Quite interesting article on several unexpected or unintended consequences of the AHV vote. The issue with potential pension fund reductions is quite concerning for people with a minimal pension fund solution in the lower income brackets.
An idiotic vote.
Wow that is true - I had not even thought about the fact that this would influence the coordination amount of Pillar 2.
This will translate into some generations paying more into the AHV and at the same time seeing reduced 2nd pillar benefits.
What an idiotic vote indeed but mainly… How did we vote for something without fully understanding the implications??? Should be required that when something is up for vote this is all explored…
Most of those are bleedingly obvious consequences.
According to the article those same generations would be paying less into the 2nd pillar which is the reason for the reduced 2nd pillar benefits.
The benefit is they will get higher AHV pensions which are inflation protected whereas 2nd pillar pensions are not inflation protected.
Maybe to someone as smart and smug as you. I doubt that the average voter had any idea about the consequences for the 2nd pillar.
Moving part of the pension plan from an investment model to a pay-as-you-go model sounds pretty bad to me. But of course, I understand you are a pensioner and simply interested in getting a raise whoever pays for it.
Look. I’m nearing retirement age and if I hadn’t saved money, I would be a poor pensioner. One can only rely on AHV and PK for perhaps up to 3,500/month. Could you live on that?
I would phrase it as moving part of the pension plan from company protected to Government and inflation protected.
The Swiss Federal Social Insurance Office (BSV) filed charges against two of the eight board members of the First Swiss Pension fund on August 17 after it appeared that around CHF33m (€19.52m) had vanished.
With losses of SFr200 million, the Vera/Pevos case is the biggest pension fund scandal since Switzerland made private pension schemes financed by employers and employees obligatory in 1985.
So to simplify it - the current pensioners or those who are close get a freebie, everyone else is left pocket/right pocket but that was never explained to them during the vote, rather they were told they would benefit from a 13th Rente without the fact that their second pillar benefit would go down. This is ridiculous and I am very disappointed such a way of voting was allowed…
There are no freebies. Someone pays. Given the obvious split of vote between old and young, the young were well aware that they were getting screwed on this.
Sure because they know they will end up paying more OASI contributions and VAT to finance it, doubt a lot of them thought about reduced 2nd pillar…
Now I feel it’s even more selfish of all the yes voters… Basically a robbery to the younger generations.
On the plus side, it is unlikely that even with this information that it would have changed the vote.
It only goes down if they pay lower 2nd pillar contributions in the future which is currently an assumption because it is not known how the Swiss Government will deal with this 2nd pillar pension in the future.
The benefit from the 2nd pillar contributions they have already paid before any reduction in contributions is applied is unchanged.
If the Govt. decides to increase VAT to pay for this then current pensioners do not get a freebie.
While the words are a bit dramatic, the increase would lead to a decrease of 2’144 francs in insured salary for 2nd pillar. 15% of that, the contribution to 2nd pillar is 321.6 francs per year. Not sure if 321 francs per year will make the difference between a good and a bad 2nd pillar account.
The inflation adjustment in salary would cover this in 1 year. If any, the savings for 2nd pillar would be impacted 1 year. So, it’s not the end of the world.
With a higher AHV pension, the coordination deduction would be increased from 25,725 to 27,869 francs. With PK insurance solutions, which relatively often only insure the AHV salary minus the coordination deduction, the insured wage and thus the contributions of employers and employees would decrease.
I got curious by this RTS reportage and I’m surprised:
It is really interesting that the narrative is retired need higher income to pay rent, only for said income be transferred directly to real estate owners. Unless we look at the rent, money for retirees is only a landlord welfare program. Irony here is that bunch of 2nd pillar money is invested in real estate.
There were similar problems in the UK with various social programs being so badly structured they were effectively became primarily massive subsidies for private landlords.
Well many reasons… You have now got roots in one of the best countries to live in, your relationship are here, your grown children might be here, health system works really well (just too expensive).
Plus the AHV seems to be after “all that money that goes abroad”.
More people than ever are leaving indeed:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/economie/jamais-il-n-y-a-eu-autant-de-suisses-à-l-étranger/48422092
I never thought about retiring anywhere else but here, perhaps travelling but definitely staying here as main residence. Irony is now I don’t know if we can afford it… With the health insurance rising at this rate it may become unaffordable…
Home is were the mortgage is …
I never really planned to retire here, but since kids are growing up here, there’s a strong likelihood that I will end up staying for the kids.
This is an interesting bet considering the example parents that go live far away from the family set to the children. Just ask my parents 
And, if setting roots is a risk, I’ll try to set roots in a place with cheap rent, not in an expensive city.
That SVP idea might not end as well as they intended. Let’s assume they succeed at changing the laws. The incentive they are setting for people to return is high. What if the perverse incentive does work, people does return to live in Switzerland and put a bit more pressure on the health system and overall rent prices? That would be lovely to see.