+1. Apparently, there’s a lack of understanding for what a forum is 
2 Likes
Lots of half-truths in these last few posts, with quite some irresponsible advice 
AHV is mandatory for non-employed. And it is enforced too. Of course, AHV cannot enforce what they don’t know about, and data protection laws (i.e. non-existing intra-governmental data sharing) might absolutely result in them not knowing. It is your duty to take care/report. AHV contributions from any employment must also reach half of the AHV contributions calculated based on non-employment, otherwise the higher non-employment rate applies anyway.
Founding a company to circumvent AHV non-employed contributions is also not going to work, absent some extreme fringe case (ignoring that this act and a fully and permanently inactive/non-revenue-generating company in itself would create some issues).
5 Likes
Good that you know more. Sources or a why?
Insured persons who are not in permanent full-time work and whose contributions from gainful employment, including employer’s contributions, amount to less than half of what they would have to contribute as a non-employed person. Anyone who works for less than nine months a year or works less than 50 % of normal working hours is regarded as not being in permanent full-time employment.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ahv-iv.ch/p/2.03.e
3 Likes
Just found that too. Plenty of room for this solution.
To quote yourself: “Get a lawyer, pay their rate, […] do your own due diligence.” I have no intention to entertain this discussion out of the blue (i.e. without an actual specific example).
Correct, doesn’t change the fact that they are mandatory. At some point they are having to make a cut, and five years is probably just oriented on the usual statue of limitation in CH.
@Barto found it (as did I). And it seems you are wrong.
If you throw punches, be ready to take them. Unfortunate, that you now leave, I think others could have profited from your experience. Best of luck, too.
It works according to AHV sources, so it’s neither wrong nor misleading. It is also based on knowledge.
I don’t remember the caveats of full-time employment and the alternative half of non-employed person contributions. Maybe it wasn’t there or was different when I went over it some years ago, maybe it didn’t strike me as highly relevant (as requirements can reasonably be satisfied).
But yes, apparently none of us has tried it. But others must have, regarding them writing above rules. Maybe you could try it. What do you lose? Some time, and maybe you still pay the non-employment rate as you do now. If it works, you’ll pay less. Some additional due diligence will lower the risk and give you a clear picture of the actual return.
This refers to years where you were not required to pay AHV e.g. for non-Swiss people who move to Switzerland in their 40s, they can’t go paying back years relating to when they were in their 20s.
1 Like
Topic title is “mandatory expenses” not “mandatory expenses that are definitely enforced”. And you’ve presented no evidence that this is not enforced - it seems like something you just made up along with AHV being voluntary when unemployed.
Again, you speculate on their interest to enforce - based on defective reasoning too. For higher earners, their contributions are much larger than the benefit they receive, so there isn’t necessarily a net penalty from not registering. This blows up the premise of your already logically faulty argument.
Presumably there could also be checks prior to paying out AHV. And for sure I know of cases where AHV proactive wrote questioning cessation of contributions.
1 Like
A discussion about AHV shouldn’t lead to people leaving the group . How about we call it a day and chill 
6 Likes
I remember reading some news articles about prosecutions for AHV fraud (setting up ‘fake’ companies to qualify for AHV) I don’t have the link but maybe those interested can search.
Then feel free to debate. I just pointed out the flaws in the argument and you are responding with the internet equivalent of throwing a tantrum.
Again an assertion that is not backed by facts and also incorrect. If you read carefully, I didn’t address the company idea at all in the replies above. I actually think there might be a way to legitimately reducing AHV by setting up a company, but it would have to be a real business and I think likely to be more hassle than it is worth.
The first thought crossing my mind is that the sum of this is still below just the fees that a regular bank would take to manage that amount of money! And by a wide margin. 
And I prefer if that money goes to the government than to the bank.
4 Likes
I don’t see an obvious solution to save this relatively small AVS (0.2% of wealth), without triggering taxes that would be more than the AVS saved.
"For individuals in gainful employment who are not in permanent full-time work (i.e. they work less than nine months a year or work less than 50% of normal working hours), the compensation office must carry out a comparative calculation to determine whether the contributions from gainful employment, including employer’s contributions, amount to less than half of what they would have to contribute as a non-employed person. If the compensation office finds that this is not the case, the individual must also pay contributions as a non-employed person. "
You would need to pay yourself a decent salary from the company: surely at least minimum wage. Claiming you work 20 hours a week for 100fr would not seem likely to fly.
In addition if you have your investments in a company you kill the golden goose of no capital gains for private investors, generally you will tend to pay tax every time you take money out of the company …
IIRC, I think I did the calculations on this in another thread/post and figured out that the tax costs would outweigh the AHV savings.
1 Like
I think I rmemeber something along these lines as well.
Probably not worth it.
Best case you need a friend with a business that employs you 50%, but you actually just work like 10% and you stretch it big time
Rises to 0.3% on the higher end, on everything you own. Won’t leave you destitute, but many would shirk the same in funds. Think UCITS global index funds for 0.4% TER to avoid hassle with US estate tax filing.
The suggestion was to
Could be (high-yield) bonds, intransparent structured products, because it’s income anyways. Or it could be your options algo trading, or high leverage trend strategies, because it goes deep into professional security trader territory. Maybe a hobby run as a small-time business could fit too.
So, if one has anything like that, taxes should be the same or less. The only real loss I see, is ALV, and time & money spent on company administration.
Then come fringe benefits like staggering pillar 2 & 3a withdrawals till 70, deducting business expenses (car, electronics, business lunch).