Supplementary funding - WohnRiester

man man man, you really are an "expert." Maybe as an IT person you shouldn't call yourself a banker so as not to give the impression in the end that you actually know what you’re spouting to the world.

Of course, you can also pay out the amount including the subsidy and without repaying the tax advantages. You won’t receive less than you paid in, and it has nothing to do with the costs.
Only then, as wrote, the amount is interest-bearing at 2% on a fictional housing promotion account. That is the deferred taxation in the Riester scheme.

Why so snarky, the thing with the promotion account is well known and a bad deal when you calculate it through. You basically pay back forever and still have to tax the stuff. So you pay the loan and later also tax the pension.

Just business for the insurance :) always has been.

You can of course also have the amount paid out to you including the subsidy and without repayment of the tax benefits. You will then not receive less than you have paid in, and that has nothing to do with the costs. Only then, as @Grundbuch wrote, the amount is interest-bearing at 2% on a fictitious housing subsidy account. That is the deferred taxation with Riester.

I also have such a thing lying around here. Something so complicated can really only come from DE. Since most people here are not close to retirement, the 2% adds up quite a bit. Especially if the personal contribution was high in relation to the subsidy, it could be a bad deal. Is there a source that can reliably calculate different variants?

Consumer advice center.

Retired Riester contracts are actually a waste of money. Why? Take a look at your annual statements. Your projected pension amount is so low that you have to live to over 90 to get your savings back.
Therefore: If you can access the Riester contract in a lump sum, do it. That way you get your money back. You can leave a mini Riester contract, only take the state subsidy in the following years and pay in little, no more than necessary. Then in the payout phase you could end up with a mini pension. That will not be paid out, but the remaining Riester will be paid out in a lump sum. That is the best way if you already have such a Riester contract. I wouldn’t take out a new one. The thing is a miscarriage. K.

A major disadvantage is also the statutory capital guarantee. In order to ensure that providers do not incur any losses, they invest very early in secure (non-yielding) forms of investment, so that the balance is gradually devalued. I still have over 20 years until retirement; nevertheless, our remaining balance is 90% in bonds and only 10% in stocks. With the current interest rate level, the fat years are over.

Consumer advice center.

Pensioned Riester contracts are basically a waste of money. Why? Take a look at your annual statements. Your projected pension amount is so low that you have to live to over 90 to get your savings back.
Therefore: If you can access the Riester contract in a lump sum, do it. That way you get your money back. You can leave a mini-Riester standing, only collect the government subsidy in the following years and pay in little, no more than necessary, then you could end up with a mini-pension in the payout phase. That won’t be paid; instead, the remaining Riester will be paid out in a lump sum. That is the best way if you already have such a Riester. I wouldn’t start a new one. The thing is a miscarriage. K.

Well... it always depends on the individual case.
Maybe the whole concept was basically just a gift for the insurance industry.
For the individual it can be worthwhile, especially if you take as many state subsidies as possible (especially through children).

Leaving mini-Riesters with mini-contributions to take the subsidies only works to a limited extent.
To receive the full allowances, you have to pay 4% of the previous year’s gross income. Whoever pays less receives correspondingly fewer allowances.

Yeah... it always depends on the individual case. Maybe the whole construct was actually just a gift to the insurance industry. But it can be worth it for the individual. Especially if you take advantage of as many government subsidies as possible (especially through children). Leaving mini-Riester with mini-contributions to take the subsidies only works to a limited extent. To receive the full allowances, you have to pay in 4% of the previous year's gross income. Those who pay less receive correspondingly fewer allowances.

I also strongly suspect the whole thing is a gift for the insurance industry. According to my calculations, I would have to live to 115 years old upon retirement to break even. The 4% represents a significant amount for me, it doesn’t pay off. The Consumer Advice Center could be a good idea. Have you ever tried it?