Simpler would be just to lower the max salary (currently close to 1M iirc)
3 Likes
Progressive tax?
2 Likes
Progressive tax is used to redistribute wealth. But removing someoneâs ability to build their pension just because they make more money is not the same thing
I think what might make more sense is to cap deductions in taxable income rather than reducing ability to build pension.
Anyways letâs see what happens. Itâs fine either ways as long as it is clear
But thereâs already a lot of limits (ahv max salary, max insurable salary, pillar 3a limits).
Building a pension does not have to be done fully within pillar2 system.
2 Likes
Sure
- AHV is redistribution already.
- 3a is just equal for everyone
- Personal income is taxed already with purpose of distribution via progressive tax. Not sure if causing problems in second pillar pension too is such a good idea.
Not a completely related argument, but I notice that somehow there is a lot of consensus to punish the rich in most online forums. But isnât this a bit against the Swiss business model where rich people/ companies come here to save taxes ?
The mere mentioning of probably retroactively taxes is enough to hurt it.
I took out everything in my 2nd and 3rd pillar 2014 when I FIREd and did not regret it a single day since then. My reason was not (only) tax but my appetite for more risk what paid out nicely.
I gave up long time ago trying to make the world better. The state takes on a lot of your risk with the supplementary benefits. Is it fair? No. Is it clever? No. But it is nice to have.
The way I understand it, the logic behind the pension system in Switzerland is to maintain the previous level of life.
2nd pillar buy-ins automatically adjust to the last salary, meaning when we get a raise, pension-wise, that means we would immediately get entitled to that new level of living when it comes to closing a gap.
Iâm not sure itâs the best way to handle it and I could understand a system where the âgapâ that can be closed is related to something closer to the mean of all incomes during the working years. As computing that would be an administrative hassle, simpler is to assume most people earn more at the end of their career than before that and to consider âthe meanâ would be an arbitrary lower number than the last salary in a given range.
Yes. Thatâs how I understand it too.
I think the main problem that state wants to solve is to avoid people buying in to save tax and then withdrawing or moving abroad.
So the issue is not really the contributions and related tax deduction. The problem is that some are abusing the system. I just donât know how big that number is in reality
Quick reminder: this is turning into a political discussion.
I know everyone has their opinion â I do, too â but letâs leave out the various political opinions (âisnât this political view better than that political viewâ) of this topic?
Kthxbye!
6 Likes
Fwiw at high income, pillar 2 is a bit artificial. For instance same 500k comp will have very different contributions if most of the comp is in equity (think big tech) vs not (think financial).
Agreed
Letâs focus on the fact that lunpsum tax is not increasing 
1 Like
The latter will have access to an 1e plan which allows that fund to be invested into equity
1 Like
I donât think itâs fully standard yet, eg UBS doesnât have it, right? (And that would be another big difference/tax advantage for the highly paid, more pillar2 money to invest with flexibility)
not sure to understand, I have a 1e with UBS.
I thought that was the difference, eg:
Die CS-Pensionskasse hat im Jahr 2020 sogenannte 1e-VorsorgeplĂ€ne eingefĂŒhrt, die Vorsorgeeinrichtung der UBS hat solche PlĂ€ne nicht
ok not working for UBS but our 1e plan is managed by UBS.
Not that much, but here you go.
https://www.news.admin.ch/de/newnsb/dL2cZgVdOriu2Ypivc_Mb
âBesteuerung KapitalbezĂŒge 2. und 3. SĂ€ule: Aufgrund des Widerstandes in der Vernehmlassung passt der Bundesrat die Tarife nochmals an. Ziel ist es, dass keine KapitalbezĂŒge bis zu 100â000 Franken, wie sie fĂŒr BezĂŒge aus der SĂ€ule 3a typisch sind, steuerlich schlechter behandelt werden als heute.â
2 Likes
OK. But what about Pillar 2 withdrawals? These could be much more.
What about protections to ensure that the withdrawal tax is less than the tax deduction given at contribution?
I donât know. I am still not sure wether to continue paying into my 3a. Changing the rules mid game is just shady.
I could pay taxes upfront and invest the money myself. Saving investment fees along the way and having full flexibility.
OR
Continue, locking my money and hope that in the next 30+ years no one thinks about changing the rules again (Personally, I donât think that this has a high probability).
1 Like