For me, it definitely belongs in the #gqevergreens 👌🏻 Top contribution, thanks for that @Epi
•
88
•
@PassiveInvest I've bookmarked it and will read it later.
•
22
•
1Mon
@PassiveInvest Thank you! But it only belongs in the evergreens if the considerations are correct. đź‘Ť
•
11
•@Epi From a mathematical point of view, everything looks plausible and correct to me so far. The topic of "fewer pension points in the statutory pension scheme" was discussed in a comment, and that would be the only real variable that cannot be reasonably calculated. However, the expected excess return on a bAv, as in your example, would certainly still more than compensate for the reduced payment of the statutory pension insurance, even if you offset fewer pension points. All in all, however, it can and must be said that the issue of tax-optimized bAv stands and falls with the employer. Unfortunately, a limited choice of contract/provider or similar factors immediately nullify an example, no matter how well calculated. For me personally, the situation is a little more complicated. My employer would probably allow a free choice of provider (because they wouldn't really care where you have your contract), but they can nicht🤷🏼‍♂️.
•
33
•@Epi Our insurance expert @Dr27589 can take another look at this. All in all, a very interesting article. I also have a company pension plan, which is worthwhile for me despite the 90% contribution guarantee due to the high employer subsidy. For me, however, it is not a contribution for #gqevergreens, as it contains more considerations and many uncertainties and is also only applicable to a minority. In most cases, the employer's offer alone is likely to fail. You have mentioned other reasons yourself or they have already been mentioned in the comments. In my view, it is therefore more likely to tempt you to take out a company pension, which in many cases does not make sense at all.
•
22
•1Mon
@DonkeyInvestor I agree with you, there are a few uncertainties in the considerations. I wrote this article to discuss and dispel them. I could have kept the matter to myself.
If the article tempts someone to take a closer look at the conditions of their occupational pension scheme or even manages to convince their employer of the mylife option or an insurance company with comparable conditions (there are a handful on the market) - then the contribution could mean a few 10k more for the pension. That wouldn't be bad, I think.
If the article tempts someone to take a closer look at the conditions of their occupational pension scheme or even manages to convince their employer of the mylife option or an insurance company with comparable conditions (there are a handful on the market) - then the contribution could mean a few 10k more for the pension. That wouldn't be bad, I think.
•
22
•@Epi Absolutely right. I also think the article is very good. Just not for me for the #gqevergreens. But getquin himself will soon be publishing an overview of the best all-time contributions. I'm sure it will find a place there. How far have you actually got with @Kundenservice?
••
1Mon
@DonkeyInvestor As I said, I wrote the post for 2 reasons, 1. to point out possible errors in my reasoning (such as overlooking the lost pension points, which is probably not essential) and 2. to show one or the other Getquinler the possibility of a few 10k more for the pension (which unfortunately remains rather hypothetical for most).
Not allowing the contribution to disappear only helps with point 2.
Not allowing the contribution to disappear only helps with point 2.
•
11
•
1Mon
@DonkeyInvestor There are (unfortunately) a few mistakes.
1. you pay less into the GRV. Even if it's not that great, you'll end up with a lower statutory pension.
2. the "Mylife Fondsrente" he mentions is a private pension insurance, not a company pension scheme. Mylife's occupational pension scheme is called BOLZ (FGNBAV)
3. @Epi is confusing private pension insurance with occupational pension schemes. There are no tax advantages in the payout phase as mentioned above. It is fully taxed as income.
4. good news: SI contributions on payout do not apply to members of private health insurance. In addition, there is (currently) an exemption limit of €176.75/month - SI contributions only apply to monthly pensions above this amount.
Whether a company pension scheme makes sense or not depends in the vast majority of cases on the amount of subsidy provided by the employer. With very few exceptions, a company pension scheme is not profitable if only the statutory minimum subsidy of 15% is paid.
As Esel already mentioned: it usually fails because of the employer's offer. These are often very old contracts, sometimes with a ridiculous guaranteed interest rate and without reasonable investment options.
1. you pay less into the GRV. Even if it's not that great, you'll end up with a lower statutory pension.
2. the "Mylife Fondsrente" he mentions is a private pension insurance, not a company pension scheme. Mylife's occupational pension scheme is called BOLZ (FGNBAV)
3. @Epi is confusing private pension insurance with occupational pension schemes. There are no tax advantages in the payout phase as mentioned above. It is fully taxed as income.
4. good news: SI contributions on payout do not apply to members of private health insurance. In addition, there is (currently) an exemption limit of €176.75/month - SI contributions only apply to monthly pensions above this amount.
