Retirement savings account coming on 1.1.2027

1Wk

I think I also prefer to remain a private investor. Seriously, where the state is involved with a bit of funding etc., there's too much bureaucracy and external influence.

Why not simply increase the saver's allowance from €1,000 to €12,000? This would benefit many more people who save

•

Timo@Aktienorang-Utan

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden It is much more interesting for the state how many assets you own :)

•

1Wk

@Aktienorang-Utan for more redistribution although I have already paid tax on everything umpteen times

•

MarTheRadi@marda304

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden I agree. If the state has its hands on the product, I have problems with that. Let's see what is actually realized in the end. Until then, I prefer to manage everything myself.

•

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden So you would rather pay more tax than use a custody account with state subsidies?

On what grounds?

You also use the saver's allowance, what's the difference?
It's not like you're opening a custody account with the tax office.
These custody accounts should be offered by normal custodian banks.

••

1Wk

@TotallyLost no, of course I wouldn't pay more tax than usual :) But as we know the state, these types of deposits are then linked to conditions such as blocking for several years or you choose. For example, with VL savings, you have a deposit with a measly 40€/month deposit possible, then you get inflexible access, partly with repayments (only promotion) and then in the 7th year also blocked for 1 year.

Nope, completely inflexible and too rigid a corset because the state over-regulates again. The German state does not know pragmatism.

That's why I've become extremely suspicious of the state when it comes to financial matters, also due to numerous other examples.

•

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden Yes, but it's not made for you, it's intended as an incentive for people who haven't covered anything or very little so far.

You can tap into the subsidy in one account and at the same time keep another, which is flexible.

It's no different with the American 401k, if you withdraw money beforehand, the special accounts also expire.

And if you generally don't trust the state when it comes to property rights, then you would have to hold shares outside the EU, or physical gold / BTC.

If the market believed that assets in Germany are not safe, then German Gov.Bonds would have a whole interest rate and rating.

I hope that it comes to you... maybe Austria will follow suit... at the moment we don't even have an exemption amount. 😭

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Wk

@TotallyLost You're right about everything.

•

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden Tax-free amount simply to € 1 million. 95-99% are relieved with minimal tax losses.

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Wk

@PikaPika0105 or something like that. Just set KeSt to 30%, but give the normal citizen an allowance of €24,000, who should and will provide for their own pension. That way, everyone will be relieved and money will still come in, just from the absolutely wealthy people, or you have to partially adjust other basic taxes. But my God again, please don't hit the middle class.

••

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden So the debate is always about the evil rich with their huge fortunes and dividends. So, as far as I'm concerned, only burden them (even if I would actually be in favor of simply relieving everyone). That's why the tax-free amount should be at least €1 million. 12k or 24k is far too little. You reach that far too quickly, especially if you hold the shares for longer. So either a very high tax-free amount or a minimum holding period of one year and then no tax. But the SPD always has to burden the middle class in the name of the unemployed.

••

View all 3 further answers

Epi@Epi

1Wk

Uff, 115 pages of draft legislation for €100 per month old-age provision.

The will seems to be there. But this threatens to create another bureaucratic monster. Why keep it simple when you can make it complicated?

•

1Wk

@Epi Exactly! You can also do something like this with the 10-point plan of the then FDP under Lindner (which is also much more capital market-friendly) in a maximum of 15 clear pages.

Every 10 pages more costs returns that disappear elsewhere in the bureaucracy instead of with the end user. No thanks

•

Epi@Epi

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden Yes, I also found Lindner's 15 pages likeable and understandable. Now I'm lost. 🤷

•

1Wk

@Epi Fact check: The FDP draft had 102 pages.
https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/140/2014027.pdf

•

1Wk

@randomdude yes, of course, but a clear poster explained everything sufficiently

•

1Wk

@randomdude That is also too long, of course.
But, as always, it's down to German bureaucracy

•

1Wk

@Epi German problems require German solutions 😅

But seriously, if that happens, bureaucracy or not, it's a huge step in the right direction.

