Redistribution to continue: What happens after the BVG/LPP referendum?

Pension debate
Once again, a BVG/LPP reform has been heavily rejected in a popular vote. The complexity of the proposal submitted to the People and the discussions about the unpopular conversion rate were decisive for the clear «No» vote at the ballot box. Jörg Odermatt, President of the Board of Directors of PensExpert AG, comments on this and proposes a division of the reform topics.
18. December 2024
Written by
Jörg Odermatt
President

Will the population ever agree to a revision of the BVG/LPP?

I think so. But as long as a BVG/LPP revision includes the conversion rate, the next referendum will hardly stand a chance with the People either.

So you would omit the conversion rate?

Exactly. In order for us to finally be able to modernise our occupational benefits system – and that is something we should do quickly – we must refrain from reducing the conversion rate. Otherwise, we run the risk of standing still for another ten years.

But then redistribution in the occupational benefits system would remain high.

Yes, the redistribution – which is alien to the system – would persist, and younger policyholders and those with higher incomes would continue having to foot the cost. However, the Swiss population seems to support a certain redistribution in pillar 2. This is demonstrated by the «VorsorgeDIALOG 2024» study conducted by the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, which examined the pension knowledge of people in gainful employment aged between 20 and 65.

Which issues do you think need to be tackled quickly?

The entry threshold should be abolished and the co-ordination deduction reduced. In this way, low earners and part-time employees could build up better occupational retirement provision.

But can the many SMEs actually finance this?

That’s a valid point. For this reason, the reduction of the co-ordination deduction should take place gradually so that even very small businesses can better offset the additional burden.

Are there any other important revision points in pillar 2?

There is a need in the area of hybrid professional models, which are becoming increasingly common. Many employees are employed and self-employed at the same time, which leads to a gap in their retirement provision as it is not possible to insure both incomes in the same pension fund. There is also a need for action in the case of self-employed people, as they can only join their staff pension fund or the pension fund of their professional association.

This interview was conducted by Adrian Bühler, media-work gmbh.

Written by
Jörg Odermatt
President