Unfortunately, your calculation is not quite correct... In the "Depot-Rechnung" you assume that you have to pay tax on your entire payout and that even at the worst possible tax rate (26.375%). In reality, you only have to pay tax on the profit, and only with the 13% of your personal tax rate. Keyword Günstigerprüfung^^. Furthermore you have to pay less tax in this case because of accumulating input tax ;) If you take that into account, the deposit doesn't look so bad anymore ;)
••
Also in the "Depot-Rechnung" only the income share is taxed, it is also declared that way. You have made a mistake here: In the favorable test, the income from capital assets is added to the taxable income, which significantly increases the income tax rate. Even if the saver's lump sum of 1000€ is fully taken into account, you will not be in a better position in the course of the favorable tax assessment.
••
@Woddicks If you want to check it yourself: https://www.steuerschroeder.de/Steuerrechner/Guenstigerpruefung.html#:~:text=Definition%20G%C3%BCnstigerpr%C3%BCfung%3A%20Auf%20Antrag%20des,niedrigeren%20Einkommensteuer%20einschlie%C3%9Flich%20Zuschlagsteuern%20f%C3%BChrt%20( By the way, Steuerschröder basically offers a lot of helpful calculators - ggfs. you can find more tools you like there :)
••
@Dr27589 Aha, that means my pension from the insurance does not increase my taxable income? I was not aware of that👆 And where does the 13% come from? If I assume a pension of 5000€ under today's conditions, then I am surely far above 13% and also far above the 26%?
••
@Woddicks Relevant for the personal tax rate is the accumulated income. However, in the case of private pensions, as written in the article: Half-income method - taxation of 50% of the income. The example calculation above is not based on your theoretical pension of 5000€ (which, by the way, cannot be achieved via the statutory pension), but on today's average gross pension of 1620€. In addition, there is the share of the private pension. I rounded off the taxable income to 25,000 - it looks nicer. In fact, it is in this case after deduction of KV + PV contributions slightly below. For more in-depth information, I must unfortunately pass - am not an expert for tax. In the end, the calculation is done by the tax office itself, using the most favorable method for the taxpayer.
••
@Dr27589 @Woddicks I was thinking the same as Woddicks regarding the favorable tax test. The question would be whether the annual lump sum on the advance lump sum does not reduce the tax burden similarly as if only half of the income is taxed 37 years later. Then probably depends on the size of the assets, the prime rate over the contribution period, etc. ... But there might be some cases where you are not really better off with the private pension insurance, especially since the capital commitment is different. Or can partial payouts be made beforehand without breaking the 12/62 rule?
••
I correct my statement (a little), because I missed the point 9). With the combination of both, you can exhaust the tax allowance in parallel. Nevertheless, even with the direct comparison, the tax calculation for the classic ETF must be adjusted somewhat, right? But also for the 50% from the half-income procedure, since they surely also increase the zvE and thus the EKSt rate, or have you taken that into account?
••
@Hisager ESt rate is taken into account. The tax-free allowance, increases in the basic tax-free allowance and partial exemption are not taken into account here. As I said, this is an example which I do not want to complicate unnecessarily. Especially since I do not presume to forecast a halfway exact value taking all these points into account. I assume that not even a tax advisor would do that 😅 I just wanted to show that the product can also make sense for many who are themselves familiar with the subject of investment/etf savings plan. The upfront lump sum also reduces your disposable income today - and money today is worth more than tomorrow's money.
•
11
•@Dr27589 But why do you leave out the partial exemption here, if you calculate with the MSCI World? That already makes the decisive difference whether I have to pay tax on everything or only 70%... Does the partial exemption also apply to pension insurance? And if I can switch to pension insurance without triggering taxes, can I then switch everything to a real estate fund shortly before the payout and take the 50% partial exemption instead of the 30% for equity funds?
••
@Woddicks As I said above, it's a simplified example. I cannot include things like advance lump sums. So, in addition to the partial exemption, many other points remain unconsidered. You can indeed switch without incurring costs/taxes - frequency and fund/ETF selection depend, of course, on the respective tariff and provider. In addition, a basic exemption of 15% applies to fund policies, irrespective of whether the fund/ETF even fulfills a corresponding share quota. Switching to a real estate fund on the basis of a supposedly higher partial exemption would therefore be obsolete. Incidentally, the advance lump sums do not apply to fund policies in the insurance wrapper, so they are always €0 regardless of the interest rate environment.
••