On 8 February 2009, the canton of Vaud accepted a wide-ranging tax reform: the tax shield (“bouclier fiscal”) — capping the taxation of income and wealth — passed with 61.75% Yes, while the package of relief for families and businesses was endorsed by 70.7%. Subjected to a referendum, the reform comfortably survived the ballot box.
Championed by the State Council and its finance minister Pascal Broulis (FDP/PLR), the tax shield aims to prevent taxation deemed confiscatory for wealthy taxpayers — their cantonal and municipal burden may not exceed 60% of net income — in order to keep large taxpayers in the canton. The hard left and the unions denounced a gift to the richest.
More than fifteen years later, the issue resurfaced in the worst possible way: an expert report found that the tax shield had been applied unlawfully between 2009 and 2021. This briefing tests the promises and fears of 2009 against the facts established since.
▲ Overall result Reform accepted: tax shield 61.75% Yes, relief for families and businesses 70.7% Yes. The referendum launched against the reform was rejected. | ▼ Voting map A clear Yes, broader still for the family relief (70.7%) than for the tax shield (61.75%): it was precisely the cap on the taxes of the wealthiest that most divided Vaud's electorate. |
Key actors
▲ Yes camp (reform) • Vaud State Council, Pascal Broulis (FDP/PLR, finance) (architect of the reform) • FDP/PLR and SVP/UDC Vaud (centre-right majority) • CVCI and business circles (tax competitiveness) | ▼ No camp (referendum sponsors) • The hard left: POP, solidaritéS (referendum against the reform) • Unions, including the SSP-Vaud (“gift to the richest”) • Critics of tax competition (loss of public revenue) |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Easing taxes for families and the middle class « The reform will make the canton less fiscally “hellish” for families and the middle class. » ✓ Confirmed The relief package for families and businesses, endorsed by 70.7%, was indeed implemented and lowered the tax burden of many Vaud households. Source: Canton of Vaud, 2009 tax reform A targeted, well-controlled instrument « The tax shield will benefit only those taxpayers genuinely threatened by confiscatory taxation. » ✗ Refuted An expert report (2025) revealed unlawful application from 2009 to 2021: of 2,793 taxpayers who benefited from the shield, only 946 were entitled to it under the legal criteria. A “computer routine” produced erroneous results. Source: RTS / Le Temps; Paychère report (2025) Retaining large taxpayers and preserving attractiveness « Without the shield, the wealthy will leave the canton; with it, Vaud stays attractive. » ✓~ Partially confirmed Vaud remained an attractive and financially sound canton. But the causal link with the shield alone is disputed, and its true cost was badly underestimated during the campaign. Source: Canton of Vaud; cantonal tax analyses | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A tax gift to the rich that empties the coffers « The shield will deprive the state of revenue for the sole benefit of a handful of the privileged. » ✓ Confirmed The state puts the theoretical shortfall from the shield's mis-application between 2009 and 2021 at around 202 million francs — union estimates run far higher. Source: Canton of Vaud; RTS (2026) A benefit concentrated on a minority « Only a handful of wealthy taxpayers will really profit from the scheme. » ✓ Confirmed The shield concerned only a few thousand taxpayers (2,793 recorded beneficiaries), confirming a benefit heavily concentrated at the top of the income and wealth pyramid. Source: cantonal audits; RTS (2026) An opaque mechanism, hard to control « This complex scheme will be hard to apply correctly and to monitor. » ✓ Confirmed The unlawful application dragged on for thirteen years without correction; in 2026 the SSP-Vaud filed a criminal complaint for disloyal management and abuse of authority. “Bouclier fiscal” was named word of the year 2025. Source: RTS; Le Temps (2025-2026) |
Factual assessment
4 Confirmed | 1 Partially confirmed | 0 Partially refuted | 1 Refuted |
The 2009 tax reform had two faces. The first — relief for families and the middle class — kept its promise without controversy.
The second — the tax shield — became, fifteen years on, one of the canton's biggest political embarrassments. The opponents of 2009 who saw in it a costly, poorly controlled gift to the wealthiest were overtaken by the facts: thirteen years of unlawful application, some 202 million in lost revenue, a criminal complaint and a parliamentary inquiry.
The Yes camp was not wrong about attractiveness or family relief. But its promise of a targeted, controlled instrument shattered against a faulty “computer routine” and years of deficient oversight. In Lausanne, the shield ended up wounding those who carried it.