BERN. People who keep working after retirement age should be able to pay less tax on what they earn, and both chambers’ economic committees now agree on the principle. The Council of States committee backed the idea by 7 votes to 4, with one abstention. The National Council’s sister committee had already said yes in January, by 12 votes to 11, with one abstention. The lower-house committee now has to write a bill. Parliament, not this week’s press release, will decide whether it becomes law.
The parliamentary initiative, numbered 25.448, comes from Daniela Schneeberger, a Free Democratic Party councillor from Basel-Landschaft. She wants the tax harmonisation law changed so that the cantons, not Bern, set how lightly earned income is taxed once someone has reached retirement age. The federal rule would create the permission. The rate, the deduction, or the refusal to offer one, would be a cantonal choice. That is why a “yes” in committee is not yet a franc off anyone’s bill.
Why the majority said yes
The Council of States committee, which met on 2 November under Erich Ettlin, said it expects a real effect on how many people keep working past retirement. More of them in the labour market, it argued, would ease the shortage of skilled staff. Parliamentary services published the vote on Tuesday. The same commission has been explicit that the gain is meant to be economic, not a general pension rise. The 13th AHV payment going out in December is a benefit. This proposal is a tax incentive, and only for income from work.
The Federal Council wants the same direction by a different route. Its AHV 2030 reform tries to make delaying the pension more attractive, and early retirement less so. It does not raise the retirement age. The government has not yet taken a position on Schneeberger’s initiative. Until it does, the committees are ahead of the cabinet on a question both say matters: how to keep people who already have a pension inside the workforce.
Why four senators voted no
The minority’s objections are legal, not a quarrel about whether firms are short of staff. Several members said a deduction aimed only at older workers treats age groups unequally, and that unequal treatment sits badly with the principle of legal equality. They also said the statutory basis for a pensioner deduction on earned income is not clear enough. A 7 to 4 vote with an abstention is a majority. It is not a settled doctrine. The draft that comes back will have to answer the equality point in text, or it will meet the same objection on the floor.
A neighbouring proposal was parked. Motion 24.4517, already passed by the National Council, would exempt the earned income of AHV pensioners from direct federal tax altogether. The Senate committee decided, by 8 votes to 4, to suspend that debate until the administration produces a report on what the exemption would cost. A deduction the cantons may offer, and a full exemption from federal tax, are different bills. The committee has opened the first and frozen the second.
What a household should not assume yet
Nobody retiring this winter gets a new line on the tax return because of Tuesday’s vote. The National Council committee still has to draft the law. Both chambers then have to pass it. Cantons would still have to decide whether to use the permission, and how far. Critics will keep the equality argument alive, and the fiscal report on a full federal exemption is not written. The labour-market case is the one the majority has adopted: experienced staff are scarce, and a lighter tax on pay after retirement is a way to keep them without raising the pension age. The December pension is a promise already made. This one is a draft that has cleared its first two committee doors, and no further.