Swiss voters rejected a proposal for a nationwide unconditional basic income on 5 June 2016. It received 23.06% of the vote, and no canton approved it. The measure was an initiative to create a constitutional mandate—not an existing program that voters were asked to repeal.
What the Swiss basic income initiative proposed
Submitted on 4 October 2013 with 126,408 valid signatures, the initiative sought to add a provision to Switzerland’s constitution directing the Confederation to introduce an unconditional basic income. The Federal Social Insurance Office describes the submitting group as politically independent and confessionally neutral. The office’s summary of the initiative says payments would go to people living in Switzerland regardless of their income or wealth, with the aim of enabling a dignified existence and participation in public life without employment.
The initiative did not promise a specific payment
The ballot text left both the amount and the funding method open. If it had passed, Parliament—and potentially voters—would have had to settle those questions. Campaigners mentioned CHF 2,500 per month for adults and CHF 625 for minors, but those were illustrative figures, not amounts specified by the initiative. SWI swissinfo.ch’s contemporary report also notes that campaigners did not set a binding amount.
How the vote turned out
The nationwide vote took place on 5 June 2016. According to the Swissvotes record for vote 601, 23.06% voted yes, every one of the 23 cantonal votes rejected the proposal, and turnout was 46.95%. News coverage sometimes rounds the national result to 23.1% yes and 76.9% no.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
The initiative was one of five national issues put to voters that day, according to the Federal Council’s record of the 5 June 2016 vote.
Why the government opposed it—and what the cost figure means
The Federal Council and Parliament opposed the initiative. The Federal Social Insurance Office summarized the government’s position as a warning that a basic income could weaken the economy and social-security system, and that financing it would require substantial savings or tax increases. In the parliamentary vote record, the National Council’s position was 19 yes to 157 no; in the Council of States it was 1 yes to 40 no. The Federal Council also opposed the measure.
Rank #2
- It includes the Bill of Rights and all amendments
- Package of three pocket constitutions with ROUNDED corners
- Leather Looking Cover
- Package of three pocket constitutions
SWI swissinfo.ch reported on 5 June 2016 that the government warned the proposal could cost more than CHF 200 billion annually. That was a reported government estimate, not a cost fixed by the initiative or an independently verified estimate for a fully specified plan: the proposal left both the payment level and financing unresolved. Opponents also raised concerns about the value of work and possible encouragement of immigration; these were campaign arguments, not demonstrated effects of a program that was never implemented.
What supporters argued
Supporters presented an unconditional income as a way to protect dignity and expand people’s freedom to choose how to live, including pursuing more creative work. They also framed it as a response to disruption caused by technological change. The disagreement was therefore not only about affordability: it also concerned how income security should relate to employment and existing social protections.
What the result does—and does not—tell us
The vote establishes that the proposal was decisively rejected; it does not establish why individual voters opposed it or prove that any one campaign argument caused the result. The available vote and contemporary coverage document the positions put forward by government opponents and campaign supporters, but do not provide a directly quoted published survey statistic identifying voters’ motivations.
Claude Longchamp, identified in SWI swissinfo.ch’s 5 June 2016 report as a senior political scientist, said: “The campaigners failed to present a convincing funding scheme for their proposal. But they managed to launch a broad debate about an unconditional basic income.” Interior Minister Alain Berset said at a news conference: “Our welfare system has been tried and tested over the years and there is no need for a revolution.” These remarks capture two prominent interpretations of the campaign, not a measured account of every voter’s reasoning.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- Luxurious full-grain calfskin leather binding, aging gracefully and becoming more beautiful with use. Pocket size: 3.13 x 5.25 inches.
- 160 cream-white, acid-free pages with gilt edges, meeting ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 standards for permanence, and smyth-sewn for strength and longevity.
- Includes an impressive array of documents, revealing the ideas, aspirations, and differing views of the founding fathers.
- Published and bound in the United States of America, using paper sourced from renewable resources. Ideal commemorative gift for America's 250th year anniversary
- Ships in a Signature Graphic Image gift box, perfect for presenting as a gift or adding to your collection.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
