In his recent piece on ‘Protestant pragmatism’ (“Ireland requires a ‘Protestant pragmatist’ approach where power gets transferred to the public”, News Review, March 23rd), David McWilliams has arguably overlooked Switzerland’s unique taxation model. Switzerland’s tax system is tiered three ways: the federal level pertaining to the national government, the cantonal, the equivalent of county, and the communal applicable to towns or villages. Each of these layers has the autonomy to alter their tax rates according to their specific expenditure requirements and, in the case of communes and cantons, position themselves competitively against one another. This setup helps prevent the centralisation of tax earnings in the capital, instead dispersing them politically across regions.
This competitive landscape fosters a prudent approach towards taxpayers’ contributions. Residents tend to display less hostility towards taxation in this communal level model since they can witness their taxes being allocated tangible things like local schools, roadworks and sanitation in their village. My yearly tax statements reveal around 10% of my total tax contributions are sent to the capital, with a further 20% going to the village in which I reside (home to approximately 3,500 inhabitants), leaving the rest for the canton.
Switzerland’s renowned for its watches, chocolates and private banks, yet some would argue the nation’s most important export should be its governing model. If unification is in Ireland’s future, the opportunity would present itself for the nation to abandon the inherited British governmental structure, widely considered to be flawed. -Yours faithfully,
Kevin Higgins,
Founex,
Switzerland.