Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 August 2024 Photo Supplied
Dr Cecile Duvenhage
Dr Cecile Duvenhage is a lecturer in Personal Finance and Microeconomics, Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State (UFS), and the Editor and Co-Author: Personal Finance (Van Schaik Publishers).

Opinion article by Dr Cecile Duvenhage, Lecturer: Personal Finance and Microeconomics, Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State, Editor and Co-Author: Personal Finance (Van Schaik Publishers).


On 29 July 2022, the National Treasury released the 2022 Draft Revenue Laws Amendment Bill for public comment until 29 August 2022 to introduce the “two-pot” system for retirement savings that was flagged in the National Budget. The Revenue Laws Amendment Act was the first law approved by Parliament in 2023 and signed into law, giving effect to the new system and setting the implementation date. The Pension Funds Amendment Bill was approved by Parliament in May 2024. It introduces changes to the Pension Funds Act and includes funds not regulated by the Pension Funds Act in the new system. President Cyril Ramaphosa officially signed the Pension Funds Amendment Bill into law on July 21, 2024

The two-pot retirement system in South Africa (to be implemented on 1 September 2024) divides retirement savings into two distinct components: 1) the savings and 2) the retirement pot:

1) Savings Pot: About one-third of the contributions go into this pot that is designed for short-term financial goals and emergencies. Members will be able to access a portion of these savings before retirement if necessary, and can withdraw from it once a year (minimum withdrawal amount of R2 000) under specific conditions. 

However, according to the Citizen (22 July 2024) 30% of pension fund members in the Old Mutual Stable fund will have less than R2 000 in their savings pot and will not be able to claim. Informal sector workers often lack coverage, and traditional family-based care for the elderly is breaking down as urbanisation increases. Therefore, this system seems to benefit the middle-income group and (again) fail the poorest of the poor.

Keep in mind that access to the savings pot’s money has implications on both the tax that the individual pays and legal requirements during divorce proceedings. More specifically:

• Withdrawals are subject to taxation at the individual’s marginal tax rate
• Retirement fund administrators must be notified when divorce proceedings are initiated to ensure that no payments are made from the savings pot during the legal process. This ensures that the division of assets is handled correctly according to the legal requirements.

2) Retirement Pot: The retirement component ensures that the bulk of retirement savings – two-thirds – remain untouched until retirement age as stipulated by the fund. This preservation is crucial for securing long-term financial stability post-career. These funds are strictly preserved until retirement age, ensuring long-term financial security. Upon retirement, members can access these funds as a regular income stream, like a pension annuity.

Is it wise to take a portion of your pension?

There are also two sides to the Pension Funds Amendment Bill. Individuals and Financial Companies welcome this new law, as it allows the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) to start approving rule amendments – submitted by various funds before 31 July 2024 – once gazetted.

Discovery was the fund to react the quickest with its proposed amendment rules. Some of the other retirement funds and administrators still have a substantial amount of work to do before they will be able to pay claims, including ensuring administration readiness and integration with SARS. SARS anticipates a R5 billion revenue windfall from taxing two-pot retirement system withdrawals in the next financial year. Thus, the government expects many hundreds of thousands of South Africans to access the savings component of their retirement funds as soon as the two-pot retirement system goes live.

Making use of the government’s lifeline – to protect the dignity of those in need and overcome financial stress – can be understood given the economic constraints facing individuals such as high unemployment, excessive debt, and inflation.

However, a wiser approach by the government should be to address the consequences and not the causes of citizens’ financial dignity. Given that less than 6% of individuals in South Africa can retire “without worries”, individuals should also have a good understanding that this “lifeline” is no quick fix for financial stress.

Hidden costs and other implications

Members of South African pension funds may generally access their pension pot from the age of 55. If you withdraw before the age of 55, there will be tax implications. This means that the withdrawal will be taxed similarly to your salary or other income. Any withdrawal is included in your gross income for the year, potentially pushing you into a higher tax bracket.

There will also be hidden costs in the form of penalties as stipulated by the member’s fund. The Institute of Retirement Funds Southern Africa has indicated an administration fee ranging from R300 to R600 on each withdrawal.

South Africa has a progressive tax system, where tax rates increase as taxable income rises. It is designed to be fairer by imposing a lower tax rate on low-income earners and a higher rate on those with higher incomes. Therefore, the amount that a member will get out depends on his/her marginal rate. Should a member be paying 45% tax on his/her taxable income (when earning more than R512 801 per year), a member might end up only getting slightly more than half of the withdrawal amount – once your tax-free benefit at retirement is exhausted.

Some further long-term benefits can be jeopardised when a member withdraws from the retirement savings. These are:

1) Tax-Free Benefit at Retirement: Keep in mind that withdrawals may reduce the tax-free benefit you enjoy at retirement. Up to R550 000 of the lump sum you take in cash at retirement may be tax-free, but this benefit can be eroded if you frequently withdraw from your savings pot before retirement.

2) Lost Tax-Free Growth: Additionally, withdrawing from your savings pot means losing out on tax-free growth. Savings in your retirement fund grow free of tax on interest income, dividends, and capital gains.

Apart from the tax implications, some pension providers will charge fees for withdrawals. Therefore, it is advisable to check with your pension administrator to understand any costs involved. In addition, withdrawing from your savings pot will reduce the remaining balance.

Early withdrawals can significantly affect your retirement savings. Every R1 withdrawn at age 35 could equate to as much as R30 less at retirement 30 years later.

“Two pots” may spoil the broth

Statistics from the Nedfin Health Monitor (2023) reveal that 90% of South Africans have inadequate savings for retirement, and a significant 67% of people in the country have no retirement savings beyond what they are putting into their employer-provided pension funds – which is often too little to be able to retire comfortably. The general rule of thumb is that individuals start saving as soon as possible, as much as possible, for as long as possible.

There is a saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth”. My personal view is that individuals need to be careful that “two pots” do not spoil the broth.

Although the system aims to balance immediate financial needs with long-term security, there is simply no way that individuals can eat their cake and have it. If the two-pot system is regarded as a bailing-out system, worry-free retirement remains a challenge for many. There is still a lot of thought needed for the two-pot system. Policymakers should consult the pension systems of the Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, and Israel – which are regarded as having the best pension systems globally – to get an understanding of how adequacy, sustainability, and integrity are prioritised.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept