Referendum against the reduction in the 2nd pillar conversion rate
A Committee, formed at the initiative of the trade union Unia, and joined by Comedia, Sit in Geneva, the Swiss Labour Party, USS, Avivo, PS and Solidarités, is opposing the reduction in the conversion rate for the 2nd pillar and organising a referendum against the reduction. The organizers have until the 16 April to gather the necessary 50,000 signatures.
The Committee intends to fight the reduction in benefits, which it interprets as an attack on the welfare state. The Committee believes the Government is passing on to wage-earners the consequences of the crisis on the financial markets.
Their approach focuses on the social aspect of the situation, but neglects the state of the economy and financial markets and also the key factor: the increase in life expectancy.
The reduction in the conversion rate recommended by the Federal Council is due to take effect in 2015, when the benefit level will fall from 6.8 to 6.4%, representing 6,800.- compared with 6,400.- francs for a capital tranche of 100,000.- francs.
The previous review stipulated a progressive reduction in the rate, to be implemented on 1 January 2005, from 7.2 to 6.8% in 2014. The annual return on capital accumulated was based at that time on an average rate of 4.5%.
The reduction to 6.4% (although 6% had been mentioned) is based on anticipated returns of 3.35% - 4%.
Today the situation is more complex, markets remain uncertain, performances have become “derisory” even negative, the economy and companies are on the defensive and the horizon is unlikely to clear before months or years have passed.
The uncertainty and the difficulty of formulating a prognosis and the structural changes under way are compounding the complexity of the decision.
The other alternative would be to increase contributions of employees and companies. This option was envisaged a number of years ago, when the economic situation and returns were better and the ageing population was the key factor involved.
In conclusion, it can be said that the political and dogmatic arguments employed by the instigators of the initiative conflict with this reality.