Expenditure-based taxation — the «lump-sum tax» or forfait — lets certain wealthy foreign nationals resident in Switzerland but not working there be taxed not on their real income and wealth, but on their standard of living. Geneva, an international hub, is among the cantons that make the heaviest use of this regime, regularly denounced on the left as a privilege.
On 30 November 2014 Geneva voters had already rejected, by nearly 70 %, two initiatives to abolish the lump-sum tax outright. It remained to bring cantonal law into line with the new harmonised federal statute: the Grand Council therefore passed law 11683 (October 2015), raising the minimum taxable expenditure to CHF 400,000 and factoring wealth into the calculation. The left launched a referendum, once again demanding abolition.
On 5 June 2016 Geneva voters accepted the law by 53.97 % to 46.03 %. The canton confirmed the retention of the lump-sum regime, now aligned with the stricter federal requirements. The debate, open for years, closed — at least for a while.
▲ Yes — retention accepted Yes to retention: 53.97 % (law 11683) Minimum taxable expenditure raised to CHF 400,000 Backed by the State Council, the right and business | ▼ No — abolition rejected No: 46.03 % — for abolition The left’s referendum, a second attempt after 2014 The regime deemed «unfair» by its opponents |
The forces at play
▲ Yes camp (keeping the lump sum) • State Council and the cantonal tax administration • Liberals, the Centre, MCG and the Swiss People’s Party, the Grand Council majority • Chamber of Commerce (CCIG) and business circles | ▼ No camp (abolition) • Socialists, Greens and solidaritéS, the referendum’s authors • Unions and tax-justice associations • The far left, favouring outright abolition |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Abolishing the lump-sum tax would drive away tax revenue and jobs. «Geneva can close the debate: these taxpayers bring money to the canton» (CCIG, 2016). ✓~ Rather borne out by other cantons’ experience. Geneva kept its lump-sum taxpayers and the associated revenue. The Zurich case — abolition voted in 2009 — showed that a large share of lump-sum taxpayers do leave the canton after abolition, which lends weight to the flight risk invoked. Source: ZH 2009 vote and follow-up studies; Geneva tax administration. Aligning with harmonised federal law is a reasonable compromise. «Better a regulated, tightened lump sum than a leap into the unknown» (Yes camp, 2016). ✓ Confirmed. The regime was stabilised and tightened (CHF 400,000 threshold, wealth taken into account); it remains in force in Geneva in 2026, with no fresh challenge at the ballot box since the vote. Source: LIPP art. 14 (rsGE D 3 08); state of the law 2026. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Lump-sum taxes are unfair: they tax the standard of living, not real income. «A tax privilege reserved for wealthy foreigners» (referendum committee, 2016). ~ A fairness judgement, not settleable by facts. This is a values debate that observation does not resolve. One can only note that the contested regime was retained, then tightened, and continues to draw recurrent criticism over equality before the tax. Source: parliamentary debates and campaigns, 2014-2016. The risk of tax flight if abolished is greatly exaggerated. «They wave the bogeyman of the rich fleeing to block any reform» (opponents, 2016). ✗~ Rather disproved. Zurich’s experience, having abolished the lump-sum tax in 2009, suggests on the contrary that a sizeable share of those affected left the canton, giving weight to the opposing argument rather than to this playing-down. Source: post-abolition monitoring in the canton of Zurich, from 2010. |
The reckoning, a decade later
05.06.2016 Date of the vote | 53.97 % Yes to retention | CHF 400,000 Minimum taxable expenditure | 2014 Abolition already rejected |
Geneva’s 5 June 2016 vote closed, for a time, a tax saga running for years. By accepting, with nearly 54 %, the tightened version of expenditure-based taxation, the electorate confirmed the choice already made in 2014: Geneva keeps its lump-sum regime, but in a tighter form compliant with federal law.
On the ground of facts, the Yes camp’s central argument — the flight risk if abolished — finds support in the Zurich experience, where the 2009 abolition did trigger departures. Conversely, the opponents’ thesis playing down that risk comes out weakened.
Yet the heart of the disagreement — is the lump sum «fair»? — by its nature escapes verification: it is a question of equity, not a forecast. The vote did not settle that moral debate; it merely decided, by a narrow majority, not to touch it.