Whether a company pension scheme makes sense or not depends in the vast majority of cases on the amount of subsidy provided by the employer. With very few exceptions, a company pension scheme is not profitable if only the statutory minimum subsidy of 15% is paid.
As Esel already mentioned: it usually fails because of the employer's offer. These are often very old contracts, sometimes with a ridiculous guaranteed interest rate and without reasonable investment options.
•
44
•1Mon
@Dr27589 Thank you for your comments.
Re 1: This omission has already been made clear to me. But it should be negligible. I estimate that it is around €10pM pension at the end.
Re 2: I simply gave the name of my occupational pension scheme. That's what it says in the contract.
Re 3: I had feared something like that. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on this on the Internet despite an extensive search. So what is deducted from what proportion of the payout capital in the case of a one-off payout? Approx. -50% from the contribution portion and -30% from the income portion (if that is my tax rate as a pensioner)? But why no partial exemption? 30% is more than the approx. 20% KES on ETFs.
4 Unfortunately, the exemption limit is no good. To take advantage of it, I have to transfer my entire capital to the insurance company and then I get about 3%pa on it as a pension. This is highly inefficient and a real dealbreaker for me. Hence the calculation with the lump-sum settlement only.
5 I obviously haven't understood the 15% AG subsidy yet. So specifically: if I want to pay in the €302pM net in order to pay €604pM gross into the policy, where is the employer subsidy?
Thank you for your answer!
Re 1: This omission has already been made clear to me. But it should be negligible. I estimate that it is around €10pM pension at the end.
Re 2: I simply gave the name of my occupational pension scheme. That's what it says in the contract.
Re 3: I had feared something like that. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on this on the Internet despite an extensive search. So what is deducted from what proportion of the payout capital in the case of a one-off payout? Approx. -50% from the contribution portion and -30% from the income portion (if that is my tax rate as a pensioner)? But why no partial exemption? 30% is more than the approx. 20% KES on ETFs.
4 Unfortunately, the exemption limit is no good. To take advantage of it, I have to transfer my entire capital to the insurance company and then I get about 3%pa on it as a pension. This is highly inefficient and a real dealbreaker for me. Hence the calculation with the lump-sum settlement only.
5 I obviously haven't understood the 15% AG subsidy yet. So specifically: if I want to pay in the €302pM net in order to pay €604pM gross into the policy, where is the employer subsidy?
Thank you for your answer!
••
1Mon
@Dr27589 I have looked it up again. You are of course right, the payment of the occupational pension must be fully taxed. "With the lower income tax rate in the pension" is what it says. But if I have 300k paid out, for example, this is considered my income and my tax rate goes up. I couldn't find out what it should be. One site says 25% average, another 42% top, another 30%. There is no legal certainty at this point. One war, one left-wing party and the rate is quickly well over 50%. Potential deal breaker.
The scoop, however, is that I don't pay the SI contributions on the contribution part, as I assumed, but on the entire capital. Only 120 monthly rates minus the allowance, but if the capital in the occupational pension has increased threefold, then after 20 years of paying in I pay 1.5 times the contributions I originally saved, including inflation and rising KK and PK contributions. Potential deal breaker.
And finally, I admit that I underestimated the loss of pension points. With a 300€pM savings rate, it's probably a little over 100€pM in the end. Assuming a lifetime of 30 years, that's a lot of wood.
All in all, things now seem to be turning into the opposite in my mind: the high downstream taxation, the x-fold repayment of MK contributions and the loss of pension entitlements seem to make the occupational pension scheme a losing proposition, no matter how well it performs. The state takes back all the benefits with interest. I'll have to check this suspicion by calculation. But that would mean I need an alternative.
The scoop, however, is that I don't pay the SI contributions on the contribution part, as I assumed, but on the entire capital. Only 120 monthly rates minus the allowance, but if the capital in the occupational pension has increased threefold, then after 20 years of paying in I pay 1.5 times the contributions I originally saved, including inflation and rising KK and PK contributions. Potential deal breaker.
And finally, I admit that I underestimated the loss of pension points. With a 300€pM savings rate, it's probably a little over 100€pM in the end. Assuming a lifetime of 30 years, that's a lot of wood.
All in all, things now seem to be turning into the opposite in my mind: the high downstream taxation, the x-fold repayment of MK contributions and the loss of pension entitlements seem to make the occupational pension scheme a losing proposition, no matter how well it performs. The state takes back all the benefits with interest. I'll have to check this suspicion by calculation. But that would mean I need an alternative.
•
11
•