this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51337 readers
2096 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
1
Swiss voters reject mandatory national service for women and new inheritance tax (apnews.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.

Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland’s cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.

Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aldhissla@piefed.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

ITT: people judging the vote and the voters by the magnanimous title alone.

The initiatives were worded and implemented so poorly, that it wouldn't surprise me if the initiants wanted to lose both these votes.

  1. The inheritance tax would have caused mass nationalisations and it had pegged the tax proceeds to go towards climate goals instead of let's say the federal pension fund deficit (AHV-Loch). It would be incorrect to state that the voters don't support an inheritance tax or climate goals based on this vote.
  2. The "service citoyen" proposal would have made some kind of civil or military service mandatory for all, but would have essentially reduced the military to a volunteer force, which would be socially unacceptable. The Swiss have a historically repeatedly confirmed will to keep a citizen's militia as the country's only security force.
[–] Leomas@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The takes on here are wild as a Swiss dude.

[–] Leomas@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Hint: Mandatory service is a problem.

[–] oxysis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

If men have to sign up for the draft then it is only fair that women have to too. It’s unfair that only men have to risk being drafted and losing so much of their life to war.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

As a general rule, I oppose gender roles codified into law.

[–] XenGi@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Statistically woman do so much more care work then men, they already served the country well. There is no need to also draft them. It's only fair. It would also work if more men would take care of kids, the elderly or do other chores without any pay and skip any career for that.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago

Being drafted is different than doing chores or working in care roles. Everyone capable should be responsible for the defense of those who are not in times of war regardless of sex.

There are also plenty of care roles, and chores, in military service.

Yes more Men should take on the life outside of work, but that has nothing to do with 50% of a countries population being forced to give up and risk their lives while the other isn't even though they are capable of, and excel in, combat and support roles.

[–] Barrington@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Personally, I think having a draft is a terrible idea regardless of gender.

They voted down adding women to this already bad idea. Potentially in the future, they remove the draft altogether.

I guess my point is, why would you want them to make the situation worse just so it is equal?

[–] iamdefinitelyoverthirteen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Counterpoint: with a draft, people are less willing to support the government going to war.

[–] remon@ani.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Potentially in the future, they remove the draft altogether.

Support for mandatory military service in Switzerland has been going up in recent years, so I wouldn't count on it.

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh give me a break, women are getting away worse in so many facets of life. When we have fixed discrimination against women we can talk about them doing mandatory civil service.

Edit: Did not know that on Lemmy we have such an issue with women's rights.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So? Are we supposed to have a fair, equal society or are we playing these games of measuring each other's cocks?

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Measure whatever you want but maybe first make it slightly more equal for the ones who have been disadvantaged for decades? But no, one party always focuses on the few things man have where they are slightly worse of.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm a feminist and I honestly don't understand this mentality. Mixing genders in all activities is good for our society, period.

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not if said activity is forced upon you. Women can already voluntarily join the military or civil service.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So can men, but in this instance they're also compelled. The ask here is that if men are compelled to service, women should be too. That's obviously equal treatment and fair.

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Am I in the wrong movie? Women are at a huge disadvantage in life (Gender pay gap, workplace representation, unpaid care and domestic work, education and job positions, healthcare, part-time employment, promotion and career advancement, violence against women, political representation) and we should work to solve that but for some reason we first want to force them to also serve in the military while leaving the current system in place that puts them at a disadvantage? Oh the heavens, men have to serve for a single year...yes that is super important, not all the things they get a huge advantage in life?

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is super twisted and infantalizing to women to be honest. We don't fight for equality by using equity logic that is faulty, we ask everyone, men and women to see women as equals in all areas of life. We're strong, resilient, capable and independent, and you're philosophy asks to maintain privilege ( not military draft ) because you think we face so much other issues, that you see that as equitable, but equity is often the incorrect solution to fairness, fairness is often blind, it says anything a man can do, women can do too. I want to be seen as an equal, not weaker. Women should be in positions of power, not protected and privileged, we are just as capable.

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Nobody claimed that women are not capable. Where are all these weird claims coming from that nobody ever said a word about?

And nobody ever asked to maintain privilege. Claiming however that voting against this was in any way sexist is absolutely ridiculous as long as we maintain a system where women are not seen as equals but as unworthy of equal treatment.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

So fighting inequality with more inequality? Doesn't sound like that would work no matter how you justify it.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Is Switzerland full of sexist people who think "someday I'LL be rich so I don't want to tax MYSELF more, hypothetically maybe in the distant future"?

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sexist is debatable but... yeah

But everyone worshiping the rich? Yeah, that is Switzerland in a nutshell. A decade or so ago I spent a week in Switzerland on holiday and... even the state funded museums kinda felt like "And then so and so developed a really cool technology that saved countless lives. AND THEN THEY GOT RICH!!! FRANCA FRANCA BILS Y'ALL!!!! And here is what they bought with it and the house they lived in and how much paper it takes to print out their monthly statement and... Oh, the tech? Whatever, nobody cares about that"

[–] freijon@lemmings.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The main counter argument was that this tax would make Switzerland quite unattractive to rich people, and that they would simple leave the country so that they don't have to pay this tax. And then Switzerland would even lose tax income overall.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 1 points 2 weeks ago

This argument is the knee jerk reaction to any tax proposal and should be laughed out of town as it has never ever actually happened.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Insane that any democracy would reject an inheritance tax

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not that insane. Most people only concern themselves with their own issues. And if you're a 40 year old whose childhood home is now worth 500k or whatever and you have to pay 200k in taxes in order to inherit it, then you probably want to vote against it because otherwise the government will take it.

Okay, take all that with a grain of salt because I'm not too familiar with inheritance law, but it's based on multiple similar stories I've heard from people.

I still think it should be taxed, don't get me wrong. But I understand why people are against it.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The text indicates that it's only on inheritances greater than 62 million dollars

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, it's true that in this case most people would never have to care about that. When I replied I was thinking about inheritance taxes in general. My bad.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because it is theft. If my parents are successful and pay their taxes why is it fair to double tax a child’s inheritance. You tax earnings and income. You don’t the same money multiple times.

[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Thing is the same money does regularly get taxed multiple times. You get shafted on money as it comes to you (income tax) and u get shafted on that money once you spend it to (sales tax). Hell I bought a house and will get to pay taxes on that annually for as long as I own it, despite already paying my state and fed govt taxes.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Just because everyone is getting fucked doesn’t mean it’s right. Double taxing only hurts the poor because they can’t hide money in tax free investments or businesses that they use to write off expenses.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's more important to prevent an aristocracy than it is to be fair.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be fair as well as tax the rich.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Over 60 Million dollars is a lot of money. More money than your kid needs to live comfortably and never have to work ever again. That's so much money you are creating a family that never has to experience the life of a normal person and can use that money to influence politics to compound that effect.

How much money does a person need to live comfortably without having to contribute labor? 2-5 million? Is living in luxury but not so much that someone who's never had a real job can just buy elections unfair?

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

You are presenting issues that are irrelevant to the tax. Yes those things you mentioned are unfair and should be regulated accordingly. Those are irrelevant to an inheritance tax. If you want to create a wealth tax over a certain amount that’s fine but call a spade a spade. Don’t hide it as inheritance tax and allow wealthy people to hide their money in other ways like trusts and businesses.