To add a little balance here:

the 6.4% will only affect people retiring after 2015, so granny who is already retired won't lose income.

I have mixed feelings on this. Although I believe a promise should be honoured, I think it is better for everyone to take a little bit of pain now and keep the system afloat, than for all to bury their heads in the sand, only for it to all blow up in our (read my) faces in 30 years time. At least now I know that I need to put a little extra more away, to get the same benefits. Clearly this issue is going to impact those who are going to retire in the next 10 years most, as they have less time to make alternative arrangements. My other concern is that they have done this twice now - if this is agreed to, how many more times will it happen before I retire?

Isn't pillar 2 the stuff that you pay in for your own use anyway?

No, that's pillar 3.
However with many pillar 2 pension funds/Pensionskassen you have the option of receiving your capital at once instead of monthly pension payments.

So when I took out the pillar 2 to pay for the house, and they gave me a specific amount, which was on a specific account in my name (because i worked at a bank), is this not really "my" money?

I guess I misunderstood your first question. Sorry.

The money in pillar 2 as well as pillar 3 is "your" money. You can use pillar-2-money as well as pillar-3-money to buy a house. The upcoming referendum is about pillar 2 only.

What do you mean about double negative questions? To vote against the rate reduction (and hence pension cut) you have to Vote NO. This seems to be confirmed by your later post quoted below - maybe you could edit & correct your first post especially as it is so 'loudly' written in Caps / bold / big font etc.

The KTipp article linked earlier in the thread was good. If I read it right it seems to say that the figure should be about 7% and was reduced last time (in 2003 because of ageing population) to 6.8% which should then be more than enough.

Pensioners don't need less to live off in future so cutting the pensioners income is not an alternative for me to balance the books. If more money is needed to finance it, then the contributions have to go up during one's working life or the government has to divert money to the pension instead of spending so much on other expenditures (army, air force etc) before making pensioners poorer.
So for me No 3 is a NO

It would be interesting if anyone has any good propaganda for sinking the pension rate cause the Ktipp broschure which I linked seems to have a pretty water tight case to why the sinking is a rip off. As Glendyn said they wrote that due to the increasing life expectancys the reduced the current rate from 7.2% to 6.8% They showed a graphic from the national statistics office which showed that that the big insurance organisations felt that a reduction to 7% should be sufficient. The government reduced it to 6.8% just to be sure

7 years later they want to reduce it even more because we're growing older?

Also according to Ktipp they're using dated numbers. According to the Statistics office we have on average 19 years to live after pensioning. 3 insurance organisations statistics puts life expectancy from 19 to 20.6 years. Apparently the life expectancy for women has fallen 6 months within the last 10 years!

These statistics were done between 2000-2005.

The insurance lobby apparently using statistics from 1995 which has life expectancy at 23.8 years after pension.


The AHV costs 150 Fr per person to run yearly with the pension it's 900!

From 2004-2007 it cost an extra 400 million to run the pensions. An analyst suspects the banks are getting a bonus for profits.

The insuarnce lobby also claims it's unrealistic to expect returns over 3.5% even though over the past 80 years a performance of 4.5-5.5% was always possible.

And as one guy said as obligations were bringing in 6% return no one was calling for the increase in the pension rate.


I don't no but this all seems very fishy. I don't know the other sides whole point of view but this seems pretty clear cut for me

First i should applogize if am asking again the same question. But, after reading all these posts, i am still confusted. For me, the LPP (2e pillier) is just like 3e Pillier, it is our own savings, usually in CH it is DC plan right? I think the only difference btw 2e and 3e pillier is 3e pillier is not compulsory. Now if they reduce the convertion rate, what they are going to with the residual money in our personal saving account (2e pillier account)? To assist the society to help the "poor-er" retired people?

LPP is not AVS, correct? Or i am missing something now, the new law tends to change LPP to AVS?

There isn't that much information in English on the internet on these referendums, but I did see the following editorial on a Swiss government web site:

http://www.edi.admin.ch/dokumentatio...e&msg-id=31118

Google helps provide the gist of the editorial in English. (The writer urges voters to vote Yes to reduce pensions.)

Edward J. Cunningham
Derwood, MD

Yes, but just because that's what the government suggests doesn't mean it is the best solution.

Evil F. Shell
Switzerland

I wasn't saying that it was. But for people on this thread who do not know ANY German, French, or Italian and wanted to know what that long spiel was about in a nutshell, I wanted to give a quick summary.

Chances are that citizens won't know any of one of the national languages.

Obviously, Swiss registered voters can (or SHOULD) be able to read that long editorial verbatim. Is there anything wrong with giving a quick summary?

Anyway, this link may be of more help since it gives a brief explanation of the Swiss pension system and what the "pillars" are:

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Sw...-age-insurance

Again, I think that most citizens know what the pillars are. You're hitting the wrong audience here. That's like telling American voters what IRAs and 401ks are - those interested enough to vote understand the basics of those retirement vehicles and what they do.

I have to ask, as has been asked before, what's your interest/connection to Switzerland?

More than fishy to me. It's obvious that insurance companies, who by the way are already making massive profits again are delighted with any proposal that means they can keep more of their profit to spend on themselves.

The second pillar pension providers were contracted to pay pensions, why should pensioners pay for the companies' incompetence??

Yes I agree with you, and think this is the second revision, down to 6.4% , originally it was 7.2 %.

The Swiss German consumer magazine K-Tipp is against it, so are the SP and the left wing parties and the unions. The right wing parties FDP and SVP are for the reduction. You can decide where your interests lay.

Here is more information from K-Tipp and a little calculator, (Sorry only in Deutsch)
http://www.ktipp.ch/service/rentenrechner/
Quote from K-Tipp: "Während rund zwanzig Jahren lag der gesetzlich festgelegte Umwandlungssatz bei 7,2 Prozent. Das bedeutet: Pro 100 000 Franken angespartem Alterskapital betrug die Rente der Pensionskasse 7200 Franken im Jahr". For the past 20 years it stood at 7.2 % . That means with savings of 100,000 Francs in the past you would get Fr. 7,200. If the referendum result is a "yes" you will now only get Fr. 6,400

AVS or AHV is the first piller. Old age state pension.

In the second pillar, you, and your employer, pay compulsilory into the LPP or BVG of your company's choice, usually a large insurance company. This is where the vote on the problem will be. The financial companies are worried we are all going to live longer and there won't be enough money for all the future pensioners. So why not raise the premiums by 0.4 % ?
I believe we will die earlier because of all the rubbish we eat.

The 3rd piller is privately controlled and voluntary, tax free savings up to (I think) Fr. 6,600 per year, and locked away until you retire, and .

Piller 3e is committed long term savings but not tax free.

An article from The Independent on the animal issue on the ballot

I voted three loads of "yes" this morning. I can't figure out a better way to realign the pension scheme system unless the state could encourage government sponsored euthanasia for everyone over 85, I mean, by then you should have had all your thrills and spills and had some decent "quality time" with your grand kids, so then just butt off the planet and spread the cash to the younger generations.

Have also voted this morning, but in keeping with that great Swiss tradition, I ain't telling which way.

Actually, whenever I see the voting envelope in my mail box, my heart sinks just thinking of all the reading and research I'll have to do before I can understand / decide how to vote.
At the same time, I am honoured to have a say in how things go here.
More than I do back home........