And what you shouldn't forget is that this is really about bringing small savers into the capital market.
Unfortunately, in our bubble we often forget how few there are.

If this thing happens, I say good job Germany, hopefully we'll get something like this in Austria too.

And now let's wait and see what it really looks like in the end, because there's not only room for upside but also for downside. 😘

•

1Wk

@Epi Yes, it is complex. This is partly due to the housing subsidy, which is not a sensible contribution to retirement provision from a commercial point of view.
However, the retirement savings account allows the following model, for example:
If you start in the first half of your 20s and save 40 years with the subsidized amount in a world ETF, you will accumulate 540,000 euros. This results in a safe withdrawal rate of EUR 30,000 in the first year (taxable at the personal tax rate), which works over a 30-year payout phase and can be indexed for inflation.
This is a quantum leap compared to the previous insurance shells, is very simple and meets the needs of 95% of employees.

•

1Wk

I am in favor of doing everything possible to bring the general public into the capital market.
But please without too much bureaucracy and focus on the essentials.

•

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden The example I gave is absolutely essential. It couldn't be simpler with today's range of products offered by the financial industry and today's knowledge of the capital market.

•

View all 15 further answers

1Wk

@randomdude The simplest thing to do is to register with a broker, invest via a savings plan and make additional deposits. Have it declared as a retirement savings account so that the money can only be withdrawn or annuitized TAX-FREE under certain circumstances. End

Similar to the Trump child custody account, 1,000$ dollar at birth, deposits 5,000$ p.a. Possible, even half through an AG.

Quite simple actually

•

NEWT@SteelAnacott

1Wk

State support for old-age provision is to be reformed and deregulated and there is already a lot of grumbling.

That's Germany.

•

1Wk

@SteelAnacott I thought the same thing when I read the comments. 😅
I'm still waiting for "If I'm not made completely tax-free immediately, I'm emigrating! This is my last warning!"⛔️🤬🧨"

•

1Wk

@SteelAnacott I can tell you why. Because Germany simply can't do without taxation. Why not take the good 401k model in the USA and leave the taxes out or greatly reduce them. At the end of the day, the state collects again with a tendency to increase taxes.

We simply want a very simple model for building up capital without bureaucracy.

Who has cashed in on Riester and Rürup? The insurance industry, because the state has made it so bureaucratic that there is hardly any return due to all the requirements.

It's logical that people are skeptical at first when something comes from the state and talks about capital.

•

1Wk

401k payouts are of course also taxed.

Consumer advocates now also believe that Riester and Rürup were wrongly designed. Now Riester is being repaired. That's a good thing.

••

1Wk

@randomdude Roth IRA as a US retirement savings account where you can withdraw all earnings tax and withdrawal free at almost 60. What can you say about that? Is it possible to get something tax-free in Germany? Except for Bürgi

••

1Wk

@randomdude but collect money for years, even though it was clear from the outset that an incredible amount of money would be lost in this bureaucratic monster.

And 115 pages is again too much text

•

1Wk

@BockaufDividenden Contributions to Roth IRAs are made from taxed income. So it's not completely tax-free.
The tax-free withdrawal in old age is of course an advantage compared to the flat tax in Germany, I agree.

•

CrashBurner@Psychedelic_Sunflower

1Wk

@randomdude The biggest leverage is that the money works on the capital market, which you have invested with your taxed money and which is completely at risk. And the state TAXES NOTHING. That's what it's all about, TAX-FREE withdrawal.

•

Moritz@leveragegrinding

@BockaufDividenden that's nonsense. There are taxes in the US too, somehow you write 100s of comments here but just want to push your opinion through

•

Oleg@ScorpionfromBW

1Wk

Anyone who believes that this was forged for the benefit of the population also believes in Santa Claus. If things don't go smoothly, our politicians will decide something that will be detrimental.

I prefer to remain a private investor, maybe I'll give it a try with a little money.

