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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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