Hi all,
Wife got a new contract (5 years) with one of the UN agencies in which she is not mandated to contribute to Pillar 1 or Unemployment (ALV) but she can if she wants to.
On Pillar 1 we are thinking of not contributing - better to invest in ETF than rely on something which is opaque
On ALV - it seems to make sense. 2.2% per month for potential changes in UN or at the end of her contract of 5 years.
Any view on above or experience with similar situation?
That makes me angry!
I did never want to contribute to any of this bullshit but had to while working in Switzerland. How can a fucking agency that works in Switzerland get around those laws? Is this only since we are member of the UN or was it the same before? Is it the same with all international NGOs or only the UN?
My answer is implicit. Nobody should be mandated to pay!
It really depends on how much this would cost: if it is a % of her salary, then probably is way too expensive, I would personally tend to contribute if the amount is a small sum. Of course the further she’s from retirement, more you will be unsure of what the contribution will bring in…
Some International Organisations have their own unemployment scheme, check if it is the case before going down that road.
International organisations (not NGOs) are their own “country”: you pay taxes on your salary to the Organisation, the Organisation takes out your contributions to old age pension from your salary (it goes into their own pension scheme), same goes for Health insurance, possibly unemployment, etc.
While (some) Organisations are based in Switzerland, the employees are totally outside the social system of Switzerland (or of any other host country where they are based, e.g. USA).
@cubanpete_the_swiss - completely understand your frustration, even we were surprised when we received the contract
Good luck!
100% agree and @cubanpete_the_swiss take a deep breath at what I am about to mention. My immediate neighbour works in BIS and she does not pay any income tax on her family income.
I would advise you to do a quick Google search to find out why this is, as it is quite logical. It also has nothing to do with the OP’s topic.
Interesting. So they are not allowed to use our roads or any other infrastructure and their children may not visit our schools or universities? Or is it like diplomats who may use our roads and ignore any traffic laws?
Na, I hope people here give more intelligent answers than google with all its AI bullshit.
Maybe it is better not to know as I voted “NO” for Switzerland to enter the UN… but the UN was already here in Switzerland for 'round 60 years before we joined.
My answer was clear as crystal: never pay what you don’t have to!
In fact all of Europe can use our roads or any other infrastructure, including schools and universities
Nothing to do with it
Sorry, I don’t like the direction this takes and it was my fault. But no sir, Europe or not, school or not, who lives here pays.
I understand that you can still be thrown out of Switzerland but this happens not very often. I too would like not to pay AHV or tax and to drive a bit faster and park wherever I like…
International organisations and their employees are not subject to national taxation. Orgs with main seat in Switzerland usually have a contract under intl law with the host country guaranteeing their rights. No obligation of the host country for such a thing, but it is judged more advantageous to have intl orgs. So it is our government, the one with the roads, who wanted this. In fact, countries often even buy the headquarters for the org.
Employees often get comparatively lower wages, so the advanrage stays with the org.
I would be heavily skewed toward paying into AHV, though if she has to pay the full contribution (employee + employer), it might not be worth it. I would ponder it thoughtfully, though:
There is much more into the 1st pillar than just old age pension. The whole package includes:
It also covers survivors, that is, you and your children (under 18) in case of her death.
I don’t know how it is specifically handled for UN employees but contributing to the 1st pillar is normally mandatory to contribute to the 2nd and/or 3a though those may not be attractive if she doesn’t pay Swiss taxes.
You’d have to check if all benefits are subject to that choice or if some of them are covered independently.
I would probably take the unemployment insurance, especially if she’s on a fixed term contract. There again, the cost-benefits analysis should include the coverage she gets from her job at the UN.
So I checked - there is a separate mandatory retirement plan which kind of covers pillar 2 and pillar 1 (~20% contribution) + there is separate disability and dealth insurance. The key thing missing from coverage is the unemployment insurance.