I would like to highlight that we are talking about the political instrument of a „Motion“. This is a request to the federal council to prepare a proposal to adress the issue. → very early and not technical precise stage of the political process.
So far the two chambers have approved the motion. I.e. instructed the federal council to prepare such a proposal.
Technical discussions will be possible after the federal council has published the according Botschaft. The whole political process in the parliament starts afterwards.
As far as I understand, the claim is based on tax statistics from 2015. Just like in the proceedings to a similar proposal in 2018.
Do I believe cantons and the federal government collect and keep some statistics? Absolutely. But do I believe they’re keeping a full register of tax deductions granted across all cantons for every taxable person, from age 25 and up? I doubt it. If they did, the implementation would be quite simple. Also, the maximum loss of tax could be estimated - which they claim they can’t.
“Der Höchstbetrag der Einkaufssumme reduziert sich um ein Guthaben in der Säule 3a, soweit es die aufgezinste Summe der jährlichen gemäss Artikel 7 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a der Verordnung vom 13. November 1985 über die steuerliche Abzugsberechtigung für Beiträge an anerkannte Vorsorgeformen vom Einkommen höchstens abziehbaren Beiträge ab vollendetem 24. Altersjahr der versicherten Person übersteigt.”
Side note: There seems to be no wording restricting this so the formerly self-employed (though in practice pension funds might not bother to check on and “enforce” it on others).
So as far as I understand it, it should also apply to 3a accounts that are above the limit only to due having had high equity investment returns.
Thanks for the references. The media article actually mentions the important difference. “formerly self employed”. If you were never self employed then there is no dependency between 2nd and 3a pillar.
I’ve made several voluntary contributions to the 2nd pillar, and I was never queried about my 3a pillar capital.
The media are most likely wrong.
And the “difference” isn’t important but doesn’t exist, strictly speaking.
I’ve quoted the law above - and there’s no mention of self-employment in article 60a. The media will most likely have (wrongly) overgeneralised that never-self-employed persons will never exceed the maximum amounts published by the BSV. That’s an assumption that’s probably for most, virtually all people beyond their mid-thirties, I guess. That may be a contributing reason to why pension funds aren’t all strictly enforcing the limitation.
That said, it’s certainly not technically impossible.
I was surprised how (relatively) close I personally am, at this point: About 10%, less than two yearly maximum contributions. Especially considering how I’ve had my 3a on low-interest receiving accounts for years, not invested in equity. So the technical (BVG) interest rates used in calculation by BSV have been higher than the actual interest I received.
Wouldn’t exceeding that 3a threshold make for a good new life goal of mine?
Then why did you provide the media reference if you think its wrong?
Anyway in that case I’m content that I’ve done several 2nd pillar contributions already.
At the moment its not enforced as you say. And that is relevant. Not the law itself.
Well, you said you had „never heard that the maximum amount to contribute in the 2nd pillar depends on the persons 3a pillar capital either.“
I may not have read your assumption of non self-employed persons.
I may have understood it not to apply to that last sentence in your post.
I may not even have read that particular article very thoroughly?
(though there are others that don‘t claim it‘s only the self-employed?)
Either way, I did include a quote quoting the letter of the law.
And to be fair, you did repeat that claim later.
Anyways, I’m not trying to be argumentative.
Sure, you can always knowingly violate the law,
(not saying you did, in your case it sounds unwittingly, if at all).
Are 3a contribution limits enforced, in practice?
What if somebody contributed 6883 CHF to both VIAC 3a, finpension and frankly each - but claimed only one deduction for taxes?
One can evade wealth and dividend taxes that way. Additionally, to my knowledge, funds in pillars 2 and 3 is safe from collection in case you go bankrupt…
What about the fact they (e.g. VIAC) are among the cheapest “swiss” ways to invest in world funds?
Technically it could be a set and forget for people who don’t want to fiddle too much and don’t care about getting lower fees with foreign brokers.
Edit: Withdrawal taxes need to be considered, sure.
You’d probably get away with it if you don’t overdo it.
It is illegal, though.
“Die Vorsorgeeinrichtung muss somit eine Rückzahlung (oder Umbruch auf ein verrechnungssteuerpflichtiges Konto) der zu viel einbezahlten Beiträge vornehmen. Aufgrund einer Bestätigung der Steuerverwaltung ist die Vorsorgeeinrichtung dazu sowohl berechtigt als auch verpflichtet. Unterlässt die steuerpflichtige Person die Rückforderung bei der Vorsorgeeinrichtung, hat sie die unzulässigen Beiträge (inkl. den darauf angewachsenen Erträgen) in den Folgejahren als Vermögen zu deklarieren. Die Erträge auf den unzulässigen Beiträgen sind ausserdem als Einkommen steuerbar, und zwar im Zeitpunkt der Auszahlung der Leistungen aus der Säule 3a. Werden diese Vermögen und Einkommen nicht korrekt deklariert, kann dies ein Nachsteuer- und allenfalls Steuerstrafverfahren nach sich ziehen.”
Source: Säule 3a - TaxInfo - Kanton Bern (French: Pilier 3a - TaxInfo - Canton de Berne, 3.3 Cotisations excessives au pilier 3a)
A year since the last post in this thread, almost 2 years since the first post to this topic (which coincided with motion being approved by the Nationalrat to start implementation).
I came across this article which gives a bit of an update, for those that are “waiting” for this possibility.
Things are progressing at the pace normal for such things.
Most likely if it comes, then it will be possible from 2024 / «vermutlich mit Inkrafttreten auf 1.1.2024 zu rechnen»
I wonder how they will regulate those who are invested. Will I be able to do a buy-in during a market correction because I have less in my 3rd pillar than I could have?
I guess it would be easiest to check all your previous 3a contributions by looking at your old tax declarations.
If you deduct those from the theoretical maximum, you have your potential contribution. Not sure how much of that you will effectively be able to contribute, there may be some limitations. I guess it will all depend on the wording and what can be brought through parliament.
On a side note:
I don’t think that current market value should play a role. Your money, your problem.
Same if you did withdrawals for starting a business or buying a house.
Can you elaborate on this scenario? I think it’s rather rare to be worse off right now with 3a compared to investment outside 3a. That’s assuming you invest in 3a using Viac, finpension or frankly, and you can compensate the higher annual fees in 3a with saved annual taxes (dividend income and wealth). If your taxes are very low and you invest with very low fees outside 3a, this may not be possible. That’s not really a tax issue, though.
The most important factor, as far as I can tell, is the difference between marginal income tax when contributing to 3a and the 3a withdrawal tax. If you contribute while residing in a low tax canton but live in a high tax canton at time of withdrawal, the difference may be low or maybe in some cases negative. However, that’s essentially your decision when moving to a high tax canton.
16% is indeed the withdrawal tax rate in ZH for 2M. However, withdrawing it over 4-5 years, you only pay ~7.4% withdrawal taxes at 500k per year.
I would definitely lift the limitation that you can’t withdraw a part of a 3a account. I.e. it shouldn’t be necessary to create 4-5 3a accounts in advance.
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.
