Wer mehr arbeitet, ist selber schuld

本站添加: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]The high national debt and this lazy laziness, they're connected, right? And the old ones, the old ones, uh, or the medieval and old ones, let themselves be made comfortable on credit, and the credit has to be repaid at some point, and those are the ones who are not yet born or who have just been born.

[00:00:19]So, [music] welcome to the Swiss Month. " Those who work are to blame themselves," one could say, if one looks at studies, if one looks at what it means if I work more, if I work 100% instead of only part-time or even longer than the retirement age prescribes, i.e., still work over 65, it seems that the system, i.e., the state-organized systems, are punishing me. I pay more taxes, and I don't get much more from my pension if I work past 65. Would you also say that we actually owe this trend towards part-time work to official systems that penalize us for working more than we actually have to?

[00:01:08]Yes, I think that's the case. There was an interesting study recently conducted by the employers' association, which evaluated this lifestyle part-time work, as it's now called.

[00:01:23]So, people who essentially work part-time, not because they are raising children or caring for relatives, but simply because they have no interest in a full-time position. And this potential is considerable, especially among older employees; for those over 50, it's well over 10% who say they have no interest in a full-time position, and, um, yes, the reasons for this are of course also in government incentives, namely the tax system. If I, as someone who works 100%, now consider whether I should really put myself through this? Should n't I go back to 80%, for example?

[00:02:18]In plain English, that means you work 20% less, but pay 30 or 40% less tax, and then the calculation actually looks very attractive. Does that mean that left-wing policies of taxing those who have more actually lead to people working less? Is that a fair way to put it?

[00:02:41]Yes, ultimately. Um, well, I mean, of course you have to be able to afford it. The study also yielded some interesting results, e.g., it suggests that this is more widespread among older people and significantly more common among Swiss people than among foreigners. That's interesting too. And among academics, especially at a young age, this lifestyle of part-time work is also more common.

[00:03:13]So you could say that the native Swiss, the original Swiss, who have been around here for a while [laughter], have the better jobs, the better educations, are privileged and can afford to have more free time and more pleasant jobs at the expense of the normal working class, if you will.

[00:03:31]Many of them are teachers, for example, and they have much more vacation time than others anyway. Then I read that there are many Swiss people who don't have school-free time, no ur.

[00:03:43]Yes, exactly. Yes. And you also once wrote a wonderful text about the administrative elite, if you will, about how Swiss people usually have a job in administration that is relatively stable and where you don't have to constantly run around the market and prove yourself. So, one could say that, at the expense of the foreign or immigrant population, people are having a very easy time of it. [laughter] Is that a fair way to put it? A bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say? Yes, that's certainly an exaggeration, but um yes, there is some truth to it, as I also wrote in my newsletter, that the local, established population is increasingly withdrawing a bit and that the really productive work is actually being done more or more frequently, or disproportionately often, by foreigners. And that is of course also the connection to the immigration debate that can be made here. So, I believe it is no coincidence that the employers' association published this study shortly before the vote on the 10 Million Switzerland Initiative, because ultimately it's also about the domestic workforce potential that is being lost. So, according to this study, the potential in full-time equivalents would be 86,000 additional workers that could be mobilized here. Potentially.

[00:05:23]Um, and yes, if you can't do that, if you don't utilize this potential domestically, then, um, you'll have higher immigration, depending on the circumstances. Mm. It's a necessity, so it's also possible. I 've also considered that perhaps the demand for skilled workers, because the so-called skilled worker shortage, could ultimately be somewhat alleviated by encouraging people to work more, like 100% more, but it seems to me the biggest problem is, if you look at it individually, which we've been doing in our conversation so far, it's not worth working 100% if you have a [ahem] good job with a certain standard, maybe you're an academic and can afford 80, then it's not worth it. You get pushed into the progressive tax system, you get penalized with taxes, uh, you actually work more for the state and not for yourself, if you can put it that bluntly. But there is also what lies beyond the individual, the collective or societal perspective, the overall responsibility for the future, for one's own children, for the country. And it looks different there. There, you're essentially punishing others, including future generations, if you work less, pay less into the systems, and contribute less to the country. Could one put it so bluntly that one then simply acts in a purely individualistic or selfish way?

[00:06:52]Well, as a liberal, I certainly don't want to dictate to anyone how they should live their life. Well, he can certainly decide that individually. I think everyone should be able to decide how much they want to work. I have absolutely no aversion to part-time work or anything like that.

[00:07:18]I find that perfectly legitimate. However, he or she would have to bear the consequences, and today it is the case that part of the consequences is ultimately borne by the general public in the form of, for example, lost tax revenue.

[00:07:36]And that is, so to speak, the absolute maximum limit of the tax burden that is lost.

[00:07:46]And that certainly makes a difference, because if someone, uh, to put it bluntly, if someone works 80% instead of 100%, it makes more of a difference than if someone, uh, works 0% instead of 20%, because they simply have a higher tax rate and also the uh, the contributions to social security, the taxes that are lost.

[00:08:12]The employers' association estimates this at a total of 2 to 3 billion Swiss francs per year. And that is of course not insignificant in terms of revenue that is being lost.

[00:08:25]Mhm.

[00:08:26]So the problem is ultimately that it's no longer really worth working. We see this also in the area of ​​retirement provision, i.e., working beyond retirement age.

[00:08:39]Many people do it because they like it, but financially it's not really worthwhile, there are no great incentives for it and that's a bit of a problem we have. This is of course poison for the competitiveness and future viability of this country.

[00:08:55]Mhm.

[00:08:56]What would be a good solution now, from a liberal perspective? So, the systems would have to be designed in such a way that you would be rewarded if you worked more. That would actually be the only solution.

[00:09:06]Yes, the solution isn't quite simple, because one could actually say, uh, well, in principle we have the principle in the constitution that we tax according to economic capacity, and if someone uh works 80% or 60%, even though they could work 100% and uh could easily do so, then uh, one would actually have to logically tax this leisure time as well, because leisure time, the additional leisure time, is not taxed, unlike additional wages when one earns additional wages. Um, and consequently, one would actually have to tax that. We just do n't want to punish people who, for example, look after children or relatives, or are still doing some kind of training or something, and therefore work part-time. Yes, uh, that exists too. And accordingly, one should actually be able to focus precisely on this lifestyle part-time work, but that's not possible without some kind of surveillance state that keeps a close eye on people and watches what they do in their free time. Um, and that, I think, is the problem.

[00:10:27]Therefore, um, I think it's not easy to find a truly convincing solution, but I believe a good starting point would be to at least flatten the progression a little to strengthen the incentives to work more.

[00:10:49]Mhm. How is that?

[00:10:50]Absolutely.

[00:10:52]Yes, well, I certainly don't think it's liberal if the state interferes even more. He should really stay out of it even more, but I think he's interfering when he punishes people who work harder. He's already interfering.

[00:11:03]So, he should actually step back even more and say, uh, find a tax system where people are not penalized for earning more money. That's for sure, and that it might even be worth working longer than 65, so that I don't get absolutely nothing out of it, but rather something out of it. It doesn't have to be much.

[00:11:23]But the center, I believe the center of the fundamental problem between the generations, between the capable and the less capable, is the so- called solidarity. So, a value, a value that we live by or not live by. So, the perspective is, I only look at myself and I only look at what I like or what serves me.

[00:11:46]Perspective alone does not hold a Z society together. So, you need a value that transcends yourself, and if you no longer have that—and we no longer have that either, there's no longer any consensus about values ​​or, um, uh— then you as a society have a problem anyway, and then you can create as many incentives as you want. Everyone then looks for their own loophole.

[00:12:06]Mhm.

[00:12:06]So somehow, it seems to me that this debate ultimately leads to a debate about who we are and how we position ourselves, also morally, or if I see, for example, how the old treat the young, that they have the next generation pay for their 13 pensions, that they have the next generation pay for their public broadcasting with their pension-funded channels, when they are essentially ruthlessly collecting money. Yes. Well, although they are getting older and actually, I don't know, maybe they won't work for 20 or 30 years, but they let the younger generation make a fortune off them, it doesn't surprise me when the young people now say, well, I'm only looking out for myself now.

[00:12:49]So, [ahem] one has to understand, it's a deeper problem than just a bill or an incentive that the state gives or doesn't give. But the first step would be to say, okay, the state no longer penalizes higher incomes. That would be great and it would be possible. I believe that would be possible. Well, you'd have the leftists against you, who are obsessed with higher taxes, that's always the case, but not others. They might not have been against each other. I don't know how you see it, but I think it would be realistic to simply abolish punishment, wouldn't it? Exactly. Yes, I completely agree with you.

[00:13:20]But that's an interesting point you're making. Um, but if that's true, then it's actually surprising that part-time work isn't more widespread among young people, that they do n't just say: "Hey, why should I support the boomers? Um, I'm going to take a step back and enjoy life a bit." It's actually a positive sign that the younger generation is still full of energy and motivated to work.

[00:13:56]But maybe that will come, maybe it's just a delayed reaction because they can't afford it yet, because young people generally earn less.

[00:14:03]Sure. Yes. And as soon as they find themselves in a situation where the pay is reasonably good, between 80,000 and 120,000 a year, it starts to make sense to step back.

[00:14:15]I think then they will.

[00:14:17]Unless, and this is my point, they have a moral code, a classic conservative moral code... Uh, I tell them, but it's not just about you, [laughter] it's also about your family and the future of the country, and then, well, it's not conservative.

[00:14:35]I would, I would now reconcile this morality with liberalism or with others, well.

[00:14:41]Liberalism and conservatism do n't contradict each other. So it 's not an either/or. But morality definitely presupposes that I don't just look out for myself, or then, uh, it's not like that. Then the calculation isn't simply about me, but about others too. And then I think differently. I think about my children, I also think about my country. It could also be a little patriotism, which isn't bad, I think. And then I think differently, right? But one could also say from a societal perspective: "Yes, well, um, we're realigning our priorities now." We say we don't want to work so much. Working makes you sick anyway, and like the French or us, we'll reduce working hours to 36 hours or 32 or whatever, and um, decide as a society that working is no longer so important for us. That would also be an option.

