour. Married people will each complete their own tax return and be assessed separately. The reform is due to take effect in 2032 at federal, cantonal and municipal levels. Cantons have already begun preparing for implementation.

Ending the marriage penalty has therefore been approved politically, but has not yet changed everyday taxation. The disadvantage arises when joint assessment and progressive tax rates leave spouses paying more than two unmarried partners. It can affect both working spouses and retired couples.

The Centre Party submitted its own popular initiative, a proposal to change the constitution, to eliminate this disadvantage. The issue has been one of its core concerns for decades. After March’s vote, it decided to keep the initiative alive, arguing, among other things, that voters had not been able to choose between different models for ending the penalty.

The November ballot is therefore not simply another yes-or-no decision on tax relief for disadvantaged married couples. It asks whether a constitutional provision for joint taxation at federal level should sit alongside the individual taxation reform already approved.

Opponents warn of extra paperwork

The opposing alliance is essentially the same one that campaigned for individual taxation in the spring. Those appearing in Bern included Green MP Franziska Ryser, Social Democratic senator Eva Herzog, Green Liberal MP Kathrin Bertschy, FDP MP Simone de Montmollin and FDP co-president Benjamin Mühlemann.

Their central warning is that approval could create different rules at different levels of government. Individual taxation would remain the agreed approach for cantonal and municipal taxes, while the federal government would have to assess married couples jointly again. Their campaign poster calls this “tax confusion”.

Mühlemann said people would have to complete “three tax returns in the worst case”. That is a warning about a possible implementation scenario, not an established consequence of the initiative. The actual additional workload would depend on the detailed arrangements.

If voters approve the proposal, the Federal Council, Switzerland’s government, would have to introduce an alternative federal tax calculation for married couples within three years. The longer-term design remains uncertain. Herzog called the initiative a “lucky dip”, saying: “It is not clear whether it will be full splitting, partial splitting or an alternative tax calculation.” The distinction matters because the model would determine both how relief is distributed and the financial consequences.

Equality and respect for the vote

For opponents, the stakes extend beyond administration to equality. Bertschy described a return to joint taxation as a “backward step”. In her view, it would favour a family model in which the man earns the main income.

That reflects a fundamental difference between the approaches. Individual taxation treats each person separately for tax purposes. Joint taxation keeps the married couple as the relevant unit. A shared intention to eliminate the marriage penalty does not make the reforms equivalent.

The alliance was particularly critical of the Centre Party’s refusal to withdraw its initiative after March’s ballot. Mühlemann accused it of stubborn insistence and forcing an unnecessary “extra round”. Herzog described its decision to persist as “undemocratic”.

The Centre Party sees things differently: it does not consider the earlier vote to have settled the choice of model. The campaign therefore pits two political interpretations against each other — respect for a decision voters have already made, and the case for putting an alternative solution to them.

What is at stake for households and cantons?

The Federal Council and parliament oppose the Fairness Initiative. The government points particularly to uncertainty over implementation and substantial revenue losses. It also argues that the same group would benefit as under the approved individual taxation reform. Herzog put the financial impact at between CHF700 million and CHF3 billion, depending on the model.

The Centre Party has support from the Swiss People’s Party and the Evangelical People’s Party. Before 29 November, supporters must explain why their approach is still needed while preparations for individual taxation are under way. Opponents, meanwhile, must distinguish between consequences that would necessarily follow and those dependent on implementation.

For cantons, the issue is certainty for planning. For married couples, it is understandable rules and the future workload involved in completing tax returns. The distinction between federal and local taxation is central: the initiative addresses only one level, whereas the approved reform covers all three.

A rejection would leave the agreed path towards individual taxation in place. Approval would create additional requirements for the federal government — and reopen the question of how those obligations can fit alongside the reform scheduled for 2032.