the CHF500 would be reduced to 10 or 20
And then increased gradually. The frog in a pot method of taxation
Standing back a bit from all this, I am amazed that this is happening in Switzerland, of all places I have been to!
Swiss GA is immediately noticeable for the money which participants are willing to spend on their aeroclub facilities, and stuff like that. Occassionally you see sheer opulence (by GA standards, anyway). Look at e.g. Lausanne. In the rest of Europe (and particularly in the UK) people tend to sponge off others for as long as possible and this is the biggest issue GA faces. The problem is not a lack of collective liquidity; it is a lack of a willingness to stick hands in one’s own pocket for a collective benefit.
Accordingly, Swiss GA must contain a fair number of influential people.
One must hope that these are keeping their powder dry for the right moment.
I lived in Switzerland for 10 years and learned to fly there in about 2004. There is an aviation organisation there, whose name escapes me, but it is not very active, nothing like AOPA for example.
What Switzerland does have is an incredibly active and large group of aviation clubs. Virtually every airport and airstrip has a club. Each club has somewhere between 50 and 300 members and there must be at least 50 of these, all this in a country of 8 million people.
The referendum system in Switzerland is very interesting. Anyone can initiate a referendum, it just requires you to get enough people to sign your petition and your proposition will be put to the people of the country. Three of four times a year a package arrives in the post with the latest set of referendum questions, there might be 3 or 4 or 5 per package. Each question comes with a very detailed description of how the question will be put into law if passed (key failing of the Brexit referendum) along with a page with arguments for and against the proposition as well as something from the government with their view. It is a truly wonderful example of direct democracy in action, done with rigour and finesse as you would expect.
Many of the questions can be quite technical, concerning matters such as the heath insurance system or the retirement system, but there are also quirky questions and surprising results from time to time. For example the Swiss in 1992, against the strong advice of the government, voted against joining the EU. In 2009, once again against the advice of their government and in the face of broad condemnation across Europe, they voted to ban constriction of any further mosque minarets. In the area of the environment, once again the Swiss surprised the pundits bay passing the “Lex Weber” initiative which essentially banned the construction of any more holiday homes and chalets across the Alps.
The point of all this, there is no way to predict how the Swiss will vote in these things. Much of the time they are very pragmatic and look after the wallet, they will vote strongly in defence of “Swissness”, but there is a strong environmental streak there too.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In any case, the whole thing will most possibly be challenged by a referendum. And if it was “only” the aviation stuff in there, then I would be very surprised if it passed.Are you sure about this? I could imagine that the average citizen will think of “rich people” when talking about private flights and general aviation. Why don’t tax us more?! For me, this proposal is quite dangerous for GA, even if it won’t pass in the end…
Frans wrote:
I could imagine that the average citizen will think of “rich people” when talking about private flights and general aviation
Is that an inaccurate perception?
While I don’t buy into the politics of envy, and strongly believe that people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour, poverty, even in a supposedly wealthy country like the UK, consists of people eating their baked beans cold because they cannot afford to heat them (I encounter this kind of depth of deprivation on a regular basis) and, by any comparison, those of us able to fly powered aircraft are rich.
There is a scale from powered hang gliders to Global Expresses, of course, but even the powered hang glider guy has disposable income that many less fortunate would perceive as “rich”.
Thank goodness that everyone, regardless of their wealth, has a vote; it seems likely that on most topics the rich will be outvoted by the poor, and, particularly, the GA pilot will be outvoted by those not so privileged.
Frans wrote:
I could imagine that the average citizen will think of “rich people” when talking about private flights and general aviation. Why don’t tax us more?! For me, this proposal is quite dangerous for GA, even if it won’t pass in the end…
The “average” citizen would probably applaud the surcharge for the filthy biz jets which, in their opinion, are only there for the rich garbage of the world to get their rocks of in e.t.c. but they would react to the idea that they would no longer be able to go on holiday once a year with a £500 punitive tax on their flight to Punta Cana or Pukhet for a family of 4. They would react to the fact that their little outings with LCC’s would not happen anymore because quite certainly the LCC’s would disappear from Swiss airports. They would better believe the threats from LH that they will either shut down or massively reduce flights out of ZRH and GVA in such a case, the remnants of the national carrier are owned by them and through it also the biggest holiday operator. And they have a good 30k employees with their families who will not be keen to see their airline yet again destroyed by the same traitors, looters and lawyers who refused to help Swissair. That infamy, as well as the subsequent almost criminal sale of that asset to Lufthansa (which I consider state treason) is still well in the minds of many many people here.
Add to them the people who actually care about aviation, they are not that many but also by far not as few as one might think. And those who actually use GA in all areas.
Unlikely alliances but I’d give a NO a massive chance.
But the way this goes, it will be different as the law has only one part which concerns aviation, the rest concerns just about everything else. And there, people may well think it is a great idea for the “greater Good” to pay more to put their tiny minds at ease about climate change. So we pay and it’s all right, isn’t it? Well, it is not. What that law is, all in all, is a fundriser for the taxman without ANY influence on the climate other than by destroying active branches of the economy.
So perhaps somebody could explain to a British person – you have a referendum and the Swiss Government actually respects the result? – An amazing concept!
Yes; Switzerland has referendums integrated into its political process. The UK (and every other European country AFAIK) does not.
Please, no brexit stuff.
Archer-181 wrote:
you have a referendumRe-read post 66 above, in particular the part about the comprehensive documentation package attached to the referendum.
So perhaps somebody could explain to a British person – you have a referendum and the Swiss Government actually respects the result? – An amazing concept!
In principle yes… at least according to Radio Eriwan.
To be more serious, if a referendum is held about a law and that law is dismissed then the answer is yes, that law is dead.
In initiatives, that is if citizens or states launch a proposal to change the constitution, then recent history shows that while the new article will enter the constitution, parliament and courts have often not quite ignored it but stalled implementing it. The reason that is possible is that constitutional law is subject to interpretation both by parliament to define how exactly to implement it and by the courts how to rule on the implementation. We have had both. Refusal to implement an article in the spirit it had been voted on and refusal of the courts to rule accordingly.
So referendum is a sure thing mostly, initiatives in recent times have seen active resistance. It’s not perfect. But a darn sight better than nothing.
