{"id":7643,"date":"2026-10-29T17:46:39","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T16:46:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/balmontconseil.com\/?p=7643"},"modified":"2026-10-29T17:46:39","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T16:46:39","slug":"per-ou-assurance-vie-infirmiere-liberale-45000-euros-retraite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/balmontconseil.com\/en\/blog\/per-ou-assurance-vie-infirmiere-liberale-45000-euros-retraite\/","title":{"rendered":"Should a self-employed nurse with \u20ac45,000 in profit choose between a PER (retirement savings plan) or life insurance for her retirement?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In summary\u2026<\/h2>\n

The two, in this order: the PER (retirement savings plan) up to the deduction limit, then life insurance for the rest.<\/b> With \u20ac45,000 of taxable profit, 10 % of the profit only yields \u20ac4,500: this is the minimum of \u20ac4,710<\/b> which applies in 2026. Income remains in the 30% tax bracket (%) even after this payment (\u20ac40,290 taxable, above \u20ac29,579): each payment saves \u20ac1,413<\/b> tax. The CARPIMKO pension (the pension fund for paramedical professionals) is approximately \u20ac15,500 per year at age 67 in the typical case, representing 34% of income: withdrawn over 10 years, the portion of contributions deducted remains in the 11% tax bracket and is taxed at 11%<\/b> instead of 30 %, representing \u20ac17,898 less tax on the entire withdrawal. In the typical case (contributions of \u20ac4,710 per year for 20 years, return of 3 % per year, calculation assumption), the combination of a PER followed by life insurance leaves \u20ac142,335 net after tax<\/b> at 67 years old, against \u20ac120,994<\/b> for life insurance alone, that is \u20ac21,341 more<\/b> with equal effort. Life insurance retains its role: at this level of payment, its withdrawals of \u20ac3,236 of gains per year remain under the allowance of \u20ac4,600, therefore without income tax, and the savings remain available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

1. What the PER does, step by step<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The PER (retirement savings plan) is tax-deductible upon contribution and taxable upon withdrawal. Life insurance works in the opposite way: no tax advantage upon contribution, and reduced taxation on gains upon withdrawal. The entire comparison hinges on the difference between the tax bracket upon contribution and upon withdrawal. For a self-employed nurse under contract with the national health insurance system, withdrawal is the crucial point: the CARPIMKO pension fund replaces approximately one-third of her income, and a modest pension places her retirement in the lower tax brackets.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Step<\/th>\nRule in 2026<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Entry: tax saving<\/td>\nVoluntary contributions are deducted from taxable income, unless the taxpayer opts for non-deduction. The savings are equal to the contribution multiplied by the marginal tax bracket: at 30 %, \u20ac0.30 per euro paid<\/b>. The 2026 scale applies 11 % from \u20ac11,600 to \u20ac29,579 of income per share, 30 % from \u20ac29,579 to \u20ac84,577, and 41 % from \u20ac84,577 to \u20ac181,917 (law no. 2026-103, article 4).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Entry: ceiling for a self-employed worker<\/td>\nThe higher of two amounts: 10 % of the previous year's business income<\/b> (withheld up to 8 times the annual social security ceiling) or 10 % of this ceiling<\/b>, This means a minimum of \u20ac4,710 for a payment in 2026 and a maximum of \u20ac37,680. The income used for calculation is that of the previous year. after deduction of mandatory social security contributions<\/b> This is the taxable profit. Occupational pension contributions already deducted from the profit are reduced, except for a portion equal to 15 % of the profit between 1 and 8 times the ceiling. Any unused ceiling can be carried forward to the following five years.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capital withdrawal: contributions deducted<\/td>\nThe portion corresponding to the deducted payments is added to other income and is taxed according to the scale<\/b>, without social security contributions and without the 10 % reduction<\/b> pensions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capital withdrawal: gains<\/td>\nSingle flat-rate levy of 31.4%<\/b> For interest received since January 1, 2026: 12.8% tax and 18.6% social security contributions. The option to apply the standard tax scale remains available.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lump-sum withdrawal: contributions not deducted<\/td>\nIf the payment was not deducted, the corresponding portion of capital is exempt from income tax and social security contributions. Only the gains are taxed (31.4 %).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annuity payout: payments deducted<\/td>\nThe annuity is taxed as a retirement pension, with a 10% allowance (capped at \u20ac4,439 per household for 2025 income). Social security contributions of 18.6% are levied on a portion of the annuity that depends on the age at the first payment: 70% before age 50, 50% from age 50 to 59., 40 % aged 60 to 69<\/b>, 30 % from age 70.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annuity payout: payments not deducted<\/td>\nThe annuity falls under the regime of life annuities for valuable consideration: only a fraction is taxable, and social security contributions of 18.6 % apply to the fraction which depends on the age at the first payment.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Withdrawal before retirement<\/td>\nPossible in cases of early release as provided for in Article L. 224-4 of the Monetary and Financial Code.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

