If they really wanted to tackle this, then they just need to introduce a confiscatory penalty/tax of, say, 50% of assets that are not correctly put back into a pension fund and people will quickly ensure compliance.
Add to that a check on retirement/withdrawal.
Sshhhh, @PhilMongoose!
Donât give them any ideas for new motions!
My darker view of humanity thinks that many people, though many exceptions may be on this board, would want the increased returns from increased risk but also to be bailed out by the government/some other entity in case shit hits the fan.
Risk always seems rosy when everything is fine.
Got it
I am not sure why OP presented it as a problem.
Isnât this a normal thing and everyone who doesnât transfer is an exception?
People who exploit loopholes and were not truthful in the past are never happy when the loopholes get closed and compliance increases 
(and yeah I assume itâs a small amount of people)
Thank you, youâre right, for the 3A I simply submit a paper saying I added the amount I did for the year.
Well, I think lawyers will likely soon be drastically impacted by AI, itâs judges whoâre harder to replace because they need toâŠmake a judgement.
the interesting point here is that if you parked some of your 2nd pillar in VB account does it mean that you can purchase more in 2nd pillar now as soon as you have less there?
it feels more like tax avoiding (can be called optimization as well to make it less emotional) scheme and not grey area
you get some high paid job, even better if it allows different schemes for 2nd pillar so you opt in for max contributions and buy more into it annually to reduce both your income and wealth taxes
then you leave, transfer part of it into VB account and repeat after some pause
so in the end you saved on taxes during employment and saved on taxes in retirement when doing lump sum and got extra performance if VB investments worked well, bingo!
Buy-in ( to make up for past lower contributions as your age and salary increases) and choosing voluntary higher ongoing contributions are separate. The former requires that you take into account ( or transfer into pension fund) all VB accounts. The latter does not.
Further for home purchase related withdrawal, the former i.e. the buy-in (principal and interest earned on it) is locked for 3 years, but the latter is not! (at least that is the case at my employer)
The common thing is that both reduce your Net salary for taxation purposes for the year in question.
This is definitely not possible unless you provide false information in the voluntary contribution document. Falsifying information is definitely not recommended
I donât agree that it is such a complicated problem to solve.
Every account has an AHV linked to it. So if an AHV number has a live pension account at an employer and also have a VB account , it cannot be that difficult to flag this up.
In the age of AI, a simply Vlookup is definitely doable.
This database already exists (you can request the list of accounts matching your ahv).
The complexity from the proposal is actually to track the 1e specific amounts.
But 1E cannot exist without a base plan. So why does anyone need to bother about tracking 1E
1E plans are automatically closed as soon as someone leaves the employer and amount is either moved to VB or to next employer
Are you saying that if someone have a Base plan + 1e + hidden VB and now comes bear market and also a corresponding job change at same time , then the challenge is to differentiate between VB and 1E to force the transfer within 2 years?
Because thatâs what the motion Dittli is about, it allows keeping 1e funds in a VB for up to 2 years, when changing employers. But in order to allow that you need to be able to track which part is 1e and which is not.
(And then ensure that people move the funds before the 2y grace period expires, hence the new tracking and enforcement)
Got it.
So the main control needs to be applied to VB providers that maximum duration of VB accounts cannot exceed 2 years unless person is unemployed.
But of course VB providers might say itâs not their responsibility
There is an additional tax savings benefit the author has not mentioned: If your new employer offers mandatory pension fund contribution only (for the salary between Koordinationsabzug ~25k and AHV limit ~90k), the lifetime pension savings at the new place will cap at ~300k*. Moving all capital from previous employment might then no longer lead to a gap, where you can buy in to the pension fund, lowering your income tax. Submitting only half your capital might give you a nice gap.
/* at a conversion rate of 6.8%, this gives you a CHF 1700 pension per month, which looks terribly low for a non- moustachian.
The buy in limit takes into account the money in vested benefits accounts (itâs an explicit question). If you knowingly lie there itâs no longer tax evasion but tax fraud (and you might be in big trouble if it gets noticed)
I am not sure if the pension funds will be against. Sure it is work to do. But mandatory work is a excellent negotiating point for higher fees..
They now already how it can be done, same thing with diverse AHV / 1st pillar insaurances. Here you can also do the check withe the AHV no where payments were done your name.
From my point of view the situation is:
The trick with pension split is a classic loophole. The law in place does not support this but there are also no rules to avoid it. It is part of the game that the rulemakers are gowing to adapt the rules when people do not as intendend. In this case there are imho no new rules, but only a new control mechanism. its a game.
This can and probably will be very expensive for all of us. It is not about saving tax, it is about preventing fraud. We had a few cases but there will be much more with that much money involved.
The fraud is usually to build up a pension fund, hire a lot of very old people, âinvestâ their money in an own fraudulent business and then just go bankrupt.
Keeping the money away from new employers is the only safety method against this!
How I see it is following
Employee work in one company. They contribute to their pension fund. They change company, they move their money to new pension fund.
If they donât like new pension fund, or they are worried about Fraud at new employer, or they think new employer doesnât have good fund manager, they should not change the employer.
VB is temporary and not permanent unless someone remains unemployed. Itâs as simple as that.
Lastly using VB to stagger the 2nd pillar withdrawals with sole aim to reduce lumpsum tax is unfair to people who donât have VB. Maybe this can be avoided by declaring that any VB withdrawals would count towards future lumpsum rate calculations. This will solve the problem.
ââ-/
For 1e, the two year limit is being proposed to help people changing employers to avoid a bear market and forced sell off. This would actually encourage more employers / employees to use 1e. And if that becomes popular then 1e can be your VB with more flexibility of investment choice. So in principle people can benefit without being in grey side of the law.
I feel Swiss govt is trying to do the right thing by bringing reforms in 1e , reducing tax loopholes and they deserve a bit of applause.
If the government really wants to do the right thing then everything over and above the obligatory BVG should be 1e ( with 1e bit being socialised into obligatory BVG ever)
Otherwise it is just another way to take more money from the young and working and pay ever more unsustainable pension conversion rates to the old.