No you’re right about that. See my first post above, or the self-quote below:
3 Likes
What a shame really.
15kchf will have been closer compare to the 20k gbp of the ISA account in UK.
Contributions to UK ISA are not deductible from taxable income. Money can be withdrawn from a UK ISA any time. They are not really comparable.
Overall I would say there are more opportunities in Switzerland to claim pension savings as deductions from taxable income
1 Like
It‘s actually pretty similiar to the US.
Well, it’s politicians after all that represent you in voting on such things, isn’t it?
And the context is somewhat obvious: raising the maximum contributable amount will only benefit a small part of the population. Namely high-earners optimising their taxes.
Since you mention critical thinking, the argument in favour of such bill is also questionable:
„Hess argumentierte in der Begründung des Vorstosses, der Staat habe ein Interesse daran, dass privat für das Alter gespart werde.“
Why? Because it will be saving on means-tested benefits and welfare for people that couldn’t otherwise sustain themselves from their own pension or wealth? Well, the way pillar 3a is currently set up, these people benefit the least from it. As long as it’s not mandatory, low earners will often be better off not making 3a contributions - they may rather enjoy their lives by consuming more before retirement - and relying on Ergänzungs- and Zusatzleistungen later.
The proposed bill doesn’t change that.
7 Likes
Two years after the acceptation of a motion, the Federal Council should have made a proposition. If not, it must explain where we are in the progressing (each year). The object 23.006 regroups all objects. Page 53 of the report :
2020 M 19.3702 Autoriser les rachats dans le pilier 3a (Ettlin Erich)
La mise en œuvre de cette motion est complexe et suppose une coordination entre plusieurs départements et avec les autorités fiscales. Le projet pour la procédure de consultation est en cours d’élaboration. L’échéance est encore incertaine.
1 Like
Yes I’m aware that politicians are just a sample of the population, that doesn’t make it any better though;)
For the record I’m not arguing for higher tax cuts for the rich, and yes this 3a reform would mostly work towards that with its regressive tax behavior. I mean no wonder it benefits mostly the rich, it comes from the SVP and FDP.
What I take issue with is that these numbers are thrown around without context. “Only 10% use it” is a similar logic to “no one bikes in Zürich why should we paint new bike lanes”.
What should be done is price caps on 3a fund fees, and people should be given more control of how their 2nd pillar is invested. But the lobbyists would never allow for that to happen.
1 Like
I agree with you and I would add that such a static description does not take into account the fact that revenues sometimes highly vary through someone’s life, that is, people in lower percentiles of population by income can quickly move to higher percentiles and vice-versa e.g.
- a university or HES student is now among the last 10 or 20% of the population by income, still can suddenly move up among the 50% of people in terms of income when entering the labor market
- a person lowers its revenue by working less, when becoming parent. A few years later comes back to its old income
In my opinion we should think in a more “dynamically” way and allow people to contribute on the 3a as the 2nd by compensating for previous years (with limitations)
4 Likes
If you painted new bike lanes, it would actually attract more cyclists.
If you increased the max. contribution of 3a from 7k to 15k, it would not make for more people contributing to 3a.
I agree on your suggestions though. 
3 Likes