I got my Swiss Citizenship a couple of years ago and I have managed to vote on every issue so far.
However, the refurendum next month has created a bit of a conundrum for me.
Number 1, I do not really understand the implications of either a yes or a no for both myself, my family or the future general good of society.
Number 2, I have had so much literature through the door, that I am not sure which party to believe. (even If I did understand)

Does anyone on EF have an unbiased explanation of the facts and benefits? (mainly the change to BVG) - I would appreciate it.

Here are the 3 voting topics:-
"
A referendum will be held in Switzerland on 7 March 2010 on three topics:

• a change to the Mindestumwandlungssatz for the BVG;
• on the people's initiative "Against cruelty towards animals and for better legal protection of animals" (initiative for an animal rights lawyer); and
• voting on a constitutional amendment regarding human subject research.

"

I'm glad you asked, I'm a new citizen and have been struggling with these issues as I've not seen much about them, either. Hopefully someone will have some enlightening info for us

This was given out at work

http://www.ktipp.ch/onlineartikel/10...ial_bestellen_

The referendum was launched from among others the Ktipp magazine which is a consumer info magazine and is from the same people I believe as the Kassensturz. They give a very strong argument why people should vote against reducing the rate. The trade unions also seem to be all against it. I haven't read the other sides propaganda but seeing as most of the supporters in the media seem to be insurance people I know which side I'm hoping will win even though I can't vote

Same here. I'm eagerly awaiting my first voting pamphlet.

This is essentially to reduce the state pension payout. Actually the very low paid (under CHF40,000pa) have a n increase, but everyone else will have their state pension reduced.

The reason is poor investment and the inability to foresee that people would live longer. So who do they want to pay for the incompetence of those in charge? The pensioners of course.

So for me it's a clear:NO to cutting pensions.
Watch those double negative questions!*

It is however a very typical Swiss concept of actually trying to balance the book. Other countries would just forget about it or borrow more to cover the shortfall. It would also be political suicide for any British government to have suggest cutting pensions...

Sometimes, when the issues can be quite confusing, I will look at the political website of the party I sympathise with and see what they recommend.

For example - if you look at the Grüne Partei (in German, French, Italian language) - you can go to "Abstimmungen/Wahlen" (voting/elections) and you can also search for "Parolen" = which is what they stand for.

Just an idea to start off with.

Your best source of information on any of the referendum topics is normally covered by the following:

The information package you get with your ballot. I has to by law, cover the for and against of each issue.

Each political party will also say how they "suggest" you vote. This is an insert in the ballot package.

In the last weeks leading up to the vote, the local newspapers will cover the for/against of each of the issues in normally a very in-depth way. Well worth the read.

Depending on your language level, there will be one or more evening TV shows that will pit the for and against camps in a round table discussion that is hosted by Swiss TV (German, French and Italian channels).

Some of the political parties and other interested parties will also sponsor ads in the newspapers and leaflets that you will receive with your weekly special offers papers (in the mail).

Hopefully with all that you will have an opportunity to form an "educated" opinion on the various issues of the specific vote.

In any event, be sure to vote.

is the Mindestumwandlungssatz like the eigenmietvert? where they "charge" you for living in your own damn fully paid for house?

here is what I will ALWAYS vote for. freedom.

that means to be left alone. Say no to property tax, rent on one's own house, or any other ridiculous scheme they try for. There are thousands of pensioners who have a pension and all it is is recreation money. Then you have grannies who are going bankrupt and have to pay the damn eigenmietvert and have no money left and have to sell the house they've lived in for generations. They should remove all the schemse for "distributing wealth", lower income tax to nothing, and yes, even get rid of the pensions altogether. After all, that money is never ever saved. It's a pay as you go system. You pay for what? 50 years? And then they give you a tiny bit back while charging you to live in your own house? Well screw that. Grandma can move in with her family, and if there are cases where that's not gonna happen, then she can get some kind of pension. But the whole thing is a ponzy scheme.

And yes, I can vote too. Can't wait. If you're up for starting a campaign to eliminate the income tax, I am all for it. The whole world did just fine before oh around 1913 without an income tax. If you vote for tax increases, what you are doing, is telling the government it is "ok" to print money to cause inflation while robbing our wealth through inflation. It is not ok, and that is what I will stand for. JUST SAY NO TO HIGHER TAXES.

I checked the voting papers:

So the proposal is the the pension rates are lowered. By voting 'Ja/Oui' you agree and they will be lowered, by voting 'Nein/Non' they remain as they are...

I'm a little frightened that have the right to vote...

Some excellent editorials from the (highly respected) Le Temps about the animal issue.

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/6c43...sujet_de_droit

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/88fe...up_dans_lhomme

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/87f3...nnemis_intimes

Archive articles are free; you just need to fill out the formulaire.

This is one of the accumulating reasons I cashed out my entire pension last year and used it to buy a house.

Never trust your money in someone else's hands who have Carte Blanche to tell you what and when you'll get it back sometime in the distant future.

By the way, for those of you who don't know you can legally cash out your pension for a house up to age 50, after which you only have access to a portion of it.

Nothing will change no mater what you vote for. Either you will get less money when you take the pension or you will pay more contributions on your income to save mismanaged BVG`s.

But the rip of still goes on, around 16.5% you pay into your (avarage) BVG is legaly robed by banks, insurances and mismanagment.

In 2004 the pension conversion was shortened already by 0.4% while some well managed BVG were never in trouble.

