Companies shall pay an immigration levy of up to 15 percent of the wages to employees from the EU.

Companies should pay an immigration levy of up to 15 percent of wages for employees from the EU EU skeptics demand a levy for workers from the European Union. This is intended to make immigration more bearable for the population. However, there is a catch. Net immigration into Switzerland is weakening. In the first half of the year, it decreased by 12.5 percent to around 30,000 people, which is also due to increased emigration. In June, the electorate also rejected the initiative against the "10-million-Switzerland," with a good 55 percent of the votes. Nevertheless, immigration and freedom of movement with the EU remain political sticking points. The Vox analysis by GfS Bern showed that 62 percent of those voting no share the view that the infrastructure in Switzerland is increasingly overloaded. The EU-skeptic organization Kompass/Europe assumes that a similar initiative could be adopted next time if politics do not act. The federal government omits the negative consequences of immigration, said Alfred Gantner, one of the three founders of Kompass and the investment company Partners Group, to the media on Monday in Zurich. He named rising rents or overloaded roads and trains. Therefore, there is a need for a system that involves the broad population. Kompass proposes imposing an immigration levy. In a first phase, companies that recruit workers from the EU should pay such a levy for five years. Over one billion francs annually Based on a study, the organization has developed a model to implement the project. Employers should pay a levy of 1 to 15 percent of their gross salary, directly through the AHV payroll. For an annual income of 75,000 francs, the levy amounts to 3,000 francs per year. For an employee from the EU earning between 120,000 and 140,000 francs, a company would be burdened with 9,600 to 11,200 francs. For salaries of over 400,000 francs, a levy of 60,000 francs per year would be due. The more immigration increases, the higher the revenues are. Kompass calculates around 1.35 billion francs annually. How the money is used will be decided by politics. An infrastructure fund would be conceivable. Gantner, however, prefers that the funds be fully returned to the population without distribution struggles in federal government. He said that 15 percent of the revenues should benefit the least income-holders. They suffered most from the consequences of immigration. According to Kompass, the model is simple to implement, quickly adaptable, and least susceptible to particular interests. "Companies should still be allowed to recruit abroad, but the benefit of immigration should be distributed more fairly," said Gantner. The Partners Group also frequently hired personnel from abroad in recent years. "One does what is easiest for one," Gantner admitted. However, hiring from abroad would cost 30,000 francs more in the future; the company must weigh this and perhaps look for personnel in Lucerne or St. Gallen first. Thus, Switzerland finally gets a functioning domestic preference. EU compensation Controlling immigration through price is a market economic instrument – unlike planned quotas. However, a central principle of the freedom of movement agreement is not to discriminate against employees from EU member states. A general levy would contradict this. Kompass speaks of a "Plan B for freedom of movement." Terminating the agreement is not the goal, said Gantner. Switzerland should introduce the levy and see how Brussels reacts. Even during trade negotiations with the USA, he observed how much Switzerland aligns with EU conformity. One should not be forbidden to think this way. Gantner proposes a creative solution. "Perhaps one would have to show the EU that the levy also benefits them." Some of the revenues could flow to the EU as compensation for the training of skilled workers. Gantner does not expect that they would terminate the bilateral agreements because of the levy – and even if they did, the consequences for Switzerland would be limited. The employers' association rejects a general immigration levy because it is not compatible with freedom of movement. Furthermore, there is a fundamental conflict of interest, says the chief economist Patrick Chuard-Keller. A high levy has little steering effect, while a high levy makes recruiting urgently needed workers more difficult. Depending on market conditions, this burdened employees through lower wages, companies through lower margins, or consumers through higher prices. That the proposed progressive model unduly increases the recruitment of highly productive skilled workers is hardly sensible from an economic point of view. The Council of States has also recently expressed support for an immigration levy, within the framework of the new EU treaty package that Gantner and his allies are fighting against. Employers would have to pay 4,000 francs per employee from an EU state annually and EU citizens would have to pay 2,000 francs if they allow family members to follow. The federal government could take this measure for a limited time if it invokes the protection clause due to "serious problems" with immigration. This way, the levy would remain compatible with freedom of movement. However, this model is too short-sighted for Gantner, as proactive action is excluded by it.