6J·

The government will pay you money to invest—things are going to get exciting starting in 2027 🧐

Starting in 2027, something is set to be introduced in Germany that could be of interest to any long-term investor:

The government-subsidized retirement savings account.

And no—I don’t just mean the next Riester plan.

For the first time, this new model will make it possible to invest in a return-oriented account with government subsidies, without a traditional contribution guarantee.

Put simply:

You invest for the long term.

The government matches your contributions.

And your money can grow in the capital markets.

What’s currently planned?

The new subsidy was actually improved even further during the legislative process.

For the first €360 of your own contribution , there is a subsidy of 50%.

For additional contributions up to a total of 1,800 € per year there is 25%.

This results in up to:

€540 in basic government allowance per year

is possible.

And child allowances may also be of interest to parents.

This means, if fully utilized:

€1,800 of your own money +

€540 in government support

€2,340 per year

that can go toward your retirement savings.

And now it gets interesting.

How does this differ from the old Riester plan?

The new retirement savings account is intended to be significantly more capital-market-oriented.

Among other things, it should be possible to invest in the stock market over the long term via funds and ETFs.

There’s also a subsidy-eligible account without a guarantee.

Of course, this means:

Higher potential returns = higher risk.

But that’s exactly what I find interesting.

Because if you still have decades until retirement, a broadly diversified stock portfolio can be much more attractive in the long term than a product that sacrifices a large portion of its potential returns for guarantees.

And now for my actual question for you:

Would you open a portfolio like this?

Personally, I find the idea exciting:

My regular investment account remains my regular investment account.

And in addition, I could build up a government-subsidized retirement savings component.

Not either stocks or retirement savings.

But rather:

Stocks + ETFs + government subsidies.

If the government is already co-financing part of my savings plan, why not at least explore this option?

Of course, you have to take a close look beforehand at the costs, investment terms, eligible securities, and—later on—the taxation of the payout.

Because “government-subsidized” doesn’t automatically mean “good product.”

The product has to be the right fit in the end.

But one thing is certain for me:

Anyone investing for the long term should take a very close look at this option in 2027.

And perhaps we investors should start looking into it now—before the first banks and brokers launch their products on the market.

What do you think:

Would you contribute €1,800 a year to such an account if it came with up to €540 in subsidies?

Or would you rather stick entirely with your regular investment account?

#Altersvorsorge
#Aktien
#ETF
#Investieren
#Rente
#Finanzen
#Vermögensaufbau

$MSCI (-1,52 %)
$SPY (-0,54 %)
$IWDA (-0,52 %)

80 Commentaires

Epi@Epi

The retirement savings account is a step in the right direction and should attract many new investors to the stock market to build a sound retirement plan. It’s a great thing, especially for young people!

For most people here, the €540 per year won’t really make a difference. The tax shelter and the maximum contribution limit might be more interesting. On the other hand, there are relatively strict withdrawal rules.

Ultimately, the retirement savings account is unlikely to have much impact on the strategic approach of most people here. The potential cross-subsidization through taxation of crypto and gold might even make it more expensive for established individual investors.

•

Tenbagger2024@Tenbagger2024

@Epi And for Riester plans, this is a good opportunity to rebalance your portfolio

•

Epi@Epi

@Tenbagger2024 I think that will be the key issue for most people here who started their investing journey with a Riester plan and finally want to free it from fees and factors that hold back returns.

•

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

I will NOT do it.

Reason: It’s a well-intentioned idea, but I think it will just turn into yet another bureaucratic monster—if not right away, then later, when future governments start tinkering with it. And yes—over time, they’ll tweak the rules to advance their respective political agendas. “Green ESG,” “redistribution,” “social responsibility”—maybe even “German companies for German portfolios” at some point—you never know what issues might come up over an extremely long investment horizon.
I definitely wouldn’t rely on promises made today for the future. So many of those have already been broken.
I’d rather invest independently, put my money where I want, and be able to withdraw it at any time. Under no circumstances do I want a portfolio that ultimately dictates a specific age at which I’m allowed to retire. Maybe someone at 55, 50, or 45 has built up enough financial firepower to enjoy a carefree life overlooking a lake in Norway or the sea in Spain. In that case, a retirement portfolio with a fixed income starting at age 68 just gets in the way.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@NichtRelevant Well, that’s up to you. I’ll go along with it. Under current rules, you could get out. And as long as only the so-called “standard product” is affected by any ESG filters, I don’t really care. I could also be indifferent to the retirement age, since you can factor into your withdrawal strategy that another source of income will be added at 67, 68, 69, or 70.

For avid savers like many of us, though, it’ll always be a little bonus where the decision to “take it or leave it” will hardly change the outcome.

•

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@SchlaubiSchlumpf Of course, you can "take it with you." Still, I think the rules will change over time. I wouldn't put too much in there. 😉

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@NichtRelevant Where do you get your "knowledge" that the rules will change over time?
In my opinion, this is just more baseless scaremongering. There’s such a thing as grandfathering, and if you look at how often laws have been changed retroactively for existing Riester contracts... oh wait

••

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@Eggplant Well, yes. The taxation of pensions has been changed. The taxation of gains from pension insurance policies has been changed. The holding periods for stock transactions were changed several times and then abolished. Certain empirically supported trends can certainly be observed here. Those who relied on legal certainty and predictability have, in some cases, been left high and dry.

The same is true for other issues regulated by the state or set by local authorities. For example, the calculation of property tax was revised—the promise was a revenue-neutral reform for citizens with no additional burden. That was, of course, nonsense. As for the rent index, the criteria are changed every 2–3 years so that landlords who have adapted their apartments to the new criteria can be taken advantage of. During the COVID-19 pandemic, tenants were allowed to suspend rent payments for up to two months, while landlords were not permitted to suspend their mortgage payments to the bank.
These are all rules that were changed retroactively and that long-term investors suddenly have to swallow.

I have very limited trust in government programs and promises, especially when those promises extend far into the future and the politicians who made them will be retired by the time I reach the stage of drawing on my own retirement savings.

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@NichtRelevant This isn’t about changes that move us forward, but rather changes that take us backward. Of course, a government can, will, and should make changes. And a state of emergency is always a special case and temporary.

Regarding your rent example (and without me passing judgment on it right now): In the event of an emergency, the rent could have been deferred for 3 months. Not waived—which suggests the landlord would never see that money again during that time. The fact is that the rent wasn’t lost, but had to be paid at a later date. The (private) landlord was allowed to enforce similar rules with the bank.

Property tax—why was that nonsense? “Income-neutral” doesn’t mean things will get better for everyone! To get that out of the way first, yes, I know people whose property tax has gone down.

Grandfathering means that existing rules continue to apply to current contracts and assets. There were times when selling stocks was tax-free. If you still hold those stocks today, those rules apply to that portion of your portfolio—meaning you don’t pay taxes on the capital gains.

I wonder where this general—and, in my opinion, unfounded—skepticism toward the government comes from.

To anyone who wants to jump in here and say, “Not everything the government does is good”: Yes, I agree. But it’s not as universally bad as it’s increasingly being portrayed.

A current example of why the government can’t please everyone: 33 rules for pension reform.

Everyone knows the pension system needs to be reformed and wants that to happen. Moreover, it should be clear that there MUST be (unpleasant) changes. By the way, that’s one reason why no one really wants to tackle this issue.
The result: grumbling and attempts to cherry-pick benefits

Once again: Yes, I’m negatively affected. Nevertheless, the proposals still don’t go far enough for me, and I hope at least that they’ll pass this comprehensive package—that would be a step toward stabilization. There won’t be a solution that benefits everyone; mathematically, that’s simply not possible.

••

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@Eggplant I appreciate that someone is taking the time to write detailed responses. However, I don’t think we’ll be able to reach a consensus here.

Of course, everyone is free to take advantage of the newly created pension and investment structures and to trust in the predictability and reliability of the government. And yes—in principle, it’s a positive development that the pension system is to include a pillar that utilizes the capital and stock markets and encourages citizens to plan for retirement and actively explore their options.

Nevertheless, I simply won’t do it. Because I want to be completely free to choose my own investment vehicles. Because I want the freedom to buy and sell at any time and then use the money as I see fit—for retirement, for other investments, for entrepreneurial ventures, or for any other expenses. And all of this without having to fill out any applications or provide justifications (I know the government just wants to protect me from myself. But I’d like to manage my own risk).

A quick note on COVID-19 and the rent deferral: True, the rent didn’t disappear; it “just” had to be paid later. But the reason the government introduced this deferral as a relief measure was precisely because tenants might face financial hardship due to the crisis. So the default risk was simply shifted to the investor; there was no government guarantee for the tenants’ deferred payments. The private landlord simply couldn’t suspend his monthly obligations as well. With two rental units at three months’ rent each, the landlord was left scrambling—and on top of his own problems caused by the COVID-19 crisis, he also had to deal with his tenants’ problems. Could he have negotiated with his bank and asked for a payment deferral? Sure. Would a bank have agreed to that? Most likely not. They would have lost all creditworthiness for the future and then faced problems renewing the loan.

I understand the issue of changing the rules for the future. But when it comes to certain long-term decisions, it doesn’t help me if the rules are “only” changed for the future. If my retirement income depends on renting out an apartment building and I already own the building, it’s simply a problem if, after a certain cutoff date, the landlord is required to contribute to tenants’ heating costs based on specific energy ratings—because that destroys an investment plan that was designed to span decades. Or if laws are introduced “effective immediately” that prohibit sudden rent increases when a unit is re-leased. The person who didn’t raise the rent for 15 years for an elderly woman on a small pension is suddenly the fool, because measures like rent caps, etc., suddenly prevent this.

Much of what is decided in the Bundestag is well-intentioned, but in my view, it’s poorly executed or hasn’t been thought through to the end.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@NichtRelevant I don’t want to make you paranoid, but I think it doesn’t matter at all whether it’s a retirement savings account or a regular investment account. At the end of the day, the government can always change the rules. Introducing a flat-rate withholding tax, revising the taxation of investment income, tax exemptions…

Things are constantly changing. The government isn’t static. At some point, there could be a far-left government that believes capital gains are always bad unless they’re used for retirement planning, and that makes regular investment accounts even less favorable compared to retirement savings accounts.

But seriously: whether you opt for the retirement savings account or not makes only a marginal difference for most of us. So you should probably just do what you think is right.

••

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@SchlaubiSchlumpf Anyway—everyone can and should do whatever they want.

But as for being paranoid: I’ve already started making my first investments in the Czech Republic (though I don’t have a shotgun or any ammunition). 😅

••

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@NichtRelevant 😂 You can still buy a little piece of land there and bury some gold

••

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@SchlaubiSchlumpf Great idea!!! 😀

•

Voir toutes les 2 autres réponses

Echsenkönig A.@Bezehgombjuderstimme

So I'm just going to leave it alone and carry on as before. I don't feel like having all the parameters changed every four years just because some new clown is in power.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@Bezehgombjuderstimme I don't expect changes to be made there very often. It doesn't happen in other countries either. Once citizens have money tied up in it, any major negative change would be political suicide.

••

Echsenkönig A.@Bezehgombjuderstimme

@SchlaubiSchlumpf I'd love to see that happen, but as long as the chancellor breaks campaign promises on his first day in office and can then continue governing without a care, the bar for such changes is probably set pretty low 😂

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@Bezehgombjuderstimme Do you know the difference between a campaign and legislation?

It doesn't hurt to learn about the new retirement savings account, even if you stick to your strategy.

