Some funds have no coordination contribution and some other funds adjust the contribution to the working rate.
The current deduction of coordination is 25’725.-
Let’s assume the salary is 60k at 100%, and 30k at 50%. An employee works at 50% and his age is 35. The pension fund employer part is 5% and the employee 5% (a total of 10%).
Fund 1 (Not adjusting the deduction of coordination):
30’000-25’725=4275.-
The contribution each year in the pension fund will be 4’275*0.1=427
Fund 2 (adjusting the deduction of coordination):
30’000-25’725 * 0.5=17’137.-
The contribution each year in the pension fund will be 17’137*0.1=1’713
The law defines a legal minimum (and maximum). Pension funds can operate quite freely within these boundaries, as long as the general principles are adhered to.
Let’s keep in mind that this is only the minimum old-age savings contribution. The contribution could also be higher than 10% - in fact, it usually will be, since there‘s also be risk premiums and management/administration costs to cover.
While pension funds are pretty regulated, there are still several options to offer a better pension fund for employees. For example:
Starting to contribute sooner than 25 (there are several that start at 20)
Insure more than the mandatory amount (>61k)
Contribute a higher % than mandatory required
Decrease the „Koordinationsabzug“ of 25k or even abolish it completely (some pension funds have special regulations like „if you earn less than 86k, 20-30% of your salary will be your Koordinationsabzug“ which is great for part-time or low-income employees)
Completely cover all risk-insurance related parts and thus 100% of the contributions/deductions are going into wealth-building
Many more…
So lets compare 2 completely different pension funds and 2 different employees in their early 30s. Pension fund A does the legal minimum and pension fund B doesn‘t have a Koordinationsabzug, insures the total salary and contributions are 6% by employee and 9% by employer instead of 3.5/3.5% (legal minimum for 25-34 year olds). Jonas is earning 140k and works 100%. Sarah is earning 50k and works 60%. Total yearly contributions:
Jonas at pension fund A: 4.3k
Jonas at pension fund B: 21k
Sarah at pension fund A: 1.7k
Sarah at pension fund B: 7.5k
These aren‘t just imaginary pension funds. These are real-world examples I‘m encountering every week in my job.
The biggest problem with pension fund A isn‘t even low contributions, it‘s low insured salaries. Invalidity rent is 65% of your insured salary. So it makes a huge difference how much is insured. Especially for Jonas with his 140k salary where pension fund A would only pay 40k/year in case of invalidity compared to the 91k of pension fund B.
So chose your employer wisely. It‘s not only about the salary.
Wow I find it concerning and it reinforces the need for an obligatory pension contribution as we have here in CH.
Just a side note, the Federal Council estimated that 12% of the population was on the strict obligatory scheme LPP, and 20% highly depends on the minimal conversion factor, as their over-obligatory part is rather small :
Environ 12 % des assurés sont couverts par des plans de
prévoyance fondés uniquement sur le minimum légal, et environ 20 % des assurés
sont fortement concernés par le taux de conversion minimal, car seule une faible part
de leur avoir de vieillesse relève du régime surobligatoire.
What about the 1st pillar? Is there an easy way (i.e. without having to send letters etc.) to understand how much you have accumulated in benefits as of TODAY?
Well for one thing the students are going to be voters one day and it would be nice if they don’t just eat up any bullshit economic plan the politicians are peddling.
Researchers found a distinct Swissness factor in investment decisions when comparing Swiss-Germans to Germans, Swiss-French to French and Swiss-Italians to Italians.
Based on a large international survey we analyze how German- French- and Italian-speaking Swiss differ in their investment decision behavior and investment competence as compared to their closest neighbors abroad speaking the same language. Although language may be closer to the individual self than the country of residence, we find that there are greater similarities in the decision behavior of Swiss speaking different languages than between Swiss and their linguistically closest neighbors abroad. These similarities hold also for the emotional investment competence and to some extend also for the knowledge-based competence. We conclude that there is Swissness in the decision behavior as well as in the emotional investment competence. The latter is associated with regional differences in the relationship to investment advisors.
Well, I would expect the tax system and the available vehicles to play a greater role in investing decisions than language, and also for the educational system, wealth level and general society to also play a big role in “emotional decisions” and financial knowledge so I am not very surprised.
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
