Will keep this in mind thanks
I suggest to base your decision primarily on your wife’s risk tolerance, and not consider it as a general investment strategy exercise. If she is risk-averse, she might be more comfortable in life having a big second pillar then to get stuck with a 7 digit portfolio at IB if you happen to die soon or before her. You might even consider it as a kind of life insurance and potentially diminished return as a premium for it - though you are never going to get a return on fixed income in CHF even close to that of 2nd pillar.
The concerns about regulatory changes are valid, though. Personally I don’t expect any problems from this direction.
P.S. And it is also an insurance on her life and working ability that will pay if she unexpectedly dies or becomes disabled. But you should check if and how buy-ins increase coverage by these two insurance components.
4 Likes
Also it seems there are some rules if you leave Switzerland within 3 years of buying in. You may need to refund some taxes.
AHV and 2nd pillar cannot be rolled into one. Because they are not the same things.
If it’s for future then maybe . But current capital in 2nd pillar cannot get moved to AHV pool because that would be financial crime and akin to take money from someone‘s bank account.
one can argue that maybe the mandatory portion is something that can be bundled with AHV because both are regulated and have govt mandated withdrawal rates. But the rest is a personal account for individuals
Nothing an initiative cannot change.
Is it likely? Most probably not. But in Switzerland with initiatives things can change drastically. The saving grace I guess is that most things take time to happen (although, again, nothing an initiative cannot change, it could be with immediate effect after the vote).
1 Like
I see this as the main point. Look back in the history of initiatives and tell me three initiatives that have changed things drastically two or three years after they have been accepted. I don’t think there will be a result.
I personally think the bigger threat comes from a public that demands ever increasing government service and our government and administration that is not able to cut costs. These two factors therefore result in the need to increase revenue. To come back to this topic: see the proposal for increasing the tax on lump sum withdrawal of 2nd pillar as an example.
Agreed.
Similar to a situation where an initiative and vote can lead to 5% wealth tax for people with wealth about 200K. Hypothetically everything is possible. Why stop at 2nd pillar when there is bigger fish to fry (total wealth)
I just think this doesn’t make sense
1 Like
Not sure if this is a relief to read or not…?
just like everything else, we need to differentiate between probability and possibility.