••

Anderlé MPoint@Anderle

Things will get interesting once we find out how much the “TER” will cost. Only then, in my opinion, can we come up with a reasonable plan.

Here’s a handy AVD calculator I’ve found:

https://www.finanzfluss.de/rechner/altersvorsorgedepot/

✌🏼

•

Part_Time_Joe@Part_Time_Joe

@Anderle The costs don't really matter, since the subsidy is the real incentive. You put in 1,800 euros and get 500 euros plus a little extra. That's about a 30% risk-free return on your deposit in the first year! You’ll be hard-pressed to find a better investment.

The only thing that would matter to me is the withdrawal policy. When can I access the money? Do I have to pay a “penalty” if I want to withdraw it before retirement? What happens to it in the event of death, etc.?

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@Anderle I mean, in a Finanzfluss video, they said that in conversations with some neobrokers, it had already been indicated to them that the AV portfolio should be offered for free or at a very low cost.

For me, the costs are also the deciding factor. The good thing here is definitely the ability to switch providers. This will lead to more competition among providers.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@Anderle I'll offset the withdrawal against the tax saved on the deposit

••

Mi11@Migu11

@Part_Time_Joe The main change to the current Riester plan is that you can’t access the funds until age 65 at the earliest. (With the old Riester plan, you could start at age 60; with the slightly newer version, at age 62.) You can also have the money paid out through a time-limited payment plan that ends at age 85. That wasn’t possible before. In the event of death, the funds go to “Riester-eligible” survivors listed in your contract, just as before. If you want to access the funds before retirement, you’ll need to terminate the contract and repay the government contributions and any tax benefits received. That might be worth it in some cases...

•

Dividendenopi👴@Dividendenopi

I'm glad I'm too old to have to worry about that 😇

•

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

I already have a Riester pension plan. I'm going to switch.

•

Epi@Epi

@DonkeyInvestor That was so obvious!
Anyone who has BTC and 3xGTAA obviously also has a Riester rocket ready to launch.

•

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

@Epi is, of course, a unit-linked fund and provides a decent return. Unlike my home savings plan

•

Endurance Life@MozartsGeist

@DonkeyInvestor 😂I wouldn't have thought you were capable of that! Back then, I'd already bailed before Riester came along. In my youthful recklessness, I turned an impending "cash flow event" (endowment life insurance) into a problem for myself 🫣

••

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

@MozartsGeist I canceled my whole life insurance policy many years ago 😁

••

Endurance Life@MozartsGeist

@DonkeyInvestor It's a lousy, one-sided contract. I've already thought about making it a non-contributory plan. On the other hand, it's an old contract with a corresponding interest rate.

•

Epi@Epi

@DonkeyInvestor Oh!? You have a home savings plan, too! That goes together like a donkey and a donkey...

•

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

@Epi Speaking of which, I have kids, too

•

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

@MozartsGeist That's how it was for me, too. I even got tax breaks on it. Get rid of those beasts!

•

Endurance Life@MozartsGeist

Currently, I'm suspending 2/3 of the premium adjustments. I might make the policy completely premium-free.

•

PresidentDonkey@DonkeyInvestor

@MozartsGeist "GET OUT OF HERE, YOU BASTARD," I SAID

••

Voir toutes les 8 autres réponses

asset_sage_smmad@asset_sage_smmad

This investment account will be completely plundered by the government in the coming decades; I wouldn't fall for this poisoned gift.

•

Fallon@Carrington

I’ve been thinking about whether I should take advantage of the subsidy—that is, contribute 150/180 € or whatever the amount is…
I’m not sure at the moment, though.
I’m assuming there will be (nearly) free options available through TR and similar platforms, so a tax-advantaged ETF without additional costs would be possible.

The thing is, though, I’ll have a relatively high personal tax rate both now and in retirement. In other words: I might even have a tax advantage right now, but even if I invest that amount, the government will end up taking more back in the end.
I did the math once and came up with a difference of about 30,000 euros in favor of the AV account (I still have 42 years to go).
Given this, I don’t see myself putting up with this lack of flexibility, not even for “just” 150€ a month.

