No, that’s the good thing that will kill this proposal politically. If they remove pillar 3a taxation it might actually pass a public vote.
1 Like
Thanks for doing the math.
It would be interesting to see how Cantons react because the marginal wealth tax rate (Cantonal + federal) in ZH can be quite high for higher withdrawal amounts.
This can make 2a voluntary contributions very unattractive for some given the lower returns they generate.
The motion has been assigned to a commission.
3 Likes
As has every other part of the proposal. So why should this part be cut while all others remain?
I am close to ER and planned to do a final 2a contribution of several 100k‘s one last time this quarter. But now seriously rethinking about locking up more money for 3 years with tax rules likely changing inbetween.
I think a more fair and logic way to redesign this is to cap extra 2a contributions. Like for 3a. And also what is done in other countries like US, with 401k contributions being capped around 20k/year
1 Like
Because the other parts are spending decreases, while this is a tax increase, which FDP and SVP are categorically against.
I am in a very similar situation and will continue with the planned buy-in. First, the changes aren’t likely to come, even though they are now proposed for discussion. Second, you still save taxes, potentially a lot, even tough it might be a little bit less than previously expected (the only exception here is Zürich where the cantonal tax is by far the highest in CH above one million, which is why everybody moves out of Zürich to withdraw multi million capitals). Third, if you retire, you move your money to a vested benefit account and can invest it as you like, eliminating the problematic underperformance of having it locked-up in a badly performing 2nd pillar.
1 Like
Personally I think the issue for me is not about tax increase per say. They will keep changing all the time.
The problem is retrospective nature of these changes. People who have already added a lot of money to their 2nd & 3rd pillar have invested under different assumptions. We shouldn’t change the rules for old contributions . Ideally there should be a new bucket created to apply higher taxes for future contributions.
However since this is being done to raise revenue , most likely it would for sure be applied to OLD capital too. This is why govt is trying to make damage higher for higher income earners because this would make it easier to pass the law. Assumption being there are more people in „not impacted“ segment vs impacted segment.
Let’s see what happens. Changing rules of game in the middle of game is always a dangerous precedent
6 Likes
Changes seem to be small but still leave a bad taste. What if they keep increasing taxes on 2nd/3rd pillar withdrawals?
1 Like
I agree, but in practice it would be hard to separate taxation of old vs new contributions in the same account
But yes, you buy into such a scheme under one set of assumptions and then everything may change retroactively. In a scheme where your mitigating actions are extremely limted too
Any discouragement in having people save for their own retirement is extremely dangerous. Look at France. This will break the back of the country, just a matter of when
Exactly thats the feeling people are left with.
Worst case many people stop contributing to 3rd pillar and only minimum to 2nd.
Then when they retire, the state has to support more people.
Maybe it’s also political tactics. The government expects this will unlikely pass and then introduce something else or maybe say they are forced to lift the debt ceiling. Who knows …
The taxes for 5x200k is still only 1.8%.
Additionally you don’t pay taxes on dividends, wealth and save on some withholding taxes when investing in 3a.
In the new proposal married individuals are taxed individually. A couple with 5x200k each that has the same age will pay 1.8% on their 2M with the new system while the old system would tax them 1.89%
In reality, this will be a tax cut for (lower and upper) middle class couples while it is an increase for the upper class as well as singles.
2 Likes
I think it’s not that complicated to be honest
They can always ask pension funds to create a new account internally where all the new capital as of 1 Jan 2027 would flow. The old account can be frozen for new contributions.
At time of withdrawal, they can charge different taxes on two different accounts
However I don’t think it would happen like this
1 Like
Maybe that is what they want? That way, there’s more current year tax income.
To be clear: 3rd pillar buy-ins are still very much a sensible thing to do, and won’t be affected much by this proposed change (but I still believe the fact that it touches 3rd pillar is what makes it toxic at the voting both).
The question is: Are 2nd pillar buy-ins still worth it, if that change were to pass. And that answer will be quite individual.
There’s never any absolute certainty with regard to taxation levels. This time it’s taxation of capital withdrawals from pillar 2 and 3a. But the next time, taxation of assets in 3b could be adressed (or raised). That’s just part of the game.
3b is just regular investments 
2 Likes
Not sure if there are no other (tax) increases in the whole proposal.
But regardless, I guess this means that the package as a whole is composed of an income component, just saving money is not enough.
Which could be subjected to a capital gains tax e.g.
I’m just saying that whatever standard is engrained today as part of legislation is subject to potential changes. Nothing is set in stone.
Fwiw, Moneyland has a new article on the intended federal tax hike: