The Federal Voting Proposals of September 22, 2024

Explanation of the Procedure and Aim of the Political Commentary

IP Switzerland’s political commentary is the result of a process used to find integral positions on federal referendums. This involves determining whether a proposal represents a step towards a vision of an integral society, i.e. whether it contributes to the transformation of society, or whether the issue is merely a circular variant of the existing one. The proposals are assessed by the Political Committee of IP Switzerland.

The result of this determination is based on a snapshot and is expressed in an integral voting recommendation with specific reasons.

The aim of the commentary is to encourage readers to come to their own conclusions with similar, vision-oriented considerations. The aim of an integral position is not to be right, but to lead people to greater awareness.

Those responsible for this edition are: Pierrot Hans, Pascal Furrer, Remy Holenstein, Kathrin Schelker, Tizian Frey


“Progress is not the improvement of what was, but the orientation towards what will be.” Khalil Gibran

These proposals will be put to a nationwide vote on September 22, 2024

  1. Popular initiative “For the future of our nature and landscape (biodiversity initiative)”
  2. Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors’ and Disability Pension Plans

1 – Popular initiative “For the future of our nature and landscape (biodiversity initiative)”

What the Proposal Wants

Biodiversity, i.e. the diversity of all living creatures and habitats, has declined sharply in Switzerland over the last 100 years. This is particularly due to the large-scale loss of species-rich habitats such as dry meadows, pastures and moors. The quality of protected habitats is also steadily declining. (Source: Biodiversity in Switzerland: status and development FOEN 2017.)

Landscapes and sites are also under pressure. The Confederation and cantons therefore protect biotopes, endangered species and valuable landscapes and sites. They maintain protected areas and promote biodiversity, including in agriculture.

For the initiators, these measures do not go far enough. They want additional protection for nature, the landscape and the built heritage. The initiative demands more money for biodiversity and more suitable protected areas. It also wants the cantons in particular to be made more responsible for preserving landscapes and sites. In this way, the characteristic elements of biotopes, landscapes and sites worthy of protection should be preserved undiminished. Finally, the initiative aims to protect nature, landscape and architectural heritage outside protected areas.

Integral Vision of the Future

In an integral society, the appreciation and creative cultivation of comprehensive biodiversity is part of the process of personal and social awareness and, in this sense, a matter of course.

Voting recommendation: In the view of the Political Committee, the initiative clearly leans towards the integral vision.

Our thoughts on this:

    1. We agree with the initiators that the efforts made to date are not sufficient to adequately protect and promote biodiversity in Switzerland. Natural processes, which form the basis of everything and in particular of our lives, must continue to be enabled and supported to a greater extent.
    2. If the initiative is rejected, the Confederation and the cantons will still be obliged to act, but they will not be encouraged to conserve and promote biodiversity to a greater extent.
    3. If the initiative is accepted, the Confederation and cantons will be obliged to do more for the livelihoods of us all. In addition, cultural conservationists will be able to rely more heavily on the will of the people in their arguments in future.
    4. The initiative is worded very openly. It leaves room for speculation. This is being exploited by the opponents of the initiative. They say, for example, that the compensation areas would be extended to 30%. However, this is left to legislation, as there are no figures in the initiative text.
      If the initiative had not been formulated so openly, it would probably have no chance of being accepted in the referendum.
    5. We can understand that conventional farmers who work their land mechanically fear that they will face restrictions and that they will have to give up land.
      The fear of the rural population is understandable, as they often feel patronized by the urban population who want to interfere with their business.
    6. We would like to point out that area is not the only decisive factor for effective biodiversity. Around 10% of agricultural land is sufficient for optimal biodiversity, i.e. hardly more than today. However, these areas require mandatory protection and appropriate structures in the landscape. For example, hedges, “stepping stones” and fading forest edges are very useful for biodiversity. They do not need much space and are nevertheless very effective.
    7. The initiative also aims to the protect historic buildings, landscapes worthy of protection, townscapes, historical sites and natural and cultural monuments. Little is said about this. They are also important for living in a pleasant environment. Accordingly, the architectural heritage should also be protected outside the protected objects.

      The special concerns of IP:

      1. Today, we humans largely experience ourselves as disconnected from nature. An integral society perceives biodiversity as the basis for life on our planet. People experience themselves as part of this diversity of life.
      2. The preservation and protection of biodiversity provides all people, all living beings and the living world as a whole with the support they need for sustainable survival. The greater the diversity, the more varied, sustainable and opportunity-rich our lives will be.
      3. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we would like to see a precise definition of the terms biodiversity and cultivated land and clarification of what we mean by a valuable landscape. All people should be given the opportunity to participate in this process.
      4. We propose that further encouraging measures be implemented in all regions – involving the entire population if possible – to promote a deeper awareness of the links between human behavior and biodiversity.

