Who can say (in 40-50 years) you wouldn’t be taxed 20% capital gains tax for non-pension assets and if you leave you still need to pay exit tax?
Solution to every tax issue is not to leave the country and evade the tax.
1 Like
Depends on the personal situation.
I actually did pay more tax in a tax free country than in Switzerland. If this changes I probably leave Switzerland, don’t spend too much time here anyhow because of the high living costs.
A capital gains tax I would probably survive, I always sell losers first. And capital is very mobile. A pension fund is not.
I think there was a decision (Bundesgericht) that the taxman cannot stop you from leaving Switzerland if you had not paid your tax. So they probably would have to change the constitution to change that. An exit tax could be nice for the taxman but probably could be charged only when one wants to come back to living in Switzerland.
I think “evade” is too strong a word, it’s a crime. Withdrawing your 2nd pillar because you legally moved to an ex-EU country is planned for in the existing rules. What you do after, other than return to Switzerland which would make it tax evasion, is of no interest to the CH tax authorities.
1 Like
Yes but then it’s not evasion. It’s just relocation
1 Like
You guys are mixing up so many different topics, making it too complicated to discuss, while at the same simplifying some points too much or some getting too polemical.
Just some comments:
-
One thing is to tax withdrawals the same as pensions. Fair, in my opinion. Of course, new rates should take into account that withdrawn capital typically generate taxable returns, as well
-
The current federal taxation of withdrawals is very low and with capped progression at 2%, even for exceptionally high sums, compared to, for example Zurich, which can go up to 28%. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like increases, especially for middle-class kind of amounts. Yet, considering changes is not the decline of democracy and the country. Especially given nothing is voted on, yet.
-
Always easy to blame the federal government for rising spending in the news, but at the same expect them to pay for this and that. And then blame again if they propose higher taxes.
-
Up for discussion whether capital withdrawals lead to wide-spread mis-use, like people spending the money and then apply for social services and should thus be prevented. I doubt it’s a big issue and mostly used to drive a agenda. Fair to say, when rules where made in 1985 (?), capital withdrawal was much less common.
-
Pension funds subsidizing pensions with insured people’s money for some time is not intended, nor an evil boomer scheme. The funds I know took measures to prevent or minimize it to keep it fair by changing their parameters (technical interest and conversion rate). And the down-sides from that for all were generously covered by the employer, either through increased contributions over time or one-time. No one got hurt, well except the companies’ baselines, but they’ll survive and thrive.
I could go on, but I’m not sure it leads to anything. Plus, it’s time for lunch 
10 Likes
Not sure why my thread was killed, but it seems the answer was ‘yes’:
Did something new happen?
Or you are catching up on posts ?
catching up.
Think again. It was a fuel for a pointless political argument.
2 Likes
I’d suggest it is probably better to kill any posts that start political arguments rather than those looking at risk.
1 Like
Are these the current proposed new capital tax rates or is there something more recent? Where can I find the latest?
| Total capital withdrawals in the same tax year | Tax rate |
|---|---|
| bis CHF 20’000 | 0.1% |
| zwischen CHF 20’000 und CHF 50’000 | 0.25% |
| zwischen CHF 50’000 bis CHF 100’000 | 1.0% |
| zwischen CHF 100’000 bis CHF 250’000 | 3.0% |
| zwischen CHF 250’000 bis CHF 1 Million | 5.0% |
| zwischen CHF 1 Million und CHF 10 Millionen | 7.5% |
| über CHF 10 Millionen | 11.5% |
According to an email I got from the FDP (which once launched a petition to abolish the tax), the Ständerat just voted to oppose this tax.
Im Rahmen des «Entlastungspakets 2027» will der Bundesrat die Besteuerung von Kapitalbezügen aus der zweiten und dritten Säule erhöhen. Gemeinsam mit dir und über 50’000 weiteren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern kämpfen wir seit Monaten gegen diese ungerechte Vorsorgesteuer.
