4 ms·

This directly contradicts the fact that they voted against an additional mandatory week of holidays back in 2012. The consensus was that people did not want the

by noxer 5y ago

This directly contradicts the fact that they voted against an additional mandatory week of holidays back in 2012. The consensus was that people did not want the short term benefit of more holidays for log term harm to small business who cant afford to give people more paid holidays. I think you are grossly underestimating the voting population. They are supposed to vote for whats best for the country not for themself. The main problem the Swiss system has is dis/misinformation not people being selfish. Every other political system has this problem too but the Swiss system depends more on a well informed populace than other systems.

wdroz 5y ago
> This directly contradicts the fact that they voted against an additional mandatory week of holidays back in 2012 I agree with the argument, but to nitpick: That was two additional weeks (from 4 to 6 weeks). I'm sure only 1 additional week would have succeed as a lot of employers are already giving 5 weeks.
qalmakka 5y ago
It's not about people being selfish, at all. It's about basic human behaviour. People don't like when something is taken from them, while they do not feel the same amount of pain when they are forced give up on something they never had. It's much more pleasant to learn you can save 20 Euros on your bills than finding 20 Euros on the ground, because we value losing what we already have more. That's the reason why the idea of taxing wealth always stirs more chaos than taxing income. Income is money you didn't have before, while wealth is stuff you own already. Giving up something you never had for "the greater good" is much easier than giving up privileges or wealth you already possess.
- noxer 5y ago
  Taxing wealth is "wrong" because you already paid taxes when you earned that wealth. So yes, you own it already and you already paid the taxes for it. + you would get "fined" for saving money if your wealth grows because you save. Obviously people dont want to pay more taxes because they spend less. But this all has absolutely nothing to do with the parent post. It was about short-term/long-term and the assumption that people wont vote for long-term "benefits" if it has short-term disadvantages.

by noxer 5y ago

wdroz 5y ago

> This directly contradicts the fact that they voted against an additional mandatory week of holidays back in 2012 I agree with the argument, but to nitpick: That was two additional weeks (from 4 to 6 weeks). I'm sure only 1 additional week would have succeed as a lot of employers are already giving 5 weeks.

qalmakka 5y ago

It's not about people being selfish, at all. It's about basic human behaviour. People don't like when something is taken from them, while they do not feel the same amount of pain when they are forced give up on something they never had. It's much more pleasant to learn you can save 20 Euros on your bills than finding 20 Euros on the ground, because we value losing what we already have more. That's the reason why the idea of taxing wealth always stirs more chaos than taxing income. Income is money you didn't have before, while wealth is stuff you own already. Giving up something you never had for "the greater good" is much easier than giving up privileges or wealth you already possess.

noxer 5y ago
Taxing wealth is "wrong" because you already paid taxes when you earned that wealth. So yes, you own it already and you already paid the taxes for it. + you would get "fined" for saving money if your wealth grows because you save. Obviously people dont want to pay more taxes because they spend less. But this all has absolutely nothing to do with the parent post. It was about short-term/long-term and the assumption that people wont vote for long-term "benefits" if it has short-term disadvantages.