Federal popular initiative "AHVplus: for a strong AHV"

Ballot

The federal popular initiative "AHVplus: for a strong AHV" was a popular initiative of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions (SGB), which came to a vote on September 25, 2016 and called for an increase in all AHV pensions by 10%. It was rejected with 59.4% of the vote and a clear majority .

initiative

submission

The initiative was submitted on December 17, 2013 with 111,683 valid signatures.

intention

The aim of the initiators was to increase the AHV pensions by 10%. This increase should be paid as a supplement on all pensions. The initiators wanted to increase the share of the AHV in the pension income , to which in addition to the AHV (1st pillar) also the 2nd pillar and the 3rd pillar and, if necessary, the supplementary benefits (EL) contribute. The surcharge would have been an average of 200 francs for singles and 350 for married couples.

text

The initiative was worded as follows:

The transitional provisions of the Federal Constitution are supplemented as follows:

Art. 197 no. 104

10. Transitional provision to Art. 112 (Old-Age, Survivors' and Disability Insurance)

1 Recipients of an old-age pension are entitled to an addition of 10 percent to their pension.

2 The surcharge is paid at the latest from the beginning of the second calendar year following the acceptance of this provision by the people and the cantons.

argumentation

Per

Proponents are of the opinion that the share of the AHV in the Swiss pension system , which consists of the 1st pillar (AHV), the 2nd pillar ( occupational pension ) and the 3rd pillar (voluntary savings) and, if necessary, the supplementary benefits , has been strengthened should be. In their opinion, the AHV is better positioned than the pension funds (2nd pillar). The AHV is the safest old-age provision and is less exposed to the risks on the stock market than the 2nd and 3rd pillars. In addition, the AHV is more solidarity, since the rich have to pay more than people with low and middle incomes .

In their opinion, it is also necessary to adjust the AHV pensions to the wages. In order to achieve the goal enshrined in the constitution that pensioners can continue their accustomed standard of living in old age, higher AHV pensions are needed.

Contra

Opponents argue that demographic change is causing difficulties for the AHV . Until 2030, 7.5 billion francs were missing annually. If the initiative is accepted, the AHV will also get into difficulties. The boys have to pay for this, which is unjust.

In addition, the initiative favors the wrong people: Those pensioners who have too little money and therefore receive supplementary benefits would simply have their supplementary benefits cut, so that in the end they would have the same pension income as before. However, since the AHV pensions are taxable unlike the supplementary benefits, these pensioners would ultimately have even less than before. On the other hand, the financially well-off pensioners who do not receive any supplementary benefits would benefit.

Slogans

Party and association slogans

Of the eight largest parties in Switzerland, only the SP and the Greens supported the initiative. CVP , GLP , BDP, EVP , FDP and SVP, however, rejected the initiative.

The Swiss trade union federation that launched the initiative, Travailsuisse and the tenants 'association also supported the initiative, but the employers' association and Economiesuisse rejected the initiative.

Official voting recommendation

Both the Federal Council and Parliament recommended no to the initiative.

Referendum

The people and the cantons voted on the initiative on Sunday, September 25, 2016.

Survey

In the first Tamedia online survey on August 8th and 9th, there was a majority in favor of the submission: 60% of the survey participants said “yes” or “somewhat yes”. In the first SRG trend survey from August 2 to 12, however, it was only 49%, which made it likely that the initiative would be rejected.

Voting result

Results by canton

The popular initiative was rejected with a clear majority of the people (59.4 percent) and a clear majority (5 votes in favor, 12 would have been necessary for acceptance). The approval was highest in the canton of Jura with 59.5%, and lowest in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden with only 22.3%. The exact results in the individual cantons can be found in the table and the map.

Yes (5 stands)

No

Canton	Yes (%)	No (%)	Participation (%)
Aargau	36.3	63.7	39.4
Appenzell Ausserrhoden	34.0	66.0	42.9
Appenzell Innerrhoden	22.3	77.7	34.3
Basel-Country	42.2	57.8	41.9
Basel city	49.1	50.9	48.0
Bern	39.8	60.2	40.0
Freiburg	42.8	57.2	40.8
Geneva	53.6	46.4	45.7
Glarus	36.9	63.1	33.0
Grisons	34.5	65.5	37.2
law	59.5	40.5	38.4
Lucerne	30.7	69.3	41.5
Neuchâtel	54.0	46.0	43.5
Nidwalden	27.0	73.0	43.1
Obwalden	24.9	75.1	44.5
Schaffhausen	41.2	58.2	61.7
Schwyz	28.2	71.8	47.0
Solothurn	40.8	59.2	40.4
St. Gallen	33.2	66.8	45.7
Ticino	53.4	46.6	45.9
Thurgau	33.6	66.4	38.3
Uri	30.3	69.7	35.6
Vaud	50.3	49.7	45.7
Valais	41.0	59.0	45.5
train	28.6	71.4	49.3
Zurich	38.3	61.7	44.7
Swiss Confederation	40.6	59.4	43.1

Differences between the language and age groups

In the vote, the majority of the French and Italian - speaking Swiss voted in favor of the initiative, while the opposite was the case in German - speaking Switzerland . This difference between the linguistic regions, known as the Röstigraben , has also often appeared in the past in other socio-political issues.

There was also a considerable difference between the age groups : While among the 18 to 34 year olds, according to Tamedia's follow-up survey, only 21% were in favor of the initiative, 57% of those over 65 voted for the initiative. The latter would have benefited the most if the initiative had been adopted.

Web links

• Initiative Committee website
• Opposing Committee website
• Page no longer available , search in web archives: Website of the FSIO on the initiative
• Voting booklet (PDF; 1.5 MB)

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Federal popular initiative “AHVplus: for a strong AHV” - came about. (PDF; 101 kB) Federal Administration website. Swiss Federal Chancellery, accessed on July 30, 2016 . 
2. ↑ Referendum of 25 September 2016 - explanations by the Federal Council. (PDF; 1.5 MB) Swiss Federal Chancellery, p. 15 , archived from the original on July 29, 2016 ; accessed on July 30, 2016 (official voting booklet). 
3. ↑ ^{a b c} AHVplus at a glance. NZZ , accessed on September 26, 2016 . 
4. ↑ Referendum of 25 September 2016 - explanations by the Federal Council. (PDF; 1.5 MB) Swiss Federal Chancellery, p. 20 , archived from the original on July 29, 2016 ; accessed on July 30, 2016 (official voting booklet). 
5. ^ Website of the initiative committee. Retrieved July 30, 2016 . 
6. ^ Website of the opposing committee. Arguments. Archived from the original on July 30, 2016 ; accessed on July 30, 2016 . 
7. ↑ Referendum of 25 September 2016 - explanations by the Federal Council. (PDF; 1.5 MB) Swiss Federal Chancellery, p. 88 (back) , archived from the original on July 29, 2016 ; accessed on July 30, 2016 (official voting booklet). 
8. ↑ Voting poll: More security, higher pensions. In: tagesanzeiger.ch. August 11, 2016. Retrieved August 14, 2016 . 
9. ↑ Difficult status for the “AHVplus” initiative. In: SRF website. Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), August 19, 2016, accessed on August 20, 2016 . 
10. ↑ AHV initiative clearly failed - tomorrow the debate will continue. In: Website of the Tagesanzeiger. September 25, 2016. Retrieved September 26, 2016 . 
11. ↑ Röstigraben widened again: Why more Romands want more AHV. Aargauer Zeitung , September 26, 2016, accessed on October 4, 2016 . 
12. ↑ 80 percent of boys say no to higher pensions. Der Bund , September 27, 2016, accessed on October 4, 2016 .