Agree with Tom. It's the same here in Neuchâtel and believe me I checked too.

My mortgage contact has a clause that we pay via the Pillar 3 account. Strange if we couldn't do this when we don't have a job, since we have both been in that situation the past 10 years.

Beobacher:
http://www.beobachter.ch/geld-sicher...-3a-einzahlen/ -


According to this link, anyone earning an income can pay in, the pillar 3b anyone can pay in. Retired people can only pay up to 5 years after retirement age if still working though.
https://www.ch.ch/en/3rd-pillar/

Umm, that's what I said.

(well, I said employed, when I meant had an income, obviously retired people and people on disability or other pension can)

If your spouse has no income, then they can't.

Tom

Tom, you said "And provided both are employed."

The link I sent said as long as you have an income.

I was thinking that your wife might have a source of income without being employed. Income from investments, self employment, pension ect.

I am the only person on my side of the family with an actual job that I have to turn up to.

Nope.

Tom

Your original post didn't make it clear that both spouses had to have an income. You made it sound as though a married couple could each deduct the third pillar contribution just by virtue of the fact that they were married.

Your later post with the links was what made it clear that both spouses need an income of some sort.

Tom's right. It's a percentage of assessed value, not market value, which is usually quite a bit lower.

One of the Quartier houses is rented, a similar house to ours. IIRC, our Eigenmietwert, figured on a percentage of that assessed value is less than half of what that house is being rented for at market rates. And of course we do not pay that amount, but only tax on that amount.

I may grumble about many things wrt my white elephant of a house, but Eigenmietwert is not one of them. It really is a small amount especially when most people can almost fully offset it against mortgage interest. Additionally, Eigenmietwert declines when your tax bracket declines, something many will come to appreciate after retirement. (Contrasted with the houses I am looking at in the US, hit with 5 digit property taxes per year, forever, one reason seniors are often forced to give up their homes.)

Actually, it was me who made that claim.

Not being married, I never spent that much time investigating this seemingly small semantic difference...

I stand corrected.

You guys should all be glad you ain't trying to buy a house in Sydney, Australia. Prices there are skyrocketing daily.

we have been anticipating higher interest rates for years now as most think all the QE and bond buying will have to lead to inflation one way or the other. In the meantime interest rates haven't risen at all and are a all time lows.

The Japan example is an important one. The demography is even more tilted to old people and they have now lost a generation with low growth and low interest rates. There is no easy way out even with the new Abenomics.

The alternative is Zimbabwe, hyper inflated and abandoning the Zimbabwean Dollar in favour of the USD.

If there is a choice I rather opt for the Japanese example...

Perhaps few here will remember the days in the UK where mortgage interest rates went up to 19.5% (we had just moved towns and over-stretched the budget as I was due to give birth to second child... and we were gazumped on another house). So many of our friends ended up in negtive equity too- and it broke the back of those who had to sell for whatever reason- moving for job, or separation/divorce.

Let's hope it won't come to that here (well 19.5 % is unlikely)...

I sometimes wonder why the government doesn't just hike the interest rates for real-estate purchases of private persons, if they want to stop that bubble.
As I understood it, the interest rates are so low as to allow companies to borrow money cheaply so that they can finance tools and machinery to produce stuff they can sell.
(Also, to allow the state to borrow for next to nothing, but that is only a side-effect)

I mean, there is already a difference between when I take out a loan for a car, I pay 5-11% and if I take on a mortgage, I get the money for <2%.
When the music stops and everybody wants to sell, they are both pretty worthless after all.

Why are rates so low for long term fixes here does anyone know ? It's a real question. The bank gives you the interest rate based on what it thinks is reasonable over the term, making it break even or make a profit at least compared with the base interest rate. So why can you fix now for 15 years for less than 2%. Does it really mean the banks think rates will be that low for that long ? This is a serious question.

Some are. Some find investors who want to lock in at least some positive interest. Insurances probably don't give inflation-adjusted policies so they have a lot of cash which they pump into mortgages - currently the best long term rates are from insurers.

i'd be interested to know who is taking the risk. but when you look at how low LIBOR is, you might be surprised by where the break-even point is in terms of taking LIBOR or the fix.

see also:

http://www.pimco.com/en/education/pa...asics1-08.aspx

Or San Francisco.

As a retired expat returning to Switzerland is it possible for someone over 65 to get a mortgage in Switzerland for a home with say 45-50% down? Or are mortgages only for those currently employed?

It is entirely possible to get a mortgage when you are retired- but only if the value of the house is much higher than the mortgage, so they can get their money back if you 'peg' it, and of course providing your savings and income indicate clearly that you can pay for mortgage and other costs, maintenance, tax, etc, etc, comfortably- even if exchange rates and interest rates + house value (especially if you intend to purchase in areas with very high prices where a 'bubble' may well burst, change significantly

Banks refinance with other institutions at a lower rate on a back to back basis. I think it was called "sub prime" or something similar, this is why banks don't let you out of fixed mortgages without paying full penalty.

I can't see rates moving here at all, they are desperate to keep Euro under some semblance of control, and by increasing the interest rate for CHF, people will sell other currencies to buy CHF (not at all what they want/need) plus we already have negative rates that have only just started and i think will continue.

The max mortgate rate is actually written into the constitution after a vote (sometime in the 70's or 80's i think...??)

It is 15% maximum.

Banks refinance with other institutions at a lower rate on a back to back basis. I think it was called "sub prime" or something similar, this is why banks don't let you out of fixed mortgages without paying full penalty.

I can't see rates moving here at all, they are desperate to keep Euro under some semblance of control, and by increasing the interest rate for CHF, people will sell other currencies to buy CHF (not at all what they want/need) plus we already have negative rates that have only just started and i think will continue.

The max mortgate rate is actually written into the constitution after a vote (sometime in the 70's or 80's i think...??)

It is 15% maximum, don't even think about it !