If you are an hig income earner you should pay into several BVG trust`s wich are located in low tax cummunities. This will help to save tax if you want to leave Switzerland an opens the alternative taking your pension assets staggered.

There was a brief mention in another post in the pet corner about upcoming referendum regarding the animal rights lawyer. If you are not a pet owner, you likely have little or no interest in this. There has been a lot in the news. I am still voting no. Animals can't speak for themselves but the last thing we need is lawyers doing this for them.

New Family addition!!

indeed - we don't need lawyers speaking for animals but friends, family and neighbours should speak up for them. I know one dog who was taken from the irresponsible owner after this happened so it can and does happen.....

LOL at Zurcher making up a new thing to vote for this time around....you only need 99'999 signatures now

I'm not eligible to vote, so I'm watching from the sidelines...

A question about the Mindestumwandlungssazt: Will this affect Pillar 1 only? Or are Pillars 2 and 3 affected as well?

As to the Tieranwalt initiative - I am very much conflicted. My chief worry is that this is another proposal with good intentions, but little thought seems to have been given to practicalities, especially financing. How will this be paid for?

I live in a canton where there is little financing available for animal welfare - even the cantonal Tierheim has to rely on private financing and donations. The pot isn't going to magically get bigger. I worry that the creation of the Tieranwalt post - no lawyer works for free - would siphon scarce funding away from the important day to day work of caring for animals in need.

I can't see voters - at least SZ voters - approving a general tax hike. For instance, the recent dog control initiatives have been sold to the public as cost neutral, that is, the cost of enforcement will fall solely on owners via increased dogs taxes and fees. Would the Tieranwalt initiative mean higher costs to farmers, pet owners, etc?

I wish more specifics as to financing were included in the referendum.

On the other hand, animal abuse cases seem to be very difficult to prosecute - more needs to be done to address real abuse. (Note I say real abuse - which are not necessarily headline-grabbing cases.) But is that because of lack of resources (which a Tieranwalt would theoretically address), or is it because of lack of interest, or even conflict of interest? Something does need to be done to put a bit more spine in the enforcement of existing laws.

And on the third hand - there was the debacle of the ZH case brought against the fisherman - a huge black eye for the Tieranwalt. Was this the best use of resources?

As said, I am very conflicted about this initiative. Yes, more needs to be done to combat animal abuse - I question whether this would be an effective solution - or simply another layer of expensive bureaucracy. I just don't know.

The pension vote is another vote of young against old/current workers against past workers.

Unfortunately(?) "grey power" is likely to win, as they will remember to go to the polls, and they currently care more.

This issue has come about in all countries with a government pension and an ageing population.

Thank you JBrady for pointing out that the pensions have already been reduced from 7.2% to 6.8%, and now they want another reduction to 6.4%, and AbFab for pointing out yet another double negative to confuse voters!

I like what Zurcher said about granny (who possibly was a mother/non worker, made little financial contribution to the running of things, but "made" the "earners" of today) who needs this money to live on and will have to sell her house to be able to eat for the next 20 years. Either her kids get to fight over the house, or she get to use the money. Anyone else heard of the SKI club? (Spending Kids Inheritance)

I am also not counting on ANY contribution from the government by the time I would be old enough to get anything.

Personally I feel it is up to us to make sure this trend of less people working to support the ageing doesn't continue - so go out there and breed!

I was involved in an animal abuse case. The dog ran away, (not the first time apparently) and ended up in my neighbour's garden(mine is fenced) and when I finally managed to track down the owner, one look at the relationship with his dog (the dog wouldn't go with the owner) I knew there was trouble. My neighbour said to just leave it, not to get involved. I made the call to the Tierschutz. So I saw first hand how the Tierschutz deals with cases of abuse. It is a long drawn out process, repeat visits to the home, giving lots of opportunity to the owner to sort things out, but they do have the authority to remove the animal. So what more can a lawyer do? The animal should have been protected from this in the first place.

On the other hand, what if there is a case, not one of abuse, but where they want to remove an animal where the owner objects and feels the Tierschutz is not acting in the animal's best interest? I guess the owner can hire a lawyer. In my opinion, the Tierschutz has gone too far in some cases, such as the keeping of birds and the size of the enclosures. This has just forced owners to give up birds as they cannot comply with the rules. Or the latest case about the fish....

I would just prefer to see resources put to better use. If there are going to be lawyers involved, it should be for good reason. Recently I learned of a 60 year old parrot who could not go with his owner, an elderly lady who could no longer live alone and went to live in an "Altersheime." Someone should have fought for this bird to stay with his lifelong companion of 60 years. One little cage could have made such a difference to both of them. Could a lawyer have fought for the bird. Probably a losing battle.

It will affect Pillar 2 (BVG/Pensionskasse) only.

Taxpayer money, as usual.

That was the final straw that convinced me to vote NO on the Tierschutzanwalt-Initiative.

No it's got nothing to do with the idiotic Eigenmietwert.

The Mindestumwandlungssatz is the minimum rate at which your accumulated BVG capital is converted to your yearly pension.

E.g. if the capital is CHF 600,000 and the conversion rate is 6.8% you'll receive 40,800/year or 3,400 a month. With the lowered rate of 6.4% you'll end up with only 38,400/year or 3,200/month.

It's important to know that the minimum rate is already being lowered from 7.2% down to 6.8% until the year 2014 to account for longer expectancy of life. There's currently no need to lower it further and certainly not by 0.4%. It would basically be a gift to the insurance industry.