In the NZZ article:
Yet, in an article criticizing incomplete calculations, they fail to mention that you’d typically generate (taxable) income out of the capital withdrawn, along with being taxed on wealth, at least on Cantonal level 
Complicated topic 
Well, I would buy gold from that CHF 800’000 and melt into a nice ten and a half kilo cube featuring an 8.15cm edge and place it on my desk.
I would occasionally caress it, but it wouldn’t create any taxable income.
(more modern people could of course buy crypto to accomplish something similar)
I think because they are only compare taxes on withdrawals
If we start adding returns on capital, then even the annuity income could be invested and can deliver returns
Well, we can just assume that the withdrawn capital is consumed at the same rate as a hypothetical pension. This can give an estimate for the wealth tax. We can also assume various level of returns on the remaining capital. For the annuity option, we just assume 0 wealth tax and total consumption.
So if the return on remaining capital is 0, and 5% is consumed yearly, the average taxable wealth in those 20 years would be 400’000. Assuming modest 0.25% wealth tax, it would be extra 20’000 taxes paid in those years.
This all points to the government proposal lacks critical thinking
They need to be clear what they want to do
I find the comment “remove loopholes” a bit weird. For anyone to take advantage of 2nd pillar, one needs to have pension gap. If someone close pension gap, then how come it’s loophole? It is exactly what closing pension gap provision is supposed to do anyways
The only loophole I can imagine is staggered withdrawals using VB or 3a. But even that, I don’t know if that’s a loophole or a law.
The Liberal Party (FDP) put in an Appell for the Bundesrat to reconsider things:
They’ve clocked in on 40’000 Unterschriften so far.
So to protect our 3A investments, it would be good to have them paid out to pay part of the mortgage? Is this a viable solution to try avoiding heavy federal taxation when retiring?
Not sure if the taxes will heavily increase - I mean, it probably is still a preferred tax rate and in comparison to other countries still on the lower end (based on the knowledge couple of weeks ago, I cannot recall if there are already concrete numbers communicated).
It’s still a calculation between wealth tax, shielded dividend/interest taxed as income and taxes at withdrawal.
3a can be withdrawn to buy in pillar 2 or pay down a mortgage so that’s an option. I would not actively search to get it (we either want real estate or not and we either want our mortgage at the level it is or not, there are other factors to take into account) but since it’s my situation, I feel comfortable paying into 3a, knowing there’s a way for me to take it our early that I’d feel comfortable with in case undesirable changes to taxation appear on the shorter term radar (I don’t like owing things to the bank so taking down my mortgage is acceptable to me).
In the current situation, I think I’d be comfortable with it anyway: I’m confident no make or break change in taxation will be made with 3a and even if my current investments end up not having been optimized when looking them in the mirror 30 years from now, I’m confident they’ll be in the “good enough” window.
SRF are making a fool of themselves by claiming, without proof or source, that lump-sum withdrawal of pillar 2 happens at the expense of tax payers, because that lump-sum is “often used up at old age” before one’s death and then the government has to pay your retirement home fees.
“often” can be many things. But if you have numbers that clearly aren’t “often” anymore, there is an ombudsman office:
I agree, this is disturbing.
The statement coming at this time of the political discussion around the tax hikes from SRF doesnt seem neutral.
I hope I’m not breaking any rules by posting this: https://www.impot-prevoyance-non.ch. In case I am, please remove my post 
If I believe them for argument sake. What they are saying is
Not sure why #2 is better than #1
What’s the recommendation? Make mandatory BVG annuity only ? And thus, merge with AHV?
My opinion is that people who want to reduce lump sum withdrawals (by reducing incentives) don’t realise that the main problem is that annuity payments with 6.8% are not possible anyways. So what’s the point of having even more people draw annuity?
Apparently:
33% of the people who benefit from complementary AHV payments have, at some point, withdrawn something from their 2nd pillar.
Now:
33% of retired people had no 2nd pillar at all.
of the 67% who did have some 2nd pillar, 56% have withdrawn something at some point which means 37.5% of retired people have at some point withdrawn something from their 2nd pillar.
It seems to me the two statistics are aligned and there would not be a significant bia toward people who have at some point withdrawn part or the whole of their 2nd pillar among beneficiaries of complementary payments.
I haven’t found statistics allowing to link the amount received between the two categories.
Sources (2 links):
[FR]:
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/fr/28786988
[DE]:
https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken.assetdetail.28786988.html
[EN] (only the statistics from the federal administration): Statistique des nouvelles rentes: résultats 2022 - Statistique des nouvelles rentes 2022 - | Press release
[IT] (same): Statistique des nouvelles rentes: résultats 2022{ - {supertitle}}{ - {subtitle}}{ | {amg}}
Come on, did we read the same article? It does cite some spokespersons, seems to refer to some statistics (like the one @Wolverine posted) and could be read as a cautionary warning to people with small pension pots that that they might live longer or underestimate the cost of elderly care.
Numbers above might confirm that it’s actually a thing, although I don’t care enough to form a conclusion whether it actually is or these examples are just anectodal evidence.
You can disagree on the focus of the article here, but there’s nothing disturbing or sketchy about it, at all.
The second sentence of the lede is misleading IMO:
Immer mehr Leute nehmen bei der Pensionskasse alles aufs Mal statt der lebenslangen Rente. Die Kosten tragen die Steuerzahler.
Translation:
More and more people are withdrawing everything from their pension fund in one go instead of taking a lifelong pension. Taxpayers bear the costs.
The article itself is a bit more neutral, granted.
They are quoting (and linking to) the research paper by Publica. If you read that, Publica comes to the conclusion that the majority of pensioners that take the cash are acting responsibly:
Die langfristigen Konsequenzen der Zunahme des Kapitalbezugs wird man erst in Zukunft abschliessend beurteilen können. In der Momentaufnahme der Umfrage scheinen die Personen mit (Teil-) Kapitalbezug ihre finanzielle Situation eher besser einzuschätzen als Personen mit einem reinen Rentenbezug. Wie sich dies im Verlaufe des gesamten Ruhestandes entwickelt, bleibt eine Frage für zukünftige Analysen.
That’s buried quite deep under SRF’s rhetoric. I expect more from journalism funded by tax money.
For argument’s sake it is probably reasonable to assume there is a (small) percentage of people who take the lump sum, burn through it, later need care, with the cost of that care exceeding their income out of remaining sources (AHV), resulting in a liability to the commune.
So if this indeed is the problem statement, politics may have a motivation to act, possible remedies likely restricting liberty for the majority in order to minimize that problem caused by a minority.
I still don’t understand how increasing federal taxes on lump sums will fix the problem. Will it indeed deter the people causing the problem now from taking out a lump sum? or will it merely mean they are burning through it faster - given they’ll start from a smaller amount, after tax, perhaps even increasing the commune’s liability (while national government has enjoyed additional revenues that can be assigned to its own pet projects)?
Not advocating it, but wouldn’t the “correct” fix be to ban lump sum payments altogether and make annuities mandatory for all pension funds, VBAs, and 3a accounts - or perhaps introducing a mandatory care insurance?
Since the discussed “solution” does not demonstrably fix the problem, why is it being proposed?