But as I said: in my case, this is specifically due to what will likely be high tax rates in my old age.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@Carrington I have those, too. But that doesn't mean there's a 25% capital gains tax on the profits from them.

••

Fallon@Carrington

@SchlaubiSchlumpf Yeah, but that means 35% on the payout…
And even if everything in my regular portfolio were profit (and I weren't able to bypass FIFO), 25% on the respective payout would still be 10% less

••

KBO@KBO

If the tax-free allowance on investment income were significantly increased, that would probably be the better and simpler solution for everyone.
I no longer trust the government, so I'm not going to do that for now.

•

Tobi@Genialix

I think if I were to deposit just the €360, I'd get the 50% subsidy.
In that case, I think it's probably better to invest the rest myself.

•

Smudo@Smudeo

Subsidies for everyone, or only up to a certain income level?
Is the money tax-free when you withdraw it, or does the government take its cut again?
Since everything subsidized by the government in recent decades has been a scam, a rip-off, and a ploy to fleece people.
As far as I’m concerned, NO—I don’t trust this scam.

•

KoenigsRasse@KoenigsRasse

@Smudeo I can understand the skepticism. But the payout isn't entirely tax-free—the main benefit lies in the subsidy and the tax treatment during the savings phase. If the government gives me money to invest for the long term, I'd still take the subsidy. 😉

••

Chris@Psychedelic_Sunflower

I’ll contribute no more than 30€ per month to take advantage of the 50% subsidy, if at all. The money isn’t flexible at all, and the government can change the rules at any time (cut the subsidy, change the tax treatment, raise the retirement age, impose penalties for not having enough years of work, etc.).
I think at €30 per month, the risk-reward ratio is still the best.

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@Psychedelic_Sunflower Why do you think the government can change the rules at any time? There’s something called “grandfathering,” which prevents rules from being changed RETROACTIVELY.

Retroactive changes are actually used when they’re to someone’s advantage.

Yes, the government can enact new laws, but that applies to everything—for example, it could simply abolish the capital gains tax exemption “tomorrow.” However, that wouldn’t mean you’d have to pay more taxes retroactively. The tax burden would, if anything, change in the future.

••

Chris@Psychedelic_Sunflower

@Eggplant For example, that’s exactly what they’re trying to do with Bitcoin right now. The finance minister never mentioned any grandfather clause.
If the government decides in 20 years to impose a completely different, higher tax on the portfolio in old age, you’ll be left in a tough spot, because I can’t just sell it if I don’t like the new rules. In 10 years, the government might also decide that we should all work until age 73 and only make the investment account accessible starting then.
Since all of these are things that would happen in the future, nothing is being changed retroactively.
And if governments all too often don’t even feel bound by their own word, what does that say about the promises made by some previous administration?

••

Eggplant@Eggplant

@Psychedelic_Sunflower The government plans to change the tax rules in the future—where do you get the idea that this will affect the Bitcoin you already own?

Regarding the increase in the retirement age, I partly agree with you. So far, I haven’t been able to find anywhere whether the current retirement age or the future one will be used for the retirement savings account. My assumption is that the retirement age on the date the account is opened will be used. But this is purely speculation on my part.

Again, laws have been changed several times in the past, but that only affected future transactions—for example, stock gains used to be tax-free and are no longer tax-free for NEW PURCHASES since the change. This has no effect on your existing shares, but that’s what makes it so time-consuming for the banks. They have to record every single purchase and apply the laws in effect at that time.

You have an extremely negative view of the legislation and its implementation. I don’t know exactly where that comes from, but past experience contradicts your assumptions.

••

Shothebow@Shothebow

Another group ran through the scenario and concluded that it wasn't worth it.

•

Eggplant@Eggplant

@shothebow You're trying to generalize a specific scenario, but that's not how it works.

I'd be interested to know what your scenario looks like where it's not worth it.

••

Martini_007@Martini_007

A similar model has existed in Italy since around 2001/2002: If you contribute 2% of your gross salary, your employer matches that amount.

It sounds tempting, because even if the market yields no returns, the employer’s contribution directly results in a 100% return.

Nevertheless, I decided against it. These systems are primarily designed to bridge the private pension gap—the capital is locked in until you reach the standard retirement age.

Those who take control of their own finances and invest in ETFs, stocks, or cryptocurrencies enjoy full flexibility: free choice of assets, flexible withdrawals, and the chance to retire early on your own terms (e.g., through dividends). True financial independence only works without rigid, predefined rules.

My money, my decision, my freedom.

With that in mind, best regards from Italy 🇮🇹 ☀️ 🍸

•

Fuzzi@Invest-Fuzzi

Actually, I think the subsidized investment account is a good idea. I’ll probably deposit the €1,800 per year. We’ll see what products banks, insurance companies, and others end up offering. I’m sure I’ll have to do a bit of comparing.
Of course, I’ll continue to contribute to my investment account independently of that.
But I think for many people who haven’t done anything—or hardly anything—so far, this offer could be a good start...

•

Wow@Wow

There are rumors that the AV-Depot won't cost anything with some brokers. If that turns out to be true, then I think the AV-Depot is really great and I'll definitely take full advantage of it…

•

Markus@_xempex_

Throughout this entire discussion, people tend to completely overlook the fact that the AVD encourages many people who haven’t invested at all so far to start saving for the long term. All these experts here who already invest 500 EUR every month and use Excel to calculate how a 0.01% higher expense ratio affects this or that—they’re not the most important target audience! These know-it-alls can’t seem to step outside their bubble and always assume that every investor naturally makes fully informed and responsible decisions—and, of course, that even standard savings plans, which can be terminated at any time and easily liquidated, will —in the best-case scenario, for 30–40 years—through all the ups and downs! Honestly, I can’t understand how anyone could be incapable of stepping outside their own bubble to recognize—or even acknowledge—that this is unlikely. Everyone here knows people who start out motivated but cash out immediately after the first market dip—even though, in theory, it’s all clear and you’re supposed to ride it out. A model that makes cashing out more difficult while also depositing a subsidy into your account every year (i.e., money you can “see”) motivates you to keep going. I also find those theoretical calculators currently circulating—the ones that tell you whether you’ll have 1.23 EUR more after 40 years—simply ridiculous and completely out of touch with reality.

Even if the final amount were theoretically +/-0, most people would probably be better off with the AVD, because people are very likely to stick with such a subsidized model longer than they would if they started without a subsidy at a regular bank. I’d like to see portals or influencers focus on this instead of confusing people with decimal places over 40-year time periods. We should help people understand the important things… a brokerage account with a direct bank or neobroker, no insurance, no guarantees over the long term, the lowest possible costs, etc.

•

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@_xempex_ We’re stuck in an extremely privileged bubble here, where people who generally earn above-average incomes and invest are questioning a measure designed to encourage non-investors to invest.

And the reason isn’t that it’s unprofitable—because it isn’t for anyone. The reason is either
A) that it doesn’t make them rich enough (Like, bro, how much more should the government support someone who earns 5k and invests 2k? You’re the textbook example of “you’ve got it made”)
Or B) people distrust the government. They think it just wants to rip them off anyway. Today’s subsidies would be reversed tomorrow. (As if it couldn’t also raise the capital gains tax to 50%)

The AVD is a great idea. In my view, the “free money” incentive is also really helpful. They could have set the threshold a bit higher—kept the subsidy the same but applied it to a higher funding limit. But then again, as someone earning minimum wage, you still have to come up with €150 to begin with.

