The Swiss pension scheme is based on three pillars; the first one aims to cover the vital needs, the second one to secure the standard of living of the pensioner and the last one is an individual retirement savings (voluntary). In theory, a retiree benefiting from a full pension of the first pillar and second pillar, should not need supplementary benefits (State’s help), at least until that he has to enter in a nursing home. The supplementary benefits are allocated to the pensioner benefiting from the first pillar and who does not have enough resources to cover his vital needs. Due to the increase of the life expectancy and the population ageing, many reforms are currently discussing in view to keep the same level of assistance without increasing the State’s expenses. This study focuses on the fact that the Federal Council wants to prohibit the right to take the mandatory part of the second pillar as a lump sum at the retirement age. It analyses the potential impacts that this reform would have on the Government, the provident institutions and the future retirees. It also analyses if there is real correlation between the fact of withdrawing the mandatory part of the second pillar and the early economic dependency towards the supplementary benefits. The last part of the analysis is dedicated to provide an international perspective of the problematic with a comparison with the choice of the United Kingdom to implement the inverse reform in 2015. The results of this study are based on analytical researches, qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey based on a sample of fifty person aged between 55 and 75 years old. It appears that the women are the ones who need the most the supplementary benefits during the retirement, as they contribute less during their careers. Also there is a correlation between the socio professional background and the life expectancy, meaning that someone with only a mandatory school degree will live in average less than someone with a university degree. This aspect is important for this study as the choice of taking a lump sum is also linked to the life expectancy of the pensioner. And as this reform will affect only the mandatory part, it could be prejudicial for the low to medium class. It is still not proved that there is a correlation between the withdrawal of the capital at the retirement age and the necessity of supplementary benefits. But it seems that most of the pensioners that required supplementary benefits are in general independent that overlooked to save for their retirement, part-time jobs, and housewives. This leads to ask if the fact to banish the right to take a lump sum will really diminishing the economic dependency of the pensioners toward the supplementary benefits
