Latest News Archive
Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
20 August 2025
|
Story Dr Annelize Oosthuizen
|
Photo Supplied
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.
Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26
 |
|
Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet
|
|
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”
South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility
Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.
These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.
Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”
In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.
With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.
Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.
A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.
A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.
Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.
When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.
In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.
A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.
|