profile image
I now believe that these models only have two winners: the tax office and the providers (AI and insurance companies). Invest the money yourself, in a world ETF if you like. Use your tax-free allowances (KEtSt) and dispose of the total sums as you wish in old age (even in the case of inheritance and gifts!). You pay the increased marginal tax rate (on the entire amount and not just 25% withholding tax) on these pensions in the relevant pension plan, the double health/nursing care insurance wherever they go I am completely out of it mentally and I advise my friends to do the same, especially if the bet on a long life seems very optimistic to me and who is then the winner should be clear to everyone!
1
profile image
@1999-topeuro Well to the point! My calculations prove your statements right.

I'm still struggling to find out why the state is doing this, i.e. double-deducting the very people who should and want to provide for their pensions. This exacerbates the very problem it wants to solve: poverty in old age. In the end, everyone loses, including the state, because confidence is gone and it has to step in again.

Any ideas as to why he is doing this?
profile image
@Epi I assume that the (democratic) state is interested in the common good and very limited in individual interests. That's why your question is very justified!
I think the "decision-makers" are too inexperienced in the overall problem and have the (wrong) advisors - and believe the lobbyists with their individual interests. And then the state ultimately also thinks about its long-term (self-) financing, which is of course too short-sighted!
Anyone who wants to do something for personal pension provision must make the pensions arising from these "pension contracts" completely exempt from tax (and social security contributions) (perhaps with progression proviso???) The downstream taxation is the evil. The fees to be paid to the providers should be minimal (based on the neo-brokers) and "traded" with maximum automation!
The ideas on pension reform (as far as I have read and correctly understood them from the Parliamentary State Secretary of the Ministry of Finance) therefore do not fulfill any of these "requirements".
And what have the "decision-makers" learned from the Riester flop?
My confidence is dwindling, unfortunately not only in this policy area!
1
profile image
@1999-topeuro You're probably right, unfortunately.
But it would be so simple: every citizen has the option of linking a custody account to their pension number. This is then completely KES-free when it is paid out in the pension. And that's it. 🤷
1