The question is, who will finance it all?

•

Epi@Epi

1Wk

@ScorpionfromBW Who is financing all this? Well, the private investors. 😬

•

Oleg@ScorpionfromBW

1Wk

@Epi That's right. We then finance all the subsidies again, so left pocket, right pocket, as has always been the case. Or other taxes are raised to finance this. The state doesn't give you anything, it's just discussed.

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@ScorpionfromBW you can choose to either pay x% more tax today or y×x% more tax in the future.

By the way, this is not left pocket right pocket

••

1Wk

If it doesn't become a cost-intensive bureaucratic monster, I'll definitely get it and put €1800 into it every year, but no more. You've made +20% directly through the subsidy. And then there's the nice tax deferral, which is a very good feature.
Nevertheless, it would only be a small side account because it's not flexible enough for me. If I want to stop working before 65, I won't be able to get to it without a premature retirement and would be taxed later. And the age at which you can retire could be raised again and again over the next few decades. I want to decide for myself when I want to stop and not be tied to work by my deposit. This will then become a building block that takes effect from 65.

•

1Wk

@Psychedelic_Sunflower I will probably also take a two-pronged approach. I'll move my Riester savings plan and continue to save in it to take advantage of the subsidy, while also building up assets in my existing custody account.

••

Banana M.@Banana_Millionaire

1Wk

Here is the draft bill: https://cdn.table.media/assets/berlin/pav_entwurf.pdf

•

1Wk

That's where we have the first problem. My primary goal is to retire earlier. I want to stop at 60 at the latest so that I can still participate in life in a reasonably healthy way.
Here you are lured with the subsidies, but at the same time you are tied to work.

•

Banana M.@Banana_Millionaire

1Wk

@Banana_Millionaire why, you can still stop working earlier.

Nowhere does it say that you can't do that.

You can stop working tomorrow if you can afford it.

•

1Wk

@TotallyLost But wouldn't the subsidies then be forfeited or even repaid if I don't work until I'm at least 65?

••

CrashBurner@Psychedelic_Sunflower

1Wk

I would also be interested to know whether you can still stop earlier. But I simply assume that you won't be able to access the deposit until you're 65 without paying a premium. You'll have to see for yourself what you do for a living between the time you stop working and 65.

•

Banana M.@Banana_Millionaire

1Wk

@Banana_Millionaire Yes, if you take money out before 65, you have to pay back the subsidy.
But if you want to retire before 65, the €1800 per year won't be enough.

So since you will save more than the €1800 p.a., you can pay the difference until your regular pension from the other deposit.

•

1Wk

@TotallyLost ah okay, so I still get the subsidies, but I can't get them until I'm 65 at the earliest? I can live with that.

•

PikaPika0105@PikaPika0105

1Wk

@Banana_Millionaire just like that.

••

KevinE@KevinE

1Wk

@Banana_Millionaire I still see it as you do. With 401k / Roth, you can generally withdraw tax-free from the age of 59.5. I think that's a reasonable age. Starting at 65 is simply utopian for many people. So many people can't work that long for health reasons (both physical and mental).

Those who can afford it (usually corporate employees) now take partial retirement at 59 to 63 if possible. I would then also set the earliest possible retirement age.

••

Moritz@leveragegrinding

@Banana_Millionaire Well, as a state, anything else would be self-defeating. Helping people to become wealthy and then dismissing them early from their jobs would not make sense for society.

•

Krush82@Krush82

1Wk

Is that satire???

•

1Wk

So they got nervous and pulled Lindner's draft bill out of the drawer after all.

•

Edward M.@edwardmorra

What's with all this subsidy garbage? Why not just leave the money in people's pockets and work with tax-free incentives? Bureaucracy as a justification for the necessity of politics.

•

@edwardmorra Surely the program is an incentive for old-age provision through allowances and tax breaks?

