Earning more often doesn’t give you a bigger budget. Especially with a family. Interesting calculations as many people here ask about budget and needed income. In places where the child care is subsidized for lower incomes you don’t need to worry and earning more doesn’t help much.
27 comments
I’ve been saying this for years that even on 150k most families are living paycheck to paycheck here, then the politically correct everything is so perfect in Switzerland brigaid starts defending this. What this young couple is saying is absolutely true and it’s far more common than most here understand.
That’s the BS we serve to poor folks ! “Don’t worry, even if you earned more you wouldn’t be happier”
Have you ever seen someone sad while driving a Lamborghini ? /s
I think the system should be limited to one “progressive” factor what are the taxes. Everything else should be subsidized the same without taking the income into consideration. Like this it gets very imbalanced.
To be precise, maybe childcare should be subsidized 50% for all and healthcare subsidized up to 30 years of age at a falling rate (example: 50% for 1yo and 20% for 30yo).
True
[deleted]
There are fringe situations where that might be the case for example if earning a bit more disqualify you for subsidies but for most families earning more is always better.
>According to the Federal Statistical Office, everyone who earns between 70 and 150 percent of the median wage is part of the middle class. In 2020 it was CHF 6665 in Switzerland. This means that all Swiss people with an income between 4,665 and 9,997 francs belonged to the middle class this year.
Is this for family income or individual income?
Honestly I fail to see the scandal in this example. The family with the really tight income (6000/month) gets propped up with some subsidies so that they can make ends meet. Naturally, receiving subsidies brings them closer to the family with the better income (8000/month), but in the end the family with the bigger income still has the bigger budget.
Where’s the drama here? And why is the thread title “earning more doesn’t give you a bigger budget” when the people in the article with the bigger income absolutely do have the bigger budget?
Because they make more money and increase their overhead. Buy a more expensive car, larger apt, bigger vacation.
Oh no.. This article and especially the video are just so.. dumb. The topic itself is very important and they mostly come to the correct conclusion but the authors stumble their way there. I realize it’s 20m so expectations should remain low but still.. The reporters should at least have been a little more critical of what the people in the video say.
Yes, we have inflation but why would you possibly choose pasta with 5.1% as an example? Food is extremely cheap and pasta even more so. With their income of 9000 Fr. they could buy 7 tons of pasta every month. It’s such an irrelevant part of the cost of living increase, completely misleading.
The definition of Mittelstand shouldn’t be used as is without a critical viewpoint. 4665 – 9997 Fr. as a household and being defined as Mittelstand is ridiculous. If you’re a couple earning 5000 Fr. together, that means you’re poor as fuck.
Also not sure how the woman interviewed can one one hand say “Financially we’re in a good place” and then the rest of the video is about her talking about how the money’s tight and living month to month. How is this not something that gets a follow up question..
She also mentions saving for the pension and real estate.. Talk about conflating two things that are in a entirely different ballpark. Their budget has them save 700 Fr. per month. Like no shit real estate is out of reach for you, it’s not even close. Also plays down the extent of the problem so much.. How is the reporter not following this up with “Well obviously it’s out of reach” or at least add some context later.
Guy talking about poverty is also missing the point. We don’t only need an increased minimum wage, we need higher wages across the board.
In the end, the question that always remains is how is it possible that more money than ever is made while people struggle more and more. There’s more than enough money going around. Very, very simple.
600 CHF every month for petrol? 200 for internet and phone? Seems like a lot to me.
They can afford anything she said in the interview.
So what exactly is the problem? In my opinion this is whining on high level.
It’s why social help need to be digressive and not have simple cut off points. The social deductions in Vaud’s direct tax law are a great example: the deductions for lower income households are slowly reduced as income increases, instead of just abruptly stopping because you got a CHF 2/hour raise
20 hirnzelle..
Why thw hell does this “journalism” plague still exists..
Or why do people still read that low-level trash
Sucks to have kids.
Comma, please…
Are those amounts (6000chf/8000chf) the wage (brutto) or is that the amount which arrive on the bank account (netto)?
>often
That’s not what the article says. And the article is already pretty garbage as well. They take two edge cases on either side of being eligible for support for poor families and then claim it’s not worth working more if you lose benefits such as cheaper childcare. And even in their poor example the families get a significant share of their additional earnings. Earning more does give you a bigger budget **even if** it means you stop being eligible for benefits. You out-20min’d 20min. Congratulations.
To be honest I quite agree with the article, I am quite a good earner and my wife is avg, we recently had a kid and our finances took a huge hit.
A kid will cost you 200 chf in health insurance, 1.6 K in kita /3 days a week, 2 days of loss income, so is around 2.5K per month.
2.5K/month will be impactful on every budget.
Other example: a couple I know a surgeon and a team lead in Novartis had twins. For them is better to hire a full time nanny (5K/month); they are also considering if staying is CH is worth it anymore due to the high cost of childcare.
Pretty sad.
My mom has no official degree, not even an apprenticeship, did some pretty shit jobs. My dads only degree was an apprenticeship, no further school, bachelor or higher professional exam. We re 3 kids. We‘ve begun to live in a property flat after the first kid reached the eighth year of life. After everyone reached the legal age we had 30-40K each saved on a kids bank account, all sacrifices of my parents to permit us to do whatever we want, primarily to use it for studies. They also went through some crisis like Lehman bankruptcy. So one has to assume that people crying about 6000-8000K monthly either don‘t know how to save or are not ready to sacrifice, just too candy-asses.
Another thing I can‘t understand is the other dude in the clip who s working in the logistics or something like that. Through his speech you can immagine that he and his wife won’t have the highest education or a high position as a job. So why the hell you put that many kids on the earth?? Why you do this to yourself and to your kids?
8K net is almost 140K annual gross which is on the higher end i guess.
And people really don’t see anything wrong with a system like that? Working should give you a benefit.
That post is stupid af
Let’s look it from another perspective, they calculate both work together 140%.
And for most couples, this means 100% for the husband and 40% for the wife. So, you could argue that our current system discourages woman from participating in the workforce.
Why going to work when it doesn’t matter for your budget?
Come on, that’s just rich people propaganda to lower taxes
8000/month and poor? I guess if you think living in luxury is the norm then yes, but other than that you’re pretty well off with 8000
Wow du hast eine super Quelle. 20min.ch
Tell that to my parents that have 14 kids. We are lucky my dad manage to find a better position when we were younger because the state does not care how many children you have. They only help you to a certain point.