Heute feiern wir einen wichtigen Etappensieg: Der Ständerat lehnt die Vorsorgesteuer ab. Damit stellt er sich schützend vor den arbeitenden Mittelstand. FDP-Ständerat Damian Müller: «Der Druck aus der Bevölkerung wirkt. Ich bin froh, dass wir die kleine Kammer überzeugen konnten. Wer sein Leben lang hart arbeitet, Jahr für Jahr auf Konsum verzichtet und aktiv für den eigenen Ruhestand spart, darf nicht bestraft und übermässig zur Kasse gebeten werden.»
Doch der Angriff ist noch nicht abgewehrt. Als Nächstes müssen wir den Nationalrat überzeugen – und dort wird die Mehrheit erfahrungsgemäss deutlich knapper sein. Nationalrat Andri Silberschmidt sagt dazu: «Die Argumente sind auf unserer Seite. Die Vorsorgesteuer schwächt die berufliche und private Vorsorge und verstösst gegen den Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben. Doch einfach wird es nicht im Nationalrat. Wir müssen dranbleiben.»
Wir bleiben dran. Um möglichst wirkungsvoll gegen die Vorsorgesteuer zu kämpfen, sind wir auf Unterstützung angewiesen. Wir würden uns deshalb sehr freuen, wenn du uns mit einer kleinen – steuerlich absetzbaren – Spende hilfst, die Kampagne fortzuführen.
Next up (for debating and voting): the Nationalrat …
5 Likes
Got the same e-mail. Good to know the small chamber is against it. Can’t imagine that law passing without a popular vote.
I do not really like this tax and would prefer to not have it personally. However, at the other hand we need to find somewhere additional tax money coming in respective lowering our spend on the government site.
I saw some of the calculations and they do not look to bad. I mean it’s also crazy to read that there are people that literally have several millions (I read from one person having 5M in pillar 2/3) in a tax shelter account 
we as a society should not support such a system that obviously evades taxes.
I get that it’s kind of do not hate the player, hate the game and we all in this forum try to minimize our spending but there is a difference and a social responsibility in my opinion.
Just my 2 cents
4 Likes
It’s uncouth to change the rules after the fact. It would be different if the new taxes would only apply to money added to 2nd/3rd pillar from 2027 forward.
In addition, I object to taxing people who plan for the future and put money aside instead of blowing it all.
5 Likes
maybe could lower the max salary for 2nd pillar, I think the max is currently 800k. UHNWI probably don’t need more tax shelter.
4 Likes
I personally like the discussion and I have opinions both ways, but it’s borderline politics.
Just a reminder to stay factual instead of opinionated.[ℛ]
ℛ I know this is a little rich coming from Goofy, but I still think it’s true.
3 Likes
Is there a list of counter proposal somewhere?
Yes changing after the fact is not right this is true. And I fully support that we should encourage people to increase private retirement money. However, at the same time I do not think that the reality is really people that just make it to months end fully invested in pillar 3a and max out pillar 2 buy backs. I would be fine with a reasonable maximum.
Why? The EU and the US are borrowing like crazy. The SNB is likely to bring their policy rate in the negatives in order to weaken the Swiss frank to support our export industry toward them. That also has undesirable effects and brings on bad incentives (if money has no value, it incentivizes spending it on whatever vs more mindful investments) that need to be balanced in regards to the alternative of borrowing more, making the Swiss frank less attractive too.
I don’t pretend to see the whole picture but that the later (borrowing more) doesn’t even enter the picture and that the discoure is “of course we need to spend less and raise more taxes and there is no alternative to it” baffles me.
Edit: to note, there are bad incentives both ways and we need to be mindful in what we want to invest as a country. Finding the right incentives to encourage that isn’t trivial. My remark is of the “I don’t understand that there is not more of a debate about this” kind, knowing that we are not an island and have to live with what the rest of the world around is us doing. In an interconnected world, debt levels are relative between countries/actors, not necessarily absolute.