••

Edward M.@edwardmorra

No, taxpayers' money is spent on subsidies. You end up paying for every subsidy yourself, not just once, but twice and three times over due to the bureaucracy involved

••

@edwardmorra How would you specifically incentivize people to build up a pension on the capital market?

••

@randomdude Tax-free allowance of €12,000 per person per year instead of the paltry €1,000. And this sum rises in line with inflation or, ideally, in line with the dietary increases that politicians allow and indulge themselves.

How about this.

••

@BockaufDividenden I would like that too, no question. However, this would primarily benefit committed small investors like us and would not provide any incentive for those who have so far been indifferent to the issue. For them, the most rational way would be to save in an ACWI for 40 years and then be able to withdraw tax-free. But the model is probably too simple 🤪, does not offer any immediate tax benefits and would not do the veteran banks and insurance companies any favors.

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@BockaufDividenden No, you're only helping people who already have money.

Of course you finance this at a certain o/oo rate, but low earners in particular benefit from it. If they manage to put money aside at all.

•

@Eggplant Everything you say is true. In principle, the state's share of GDP must be reduced anyway and social security contributions must fall significantly. But these are all major projects...

••

1Wk

I did a quick calculation, if you use the maximum amount of 1800€ per year and only have one child, you get 50% funding... 🤯

Or am I misunderstanding something?

••

1Wk

I think it's a little different than you think: the subsidy is on top and is not deducted from the maximum eligible payment as was previously the case with Riester.
So: pay in 1,800 euros and get 780 euros allowance (43%) with 1 child

•

1Wk

@randomdude which is also quite good, especially when you consider that the subsidy is upstream and feeds compound interest.

•

MarTheRadi@marda304

1Wk

@randomdude Is the child then credited to one parent, as with Riester? Or can both register?

••

1Wk

@marda304 Just one each, please.

••

Pazzzi@Pazzzi

1Wk

The idea is good, but the savings amount is ridiculous (€100/month).

••

1Wk

@Pazzzi With the grant and one child, it's around €230 per month.

If you calculate this for 30 years with compound interest, you get € 200,000.00
400,000 over 40 years.

And there's no need to save any more.

That's a good start and more than what we get in Austria...
We don't even have a tax-free allowance...

Please cry quietly ... Fucking Deitsche... 🫠

•

Pazzzi@Pazzzi

1Wk

@TotallyLost Of course, this is me complaining at a high level. It's very good and sensible for the broad masses of society. However, if you compare programs in the USA or Poland, it's pretty weak in my opinion.

•

1Wk

@Pazzzi I can't say anything about Poland, but when comparing the USA, you have to bear in mind that state pension insurance there is intended more as basic security. Accordingly, private provision has always been more pronounced. In the long term, I think this will also develop in Germany.

•

Thomas@Thomas_1963

1Wk

For my wife, who won't be able to retire until 2033, I will probably also invest the maximum amount of EUR 1,800 per year. Why shouldn't I take advantage of the state allowance?

••

ashish J.@JaqenH

1Wk

Same old shit wrapped in new name. These will be laden with huge fees and only available to old rusty firms like Dekra.

Any wrapper of any kind in Germany means more fees, more fees, more fees. This country doesn't want you to be rich in any ways.

••

1Wk

@JaqenH Sorry, but you‘re completely wrong. You can choose any ETF with the lowest TER. No one will charge you more.

•

1Wk

@randomdude says who? What is about the company, offering the Depot? I think Klingbeil Said something Like „Not more than 1,5% p.a.“

••

1Wk

@profit_pilot_2921 This is evident from the draft legislation. You will be able to choose from a large number of providers, including neobrokers. "Not more than 1.5%" means that 0.1% is also possible.

••

1Wk

@randomdude as long as neo broker stay that cheap…

••

1Wk

@profit_pilot_2921 Good old German pessimism 😅

••

@randomdude good old experience with the SPD

••

Moritz@leveragegrinding

@Reddington09 howl quietly, people like you are making Germany depressed

•