45
Insane that any democracy would reject an inheritance tax
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.
The text indicates that it's only on inheritances greater than 62 million dollars
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.
load more comments
(13 replies)
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.
As a general rule, I oppose gender roles codified into law.
Oh give me a rest, 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 cervice.
Nope, it is YOU who has an issue with equality. But then Men's blood is cheap to you right. So what if they get their limbs blown up. That's not suffering to you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So? Are we supposed to have a fair, equal society or are we playing these games of measuring each other's cocks?
load more comments
(8 replies)
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?
While I understand the pushback against military drafts/service requirements, they also can be a net positive for a culture that applies them equally regardless of gender, class or ethnicity. You are significantly less likely to support war if your children or grandchildren could potentially get dragged into it. Want to the majority of wars? Make it a law that the heirs of the rich must serve in the infantry during wartime.
Counterpoint: with a draft, people are less willing to support the government going to war.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
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"?
Afaik, Switzerland is a very conservative place. So that pretty much aligns with what you said.
They are so conservative that women got the right to vote federally in 1971. In one Canton they only got the right to vote at the local level in 1990 after a Supreme Court decision. They were the last Western Democracy to do so.
Native Americans didn’t get the right to vote until 1975… unless you are counting the 1990 thing they weren’t the last.
I want to be part of a normal species
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"
It's no coincidence that they are notorious for being a tax haven for unsavory individuals with shady dealings.
load more comments
(6 replies)
It feels very strange to be a US citizen and actually be able to judge another country for making a silly conservative decision. Woo?
I thought everyone had to serve. Sad.
As an American, I have no room at all to judge this decision. But
proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.
That sounds amazing. Let's do that, please.
I mean, straight popular vote would probably be better. But this could really do what the Electoral College stans say that it was made to do, without doing what it actually does.
That sounds amazing.
It sounds arbitrary and heavily weighted to favor the smaller cantons. Same problem we have with the US Senate and the filibuster. Representatives for a meager 30M voters can obstruct policy championed by the other 300M
Anything even slightly better than the idiocy we have seems amazing to me, apparently
What is not well enough reprensented in this post is that the Service Citoyen was not only about makimg women do a mandatory service. It was to transform the outdated and regressive mandatory service for men into a more general service to the collective that treated security not as a entirely militaristic issue but as a wholistic one.
Now parliament will interpret this as a mandate to cull the existing useful civil service and force every men (and potentially women too) into the military.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Bunch of morons.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2025
45 points (100.0% liked)
World News
52392 readers
815 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS