How to factor in 1st and 2nd pillar in plan for FIRE?

At least canton Schwyz seems to differ, they demand proof of actual taxation of your vested benefits by the new country.

Ok have read something different somewhere else - I am unable to find the source as quickly again, but already then I was aware that different sources where contradictory.
I guess it depends on the DBA in the end.
Since it was not really relevant for me (I am rather aiming for France for different reasons), I did not look it up more and will leave it to the moment I will FIRE - since rules can change rapidly.

1 Like

OK so as per ChatGPT ‘50 years projection’ for the max. value, we should expect an approx. yearly growth of 0.5% (from ca. 25k in year 2000 to ca. 40k in year 2070+)

It‘s linked to inflation, probably higher.

Hopefully (as it is stated here)…

Yes inflation from 2000 onwards was relatively low, however I’d rather stay on the safe side and try to use this 0.5% as a reference value in my FIRE assumptions

In case anyone wants to dig further I found “Form Q-IS” or the form that needs to be filled in by the new country tax authorities to reclaim the WHT if your 2nd pillar provider is domiclied in canton Geneva (in Fr, En, De, IT). I believe I have seen a similar form for other cantons.

On page 7 of the document, you will see that some countries are marked with the footnote 2. In those countries, you can only reclaim the Swiss withholding tax once the benefits have been taxed there.

Those rules are the same for all Switzerland.

I believe if you are married and your spouse contributes then you don’t have to.

Edit: I think you are wrong. If you work 50% you are fine. It is if you work < 50% and the total contributions from your employment are < 0.5 * (Nichterwebstätig AHV), then you have to make up the difference. The below situation where if you just jump above 50% and then being fine versus if you are just below you have to pay the entire difference remains though. But if you work 50% or more, it doesn’t matter if you are paying less than half of what you would if you were Nichterwebstätig.

I don’t understand the second part. What if someone works 100% but their AHV contribution are only 8’000 a year (roughly speaking 10% of 80k salary) but their net worth is say 6m. With the above numbers (1k per 500k up to 2m and then 1.6k per 500k) would sum to 16’800. So even if you work 100% you may be paying less into AHV than half of what you otherwise would pay if you were not employed. So someone working 100% may have to pay AHV based on wealth? I.e. this person would have to pay 16’800 and could only credit 8’000, so pay an additional 8’800. But if they contributed 9’000 > 1/2 * 16’800 they would be fine and it would stay at the 9’000? That seems overly harsh and kind of silly given there already is a wealth tax (and this is essentially a wealth tax if it is how it works).