Expect more speed and red light cameras.
Why not? I mean increasing the tax rate. It might solve their problem with lack of available apartments on the market.
They say it will not, at least not in 2027, but it seems some watering down of the “365 public transport” may be on the cards
Decisions on the tax rate are decided by the Commune. Their decisions can be challenged by referendum.
Two famous quotes by XX century political leaders that the Zurich city government seems to forget…too often:
“Nothing is easier than spending public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody.”
" There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money"
yep. Increase the tax rate, first people moving out are those who pay the most (also following their companies / corporations, which will also leave)
Yes, that will definitely liberate housing – but it will not offset the budget deficit, so, at the end, it will put even more pressure on lower earners, and move population to other cities (and cantons) with better prospects, also following the corporations that moved out and the services that they require…
Maybe the intent is that?
the beginning of the end of Zurich?
Just remember that decisions on changes in tax rates are seldom, if ever, immediate. Take the vote to reduce VD taxes effective in the 2027 tax year which I will be filing in Feb 2028. If I haven’t gone ga-ga by then.
I actually against the increase in the city because the rich will move to our low tax lake municipalities and increase competition in the housing sphere even more. On the other hand, the lake municipalities will be able to decrease their tax rate even more. Good for those who have stable housing situation and don’t have to look for a new apartment.
They could rise a but more the price for parking in blue zones (Anwhohnerparkkarte). A parking space for 500-1000 CHF a year in ZH is cheap.
probably. zurich is mafia
I’ve only read about 10% of the topic, so please accept my apologies if these points have been raised before, but reading the latest replies I feel you attribute way too much economical thinking to the decision makers than is warranted.
The Stadtrat is IMNSO not immediately interested in solving the root cause of the problem (expenses are too high). They are much more interested in what is dearer to their heart: getting re-elected.
For that goal, it doesn’t make sense to raise the price for the Anwohnerparkkarte, a measure immediately felt by part of their electorate. It makes more sense to somewhat silently scrap some exuberant plans (like some bicycle bridge 100m next to an already existing bridge – Hardbrücke!) over the next couple of years. Budget already approved, plans get silently extended further out on the timeline, eventually they get scrapped (I hope).
Pressure (tax wise, less tax income) is slowly arising from companies moving out of the city. Individuals won’t move as quickly (though, if it were up to Goofy, we would have moved out of the city borders already a couple of years ago – of couse, Minnie calls the shots around here).
I’ve come to my personal conclusion that these … um, political cycles perhaps take place in cycles of decades. While today’s environment is mostly left and green and wanting to seemingly move incentives from “I’m prepared to deliver my part” to “I’m prepared to receive my part”, this obviously is not sustainable, but it sadly seems to take decades for people to realize.
Vontobel bank has already the move out planned (to Zug). Just announced, Cembra bank moves to Aargau this coming year.
It’s a risk, though, just to save on tax. A company I worked for moved away from its plum city centre spot to Zug and it was a total pain for all of us living in ZH that suddenly had a commute time eating into best part of an hour, plus costs (!) instead of a 10 min whizz on a bike. Same went for visiting clients who weren’t that pleased to have to make the trip out there. I left within 6 months.
In the end, the tax / services balance applies here as well.
On a curve, some people are ready to pay higher taxes to keep living where their social sphere is and/or where it’s more urban and thriving with services etc.
At some point however, the scale tips and if you as a city or canton are too unattractive tax wise, people will just move out - and the ones who move are the whales, not the small fish.
AG will likely start compeeting with ZH in taxes within the next decade or two. Zug is near by (less than 30’ by train), etc. So Zurich has to choose what services they can offer to businesses and HNWI to actually stay there over moving away 30’ to Zug - OR it has to reduce spending to be able to reduce the tax rates.
This is imho a very healthy correcting mechanism - after all we aren’t in the business of wasting tax money at large here.
Indeed. Nobody consulted us here in Zug. Where is direct democracy when you want it?
I think that’s a fair way of looking at it. Tax isn’t just a number; people are effectively deciding what they’re willing to pay for the location, services and quality of life. If the balance gets too far out of whack, especially for high earners, mobility becomes the obvious pressure valve.
People don’t necessarily mind paying more tax if they feel they’re getting something worthwhile in return. But if the difference gets too big, especially when Zug is only 30 minutes away, you can see why the higher earners might just pack up and move. That’s probably a useful incentive for Zurich to keep the balance right.
I think there’s a fair point here. Politics rarely rewards fixing the root of a problem when the cost of doing so is felt immediately, while the benefits may only appear years later. That naturally makes short-term electoral thinking tempting.
At the same time, I’d be cautious about reducing it entirely to left versus right. Governments of all colours can fall into the same cycle: promise today, postpone the difficult decisions, and leave the bill for whoever comes next. In the end, sustainable policy usually requires both responsibility from those paying in and restraint from those spending. The difficult part is keeping that balance over the long term.
Yeah exactly - and in Switzerland, taxes aren’t a redistribution program for the sake of redistribution - so I’d be careful with opinions from certain people here. We never had a class problem in Switzerland, usually, Swiss people aren’t that envious, but some political movements try to construct this image of the rich people stealing money from the poor - while we ALL collectively have a very high standard of living, good government services AND low taxes. Go to Germany and tell them about a customer oriented work environment - they’ll laugh at you - in CH, this is the main doctrine for 90% of cantons.
And imho the fact that Zurich is and was so popular despite not being the lowest tax canton there is, proves this point even further. Zurich could be cheaper than Zug (tax wise), yet they choose not to, because they can.
It’s also very difficult to offer something in return to a person that pays 1M+ in taxes. We’re talking about soft factors over anything: So politicians not torpedoing their main tax payers, friendly bureaucracy, data protection and privacy protection, etc.
In fact, politics doesn’t reward fixing problems at all, especially not if those fixes are a trade-off. It’s much more opportune to just feed on the discomfort of a problem (e. g. immigration) than to propose good and viable solutions to fix the problem.