Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 August 2025 | Story Dr Annelize Oosthuizen | Photo Supplied
AnnelizeOosthuizen
Dr Annelize Oosthuizen, Subject Head of Taxation in the School of Accountancy, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Dr Annelize Oosthuizen, Subject Head of Taxation in the School of Accountancy, University of the Free State 

 


 

With the two-pot retirement system having been effective from 1 September 2024, it is important to demystify certain aspects to prevent an unpleasant surprise when you retire. Although there are other complex rules, this article was simplified and does not deal with exceptions. It also does not deal with members of a provident fund who were 55 years of age or older on 1 March 2021. Furthermore, reference to retirement funds is to a pension fund, provident fund or a retirement annuity fund (a discussion on preservation funds is therefore excluded).

 

Three, not two pots

Firstly, there are effectively three pots and not two.

  • The first pot is referred to as the vested component. You will only have this component if you were a member of a retirement fund prior to 1 September 2024. This component consists of the member’s interest (balance) in the retirement fund on 31 August 2024 (the day before the implementation of the two-pot system) after being reduced with the amount of the seed capital that was transferred to the savings pot (see below).  This seed capital amount was calculated as the lesser of 10% of the value of the member’s interest in the fund on 31 August 2024 or R30 000. No further contributions will be allocated to this component from 1 September 2024. Upon retirement, one-third of the funds in this component can be taken in the form of a lump sum. The balance will be transferred to the retirement component below and will be paid out in the form of monthly annuities. 
  • The second pot is the savings component. The opening balance of the savings component is the seed capital that was transferred from the vested component above. Thereafter, from 1 September 2024, one third of your monthly contributions to the retirement fund are allocated to this component.
  • The third pot is the retirement component. From 1 September 2024, two-thirds of your monthly contributions to the retirement fund are allocated to this component. The funds in this component can only be accessed upon retirement (i.e. after reaching your retirement age, which is stipulated in the fund rules). Furthermore, upon retirement, the money in this pot is only paid out in the form of monthly annuities (i.e. monthly pensions) and no lump sum can be taken from this pot unless its total value is R165 000 or less.

Withdrawals are taxed unfavourably

Secondly, withdrawing from the savings component before retirement has adverse tax implications.

  • From 1 September 2024 onwards, one is allowed to make an annual withdrawal (minimum of R2 000) from the savings component even if you have not yet reached your retirement age and although you are still employed. It is, however, important to remember that such withdrawals are taxed very unfavourably since they are taxed by using the normal progressive tax tables that apply to your other income such as salary. If you wait for your retirement and only withdraw from this savings component upon retirement, the first R550 000 will be tax-free and withdrawals above R550 000 will be taxed at rates much lower than the current progressive tax rates applicable to other income.
  • Upon retirement, only the money in the savings component is allowed to be taken as a lump sum.  If you therefore withdraw all the money from this pot annually prior to retirement, you will not have any funds available to access as a lump sum on retirement and will only have access to the monthly annuities payable from your retirement component.

Less funds available

Lastly, for those members who have a vested component (i.e. who became members of the retirement fund before 1 September 2024), the old rules still apply to the funds in that component. Therefore, upon retirement, you will still be able to take one third of the value of your vested component as a lump sum. The balance will be transferred to the retirement pot and will be paid out in the form of monthly annuities.

To summarise, even though it might appear lucrative to withdraw from your savings component annually, it is advised that you refrain from doing it unless you really need the funds to fulfill basic needs. Withdrawing prior to retirement has the following adverse consequences:

  • Money withdrawn from the savings component is taxed at higher rates than what would have applied had you reached your retirement age and retired. You will therefore not make use of the R550 000 tax-free option.
  • You will have less funds available to pay out as a lump sum on retirement. As a simple calculation, had you not withdrawn R30 000 in a single year, conservatively calculated at a rate of 5%, this R30 000 would have grown to R79 599 (R139 829 if a rate of 8% is used) calculated over 20 years that can be withdrawn tax-free when utilising the R550 000 tax-free portion on retirement.

News Archive

Twenty years of the constitution of South Africa – cause for celebration and reflection
2016-05-11

Description: Judge Azar Cachalia Tags: Judge Azar Cachalia

Judge Azar Cachalia

The University of the Free State’s Centre for Human Rights and the Faculty of Law held the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the South African Constitution on 11 May 2016 on the Bloemfontein Campus.  Students and faculty members celebrated and reflected on not only the achievements of the constitution but also on perspectives regarding its relevance in modern society, and to what extent it has upheld the human rights of all citizens of South Africa.

The panel discussion started with a presentation on the pre-1996 perspective by Judge Azar Cachalia of the Supreme Court of Appeal.  Judge Cachalia reflected on his role in the realisation and upholding of the constitution, from his days as a student activist, then as an attorney representing detainees during political turmoil, and currently as a judge: “My role as an attorney was to defend people arrested for public violence. My role as a judge today is to uphold the constitution.”  He stressed the importance of the constitution today, and the responsibility institutions such as the police service have in upholding human rights.  Judge Cachalia played a significant role in drafting the new Police Act around 1990, an Act which was to ensure that the offences perpetrated by the police during apartheid did not continue in the current democratic era. Further, he pointed out that societal turmoil has the potential to make society forget about the hard work that was put into structures upholding human rights. “Constitutions are drafted in moments of calm.  It is a living document, and we hope it is not torn up when we go through social conflict, such as we are experiencing at present.”

Thobeka Dywili, a Law student at the UFS, presented her views from the new generation’s perspective.  She relayed her experience as a student teaching human rights at schools in disadvantaged communities. She realised that, although the youth are quite aware of their basic human rights, after so many years of democracy, “women and children are still seen as previously disadvantaged when they should be equal”. She pointed out that, with the changing times, the constitution needs to be looked at with a new set of eyes, suggesting more robust youth engagement on topics that affect them, using technology to facilitate discussions. She said with the help of social media, it is possible for a simple discussion to become a revolution; #feesmustfall was a case in point.

Critical perspectives on the constitution were presented by Tsepo Madlingozi of University of Pretoria and University of London. In his view, the constitution has not affected policy to the extent that it should, with great disparities in our society and glaring issues, such as lack of housing for the majority of the poor.  “Celebration of the constitution should be muted, as the constitution is based on a decolonisation approach, and does not directly address the needs of the poor. The Constitutional Court is not pro-poor.”  He posed the question of whether twenty years on, the present government has crafted a new society successfully.  “We have moved from apartheid to neo-apartheid, as black elites assimilate into the white world, and the two worlds that exist have not been able to stand together as a reflection of what the constitution stands for.”

Prof Caroline Nicholson, Dean of the Faculty of Law, encouraged more open discussions, saying such dialogues are exactly what was intended by the Centre for Human Rights. She emphasised the importance of exchanging ideas, of allowing people to speak freely, and of sharing perspectives on important issues such as the constitution and human rights.

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