Vaud
Vaud voters to decide on proposed 12% tax cut
Voters in Vaud will decide on September 27 whether to cut cantonal income and wealth taxes by 12%. Supporters describe the proposal as a boost to purchasing power, while opponents warn that it could damage public finances.

On 27 September 2026, Vaud voters will decide whether to cut cantonal income and wealth taxes by 12%. The ballot has become one of the canton’s most closely watched votes in recent years, with business groups presenting it as a direct boost to household purchasing power and the cantonal government warning of a lasting hole in public finances.
The initiative covers cantonal taxes only. Municipal taxes would remain unchanged, meaning the final effect on household bills would vary according to where taxpayers live. Supporters say the measure would give middle class households more room in their budgets and make Vaud more competitive with other Swiss cantons.
The campaign began with three business organisations: the Vaud Employers’ Association, the Chamber of Real Estate and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They gathered more than 28,000 signatures in 2023, over twice the number required to force a vote.
The government, left wing parties and trade unions oppose the proposal. They argue that Vaud already faces rising costs and that the tax reduction would leave elected officials with a difficult choice between cutting services and finding new revenue. The result will shape both household finances and the canton’s spending debate.
A High Tax Burden Drives the Campaign
Vaud posted a tax burden index of 131 in the latest detailed federal comparison, against 100 for Switzerland as a whole. The figure places the canton at the top of the comparison for individuals and gives supporters their strongest argument: residents pay unusually high cantonal taxes and deserve relief.
The initiative’s backers say Vaud can absorb the reduction by controlling expenditure. Their case rests on the direction of the canton’s accounts. Tax receipts have continued to grow, while recurrent spending has risen faster, particularly since 2022. Business organisations describe the problem as one of spending discipline rather than insufficient revenue.
The figures have made the tax debate especially relevant for households that do not qualify for substantial targeted support. Vaud provides health insurance subsidies to eligible residents, including families of four with household income below CHF 85,500. Many middle income households contribute to the system but receive little or no assistance.
Supporters frame the 12% reduction as a broad correction rather than a special concession. Every taxpayer would receive the same percentage reduction in cantonal income and wealth tax. The absolute saving would still be larger for people who currently pay more, a point that opponents use to challenge the initiative’s fairness.
Spending Pressures Sharpen the Fiscal Fight
The cantonal public sector wage bill has risen by roughly CHF 500 million since 2022. Vaud’s accounts also show growing costs linked to refugee support, health insurance subsidies and a larger public workforce. The government’s opponents point to these figures as evidence that the canton should first tighten spending. The government sees them as reasons to protect revenue.
Salary scale increases, inflation linked pay rises and additional staff have all contributed to the wage bill. Refugee related spending has added pressure, particularly following the arrival of Ukrainians after Russia’s full scale invasion. Labour market integration has progressed slowly. By the end of 2025, only 36% of working age Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Vaud in 2022 were in work, according to the cited figures.
Health insurance subsidies have also expanded. The programme directs support toward lower and some middle income households, but the structure leaves much of the broader middle class outside its reach. Those households continue to finance the system through taxes while receiving little direct benefit.
For supporters, these trends strengthen the case for forcing spending restraint. For the government, they show why a permanent revenue reduction would arrive at the wrong moment. The vote therefore links tax policy to choices about staffing, social support and integration.