[00:15:38]Yes, but that's a lie, or the lie is that we can afford it, and that's not true.

[00:15:45]Yes, one can afford it. One simply cannot, uh, one simply must not complain that prosperity, for example, also declines. And then people quickly become dissatisfied, right? Well, no, no, but that's not true. They're all living on credit, the high national debt and this lazy laziness, it's all connected, isn't it? And the old people, the old ones or the medieval and old ones, let themselves be made comfortable on credit, and the credit has to be repaid at some point, and these are the ones who are not yet born or who have just been born. And that 's unfair, it's unjust, and it's a lie, mostly a self-lie, that I can afford it. That's not true at all. I live on credit and at the expense of the generation that comes after me. That's the truth. Unless you 're super rich, but then it's not the case anyway, that's not the majority. So, uh, it's already a lie.

[00:16:41]It is a lie, and the claim that the state is constantly growing and that debts are constantly increasing is also due to the fact that people are working less and less and think they can afford it, but they are actually living on credit.

[00:16:53]Mm. How much do you actually work?

[00:16:56]You're also part-time, so basically always 150, but I try to only work 100. And you?

[00:17:03][laughter] Yes, on paper 100%.

[00:17:07]Exactly, on paper. But we are, well, I am a workaholic, I admit that. Uh, I'm trying to improve myself and do less work anyway, but we also have, so I feel privileged, I do work that I enjoy, or of course there are people who have really stupid jobs, and I understand that they want to work less, to be honest.

[00:17:27]But our fundamental problem, for me, is that if you make a purely ego-driven calculation, a purely ego-driven calculation, then it's really not worth working anymore. It's like this: if you're privileged, then it's stupid, uh, actually, uh, uh, to finance the state and the systems that only drain me, uh, while other people who are lazy around are even rewarded for it. That's really the problem. And also, incidentally, in the immigration debate, when people, uh, the opponents of the 10 million initiative, who also have good arguments, say that a cap is not a good thing, I don't believe that, planned economy and so on, but when they now bring up the age, the pension systems and the skilled workers, then they are concealing the essential point. We need more skilled workers because we don't work enough ourselves, and we basically ca n't maintain the retirement age, which is now 65, regardless of foreigners, because people are getting older and older. The media, uh, the medical system has been so successful that we are all getting older and older, and then we can't say we can continue to retire at 65, and then you'll be half-90 today, and then you can practically spend half your life without working, and then you can afford it. That's just fiction anyway. We live in a fiction anyway, and that really needs to be said; you can't just take the foreigner debate or the migration debate and link them without telling people the truth. And some politician should say that we have to work longer anyway because we're getting older, but nobody says that because otherwise you're politically finished. You can see that in France, if that's exactly right. Yes, nobody has that much backbone. But actually, it's a positive thing that we're all getting older and, um, yes, we also have more free time as a result, or more time off work.

[00:19:25]Even if we raise the retirement age now, we will still, um, in some cases, have a higher proportion, or in absolute numbers a higher proportion, of more time for leisure and other things. Um, and overall, working hours are also decreasing, so that 's also positive. But, um, I mean, the foreigners are also getting older, right? That's something you have to consider, because those who do simply disappear when they reach retirement age. Exactly. That's something that's never said. They will also be very healthy and perhaps even live to 90. Yes, and they will also have fewer children once they are here than, uh, so that means the problem will be postponed a little, but it will still exist. And the problem is, we have no coupling, no link between retirement age and life expectancy. There is no connection, and as long as this is not linked to the fact that life expectancy is decisive, the average life expectancy and not some fixed age, the pension problem will persist. And, uh, that's a bit of a uh, yeah, just a deceitful story, when the opponents of the 10 million initiative link this together now.

[00:20:41]Of course, they actually want to; they know perfectly well that most people who go to vote are older and they want to scare them. So, if you take the initiative now, your pension is at risk. That's the message, or is it like back then with public television? If the broadcaster goes under, then there won't be any democracy left, right? So, it's a fear campaign, they're always very good at that and it might even work a little, but it's not honest. Well, we'd have to talk about it, and otherwise, I've already described my solution for the migration policy, and it's now being branded as far-right, but I'll say it again clearly: everyone should be allowed to come, everyone should have a chance, but there will be no state benefits for 10 years. You first have to pay in and have a job, and then you can also benefit, like in a normal insurance system.

[00:21:33]Just take a look. Let's take a look. So let's hope the debate continues and that it might eventually lead to people no longer being punished for working for me.

[00:21:42]That would be wonderful, even from a liberal perspective, wouldn't it? Exactly.

[00:21:47]Thanks for the chat, Lukas. Thank you for listening and watching.

[00:21:51]Support us, subscribe to our channel, subscribe to our magazine, become a member of Schweizermonat and visit us regularly at schweizeremonat.ch. We have daily news updates for you there. [music] อ