A push to abolish tax rules penalising dual-earner married couples faces conservative resistance

In Switzerland this summer, the quiet rhythms of political life have been shaken by a debate that goes to the heart of how the country treats families and equality in the workplace. The so-called “marriage penalty” — a feature of the tax system that leaves married couples who both work paying more than cohabiting partners — is under intense scrutiny. Reformers say it discourages women from fully participating in the workforce and penalises equality between spouses. But conservative groups, particularly those aligned with traditional family values, are pushing back, warning that abolishing the system would unravel the cultural and fiscal balance that Switzerland has long maintained.

The issue, long debated in Swiss politics, gained new momentum this year after a series of reports revealed that dual-earner married couples can pay thousands of francs more annually than unmarried partners in similar economic circumstances. This discrepancy arises because married couples are taxed jointly, often propelling them into higher income brackets. Critics say the policy reflects an outdated vision of family life, in which one spouse — typically the man — works full time while the other remains at home or works part time.

A proposal currently before parliament seeks to eliminate the marriage penalty by allowing individual taxation, regardless of marital status. Advocates argue that the reform would not only foster fairness but also help address Switzerland’s growing labour shortage. With unemployment low and demographic pressures mounting, policymakers are keen to encourage more women to work longer hours or return to the workforce after raising children. Employers’ associations and feminist groups alike have thrown their weight behind the reform, presenting it as both a moral and economic necessity.

Yet resistance remains strong. Conservative political parties and family advocacy groups caution that the move threatens the very institution of marriage. They argue that joint taxation symbolically recognises the unity of the married couple, rewarding stability and cohesion in family structures. For these groups, the proposed reform risks eroding traditional values at a time when social cohesion is already under strain.

The debate has spilled into public forums and the media, with op-eds, televised debates, and petitions circulating widely. A poll conducted in July indicated that Swiss opinion is sharply divided: 48 percent in favour of individual taxation, 42 percent opposed, and the rest undecided. The split mirrors generational and urban-rural fault lines, with younger city dwellers overwhelmingly supportive of reform and older or rural communities leaning toward preserving the status quo.

Beyond ideology, money plays a decisive role. Estimates suggest that introducing individual taxation could cost the government up to 1.5 billion francs annually in lost revenue, at least initially. Supporters argue that these costs would be offset in the medium term by increased workforce participation and higher overall tax contributions
from dual-earner households. Opponents, however, question whether such optimistic projections will materialise, insisting that Switzerland’s finely balanced federal and cantonal tax systems could be destabilised.

For married couples like Anna and Lukas, a Zurich-based dual-income household, the stakes are tangible. “We love our life together, but it sometimes feels like we’re being punished for being married,” Anna said. “If we were just living together without a certificate, we’d pay less. That doesn’t seem right in 2025.”

The Swiss government has promised to bring the matter to a nationwide referendum if parliament approves the reforms, a move almost certain given Switzerland’s strong tradition of direct democracy. Should the question reach the ballot box, it will likely become one of the defining social policy battles of the decade.

For now, the controversy encapsulates a deeper tension within Switzerland: balancing tradition with modernity, cultural cohesion with gender equality, and fiscal prudence with social justice. As the debate intensifies, Switzerland is forced to ask itself whether the “marriage penalty” reflects the values of the past — or those of the future.