•

Markus@_xempex_

@SchlaubiSchlumpf Thanks. That’s exactly how I see it, too. Of course, there’s always room for improvement, but what we have now is nonetheless a real milestone. The mere fact that the insurance companies are up in arms and stirring up opposition to “non-guaranteed investment accounts” shows me that this is a really good thing. The fact that we’re in a bubble isn’t necessarily a bad thing at first. What’s bad, in my view, is that influencers and bloggers, in particular, are no longer able to think outside the box or put themselves in others’ shoes when it comes to such an important topic.
I also save over 1k EUR every month and am currently considering whether to save the extra 150 EUR or reallocate funds elsewhere. But even I recognize that I shouldn’t be the primary user of an AVD. And you’d think experts in the field would realize that, too. ^^

••

SarkasmusSchlumpf@SchlaubiSchlumpf

@_xempex_ Same here. I’m currently actively saving 1.63k (it’s a round number because I’ve been adjusting it for inflation). I’m still thinking about the 150€ as well. Whether I do that on the spot or adjust my savings rates based on my current holdings. I also have a somewhat uneconomical Rürup pension that’s bugging me. I could lower it or just let it sit at around 100 euros. (Inflation will take care of it.)

But I’m definitely not the target audience. I’m happy for people who earn less because it really makes a difference, and I’ll just keep doing this myself as a matter of routine.

•

Hau I@Haui

I currently have a Riester plan with 100% of the portfolio invested in equity funds. I’m going to convert it and contribute 600 euros a year myself. For this, I’ll receive a 560-euro subsidy. Why not?

••

Epoophoron@Epoophoron

Vererbbar?

••

Voir toutes les 3 autres réponses

Keks@Dachbodentroll

The people who are already keeping track of their finances will try to make the most of this situation, while those who really need to close their retirement gap will once again claim that it’s impossible to save x euros a month! Whether it’s a gift or not… I still believe that the government doesn’t want people to become independent of the welfare state at all!

••

Voir toutes les 2 autres réponses

Global I.@gloinvest

Because you’re not mentioning the ONLY reason that matters to me: tax-free reallocation within the portfolio.

But I see it the same way others do: in 10
years, when the statutory health insurance system isn’t just bankrupt but also insolvent, health insurance premiums will be levied on that. Or some other mess. I’d gladly forgo this tiny incentive so that, in an emergency, I could sell everything—pay taxes on the profit once—and get out of here if things completely spiral out of control in Germany.

••

financial_genius_3404@financial_genius_3404

The next German "BS" idea.

Why don't you finally do it like in the U.S. and let people invest a portion of their gross income in an ETF of their choice? With holding period requirements, whatever.

I just don’t get it—politicians must have an interest in people being able to build up their savings and actually benefit from it. €540 a year isn’t even worth the paperwork; you might as well just leave it alone.

••

Afficher la réponse

Eggplant@Eggplant

I would contribute, provided the rates offered by the providers are reasonable and I really wouldn’t need the money until retirement.

I see the following advantages:
- The money is safe in case of unemployment
- If your income is high enough, the contribution reduces your tax liability
- If your income is lower, the government subsidies provide a good incentive
- The money is also protected from your own access
- It can be passed on to heirs

I see the following disadvantages:
- Only 30% is paid out upon retirement
- In my opinion, the retirement age isn’t entirely clear at this point—that is, does today’s retirement age apply, or the future one?

••

Timo@Timooojo

I'll definitely check it out at some point—I think it's really interesting, but I still can't quite believe there's no catch. .

••

Alfred E.@Papiertiger

Since you can still get the full deposit + incentive for the current year on December 30–31, 2027, I RECOMMEND simply waiting to see who makes the best offer in 2027. Don’t jump at the first one that comes along 🐒

Some company like Neo or similar will probably offer it for free. But I expect they’ll likely throw in something extra on top of that—a €100–200 bonus or, on an ongoing basis, lower ETF expense ratios, etc., so that the effective total cost ratio is effectively 0%.

••