Partners Group founder backs tax on companies hiring EU workers

A proposed levy could put a direct price on recruiting from the European Union. Alfred Gantner, the billionaire co-founder of Swiss asset manager Partners Group, wants companies to pay an immigration tax when they hire EU workers. He says the proceeds should return to the population and that the charge would push employers to consider Swiss candidates more seriously.

The proposal arrives as immigration remains a live issue in Bern. Swiss parliamentarians have already debated measures linked to rising foreign-worker numbers, while the Council of States has pressed the government to go further on the safeguard clause relating to immigration. Gantner’s plan would add a financial instrument to that debate.

Under his model, employers would pay between 1% and 5% of an EU employee’s salary over five years. The rate would depend on earnings, with lower salaries attracting the smaller charge. Gantner used a worker earning CHF 81,000 annually to illustrate the impact: the employer would pay roughly CHF 20,000 over five years.

The proposal targets hiring decisions inside companies, while its suggested revenue stream would reach households across Switzerland. Gantner has not presented the scheme as a government measure currently in force. It is a political proposal from a prominent business figure who is also campaigning for a more distant relationship with the EU.

Gantner says the tax would change how employers compare Swiss and foreign candidates. He pointed to Partners Group’s own recruitment choices, saying the firm currently faces no meaningful cost difference when it hires for its Zug office from Bologna, Frankfurt or Paris.

“If companies would incur additional costs for recruiting overseas, they would have a genuine preference for Swiss talent,” Gantner told the Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Wochenende. His argument rests on a simple calculation: adding a levy to an overseas hire could make a domestic candidate more attractive when qualifications and salary expectations are otherwise comparable.

The proposed charge would vary with pay. Gantner said it could reach 5% for higher salaries and fall to 1% for lower salaries, although the source does not specify the thresholds or the precise formula. The example of a CHF 81,000 annual salary produces a total burden of about CHF 20,000 across five years, equivalent to roughly CHF 4,000 per year.

That cost would be paid by employers, rather than deducted directly from workers’ wages under the proposal as described. Its effect would therefore depend on how companies respond. Employers could absorb the charge, adjust compensation, change recruitment locations or give greater weight to Swiss applicants. The source does not provide an estimate of how many hires would be affected.

Gantner estimates the proposal could generate CHF 1.35 billion each year. He wants that money distributed to the population, creating a visible return from a charge linked to immigration.

His suggested distribution would prioritise lower earners. Gantner told Schweiz am Wochenende that a four-person household could receive around CHF 4,000 a year if the money were focused on people with the lowest incomes. The source does not set out the eligibility rules, the payment mechanism or whether the benefit would be taxable.

The figures point to a redistribution model rather than a levy whose sole purpose would be to finance administration. The proposal would collect money from companies hiring EU workers and send it back to residents, with the largest relative benefit intended for households on lower incomes. That design could give the measure an appeal beyond immigration policy, particularly as living costs and pressure on household budgets remain central concerns in Swiss politics.

The arithmetic also highlights the scale of the plan. CHF 1.35 billion annually is an estimate, not a budget figure approved by the federal government. Actual receipts would depend on the number of EU workers hired, their salaries, the tax brackets and employers’ responses to the added cost. None of those implementation details has yet been established in the proposal described by Bloomberg.

The proposal enters a political debate that has already reached the Swiss Senate. On September 29, 2026, the Council of States was reported to have taken a tougher position than the government on the safeguard clause concerning immigration. That discussion provides the immediate backdrop for Gantner’s call for a company levy.

The safeguard clause is part of the wider effort to manage Switzerland’s relationship with the European Union and the movement of people. Gantner’s plan would focus on employers and recruitment costs, adding a market-based penalty to the political toolkit. The available source does not say whether the proposal is being considered formally by the Federal Council or Parliament.

Gantner has also built an organisation around his broader EU position. He and the other Partners Group co-founders formed Kompass Europa, a group that campaigns against closer Swiss ties with the bloc. That affiliation places the tax proposal within a wider political programme, even though the measure itself is framed around labour-market incentives and household payments.

For Swiss companies, the details would matter. A levy that applies to all EU hires could affect sectors with persistent recruitment needs, while exemptions, salary bands and enforcement would determine how broadly it reaches. The source provides no sector-by-sector assessment or response from employers, unions or federal authorities.

The proposal would need a detailed legal and economic design before it could move beyond advocacy. Policymakers would have to define which workers qualify as EU hires, how employers report recruitment, how the salary rate is calculated and where the revenue is collected. The source gives only the broad parameters: a charge of 1% to 5% over five years, paid by companies, with proceeds returned to residents.

The plan also leaves open how it would interact with Switzerland’s agreements with the EU. Any measure that treated EU workers or employers differently would require careful examination against the legal framework governing the free movement of people. The available reporting does not include a government assessment, a legal opinion or a reaction from the European Union.

Gantner’s case will now compete with other priorities in the immigration debate: labour shortages, wage levels, pressure on infrastructure and the demand for skilled workers. A higher cost for foreign recruitment could encourage companies to train and promote Swiss residents. It could also raise costs for employers that rely on international hiring, depending on how widely the levy applied.

For now, the proposal is a campaign from one of Switzerland’s most prominent finance figures, not enacted policy. Its next test will be whether political parties, employers and voters treat the suggested CHF 1.35 billion annual revenue as a workable reform or as an argument for a different approach.