2 – Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors’ and Disability Pension Plans (BVG reform) (Reform of occupational pension provision)


What the bill wants

It aims for measures to finance future pensions more securely and to improve the protection of part-time employees and people on lower wages.

For many people, occupational pension provision (2nd pillar of Swiss retirement funding) is an important supplement to AHV (1st pillar). During their working life, people save up retirement assets in the occupational pension fund with their salary contributions and their employer’s contributions. These are later used to pay the pension fund pension. Up to a certain income, the law stipulates the minimum amount of pension that must be paid out for each franc saved. However, due to low returns on the financial markets and rising life expectancy, pensions in the so-called mandatory part of the occupational pension scheme are no longer sufficiently financed. This particularly affects pension funds that only offer the statutory minimum or a little more. There is also a second problem: those who earn little will later have no or a very small pension fund pension. This includes an above-average number of women because they often work part-time or in sectors with low wages.

The reform proposes measures to finance future pensions more securely. In addition, many low earners will receive a higher pension later on: They and their employers will pay higher savings contributions each month than today. Most employees have a pension fund that offers significantly more than the statutory minimum benefits. In this respect, the reform will have little impact on them. The pensions of people who have already retired are not affected by the reform.

A referendum was held against the reform.

 

Integral Vision of the Future

An integral society carefully looks after the well-being of all its fellow human beings of all ages.

Voting recommendation: The concerns of the lawmakers are in line with our vision. We doubt that the chosen measures will make a significant contribution towards achieving this goal.

Arguments of the proponents:

  • For the Federal Council and Parliament, the reform is necessary to ensure that future pensions under the mandatory occupational benefit scheme can be adequately financed in the long term.
  • With the reform, the authorities also want to create a more solid financial basis for those pension funds that can currently only offer the statutory minimum benefits.
  • Today, only people who earn more than CHF 22,050 in a year from one employer are insured with a pension fund. Many employees in low-paid professions are not insured. The reform will make it easier for them to access occupational benefits insurance.
  • It mainly affects women. They work part-time more often than average and do not currently reach the income required to join a pension fund.
  • Some of them will be given the opportunity to join a pension fund if the reform is adopted.
  • This will allow an estimated 50,000 people to join a pension fund who were previously excluded. No one can predict how many will take advantage of this.
  • A reform is necessary because everything is becoming more expensive. As a result, the purchasing power of the pension fund pension is decreasing and reducing retirement benefits. The reform enables a certain counter-effect.

Arguments of the opponents:

  • If the reform is accepted, the guaranteed pensions will fall by up to 12% (CHF 3200 per year) because the so-called conversion rate will be reduced from 6.8 to 6.0.
  • This particularly affects employees over the age of 50.
  • If the proposal is approved, insured persons will have to pay higher contributions into the pension fund. This will increase monthly pension fund premiums by up to CHF 200.
  • This weakens the purchasing power of consumers. Although insurance companies create jobs, the higher wage deductions and dwindling purchasing power in turn reduce the supply of jobs.
  • The additional costs will be paid by the insured and it appears that the banks, brokers and insurance companies will be the winners of this shift. To a lesser extent, this is already the case today.
  • Women on low wages in particular – for whom an improvement was originally intended – will in future have to pay significantly more into the pension funds than they will receive in old age.

The special concern of the IP

  1. We want a fair distribution of income that prioritizes the common good. The idea of a secure pension scheme is a clear concern that goes in the direction of the vision. This could once again prompt reflection on replacing the pension fund system with its many detrimental effects (land prices, rents and other financing systems).
  2. We are in favor of the possibility of equal pensions for all. Providing for the population’s basic needs, including pensions, is a social responsibility. It is a problem that can be solved through fair distribution. The solution is nourished by the common wealth.
  3. Are we aware of what the measure for the allocation of wages and pensions should be? In an integral society, all people are involved in such important decisions. A fundamental debate enables solutions that benefit the entire population.
  4. Our economy is very efficient thanks to the work of all of us. There is plenty of money for a decent pension. A fairer distribution can therefore reduce or completely solve many of today’s problems.

Do you like this article?

Teile ihn per E-Mail
Teile ihn auf Facebook
Teile ihn auf LinkedIn
Teile ihn auf Telegram
Teile ihn auf WhatsApp
Teile ihn auf X/Twitter

More news