Our page Individual PER<\/a> details how the contract works, and the article on the deduction ceiling and the 2026 finance law<\/a> details the calculation of the ceiling.<\/p>\n

2. The deduction limit for a nurse is \u20ac45,000, and the corresponding tax bracket<\/strong><\/h2>\n

With \u20ac45,000 of taxable profit in 2025, 10 % yield \u20ac4,500<\/b>, which is less than the floor of \u20ac4,710 (10 % of \u20ac47,100, the 2025 social security ceiling). The deduction limit for a payment in 2026 is therefore \u20ac4,710<\/b>. The 10 % only exceeds the threshold starting at \u20ac47,100 of taxable profit. The profit considered is that after deduction of social security contributions<\/b> : it can be read on the previous year's tax return. Here, we are using \u20ac45,000 of taxable profit.<\/p>\n

The tax bracket is calculated before the amount is chosen. For a single person (1 share) with no other income, \u20ac45,000 of taxable income falls within the 30% tax bracket (above \u20ac29,579). After the \u20ac4,710 payment, \u20ac40,290 remains, which is \u20ac10,711 above the lower end of the bracket: the entire deduction is applied at 30% tax bracket, resulting in \u20ac1,413 less tax. The full deduction remains at 30% tax bracket as long as taxable income is above \u20ac34,289 (\u20ac29,579 + \u20ac4,710). Below this threshold, part of the payment is applied at 11% tax bracket: at \u20ac32,000 of taxable income, the savings drop to \u20ac978. For a married or civilly partnered couple without children and no other income, taxed on two shares, \u20ac45,000 gives \u20ac22,500 per share, in the 11 % bracket: the savings fall to \u20ac518.<\/p>\n

3. What life insurance does after 8 years<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Point<\/th>\nRule in 2026<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Contract of less than 8 years<\/td>\nGains taxed at 12.8 % (or at the scale by option), without allowance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Contract of 8 years or more: discount<\/td>\nThe redeemed gains benefit from an annual allowance of \u20ac4,600<\/b> for a single person, \u20ac9,200<\/b> for a couple subject to joint taxation. It is a single agreement for all contracts within the household, does not carry over from one year to the next, and does not affect social security contributions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Contract of 8 years or more: rate<\/td>\nAfter the initial shock, 7.5%<\/b> as long as the total of premiums paid and not reimbursed as capital, across all contracts, does not exceed \u20ac150,000<\/b> as of December 31 of the previous year. Beyond that date, the 7.5% % rate applies only to the portion of earnings equal to \u20ac150,000 (less premiums paid before September 27, 2017, that have not been reimbursed) divided by the premiums paid since that date that have not been reimbursed; the remainder is taxed at 12.8% %. The allowance is first applied to the portion taxed at 7.5% %.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Social charges<\/td>\n17.2%<\/b> on the gains (principle rate).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Partial buyout<\/td>\nOnly the portion of gains contained in the redemption is taxed: redemption less premiums paid multiplied by redemption divided by the value of the contract.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Scale option<\/td>\nPossible, explicitly, comprehensively, and irrevocably. The calculation below does not include it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

4. Calculation based on a nurse with a profit of \u20ac45,000<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Calculation assumption<\/th>\nValue retained<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Nurse<\/td>\n47 years old, registered with the French social security system, single (1 tax unit), no children, taxable income of \u20ac45,000 (after social security contributions), no other income: marginal tax bracket 30% (%), and income remains above \u20ac29,579 after deductions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Payments<\/td>\n\u20ac4,710 per year on the PER for 20 years, from age 47 to 67, at the deduction limit (the minimum, since 10 x % of \u20ac45,000 yield \u20ac4,500), with no other occupational retirement contract deducted from the profit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yield<\/td>\n3 % per year, net of fees, identical for the PER and for life insurance (calculation assumption), payments at the end of the year<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tax saving<\/td>\nCalculated in the year of payment, without delay; it amounts to \u20ac1,413 per year (2026 scale, calculation before and after deduction)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Scale and rates<\/td>\nThe 2026 tax brackets and social security contribution rates remain unchanged until retirement; calculation is based solely on the tax brackets, without any discounts or tax reductions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Retirement at 67<\/td>\nPension of \u20ac15,500 per year: base \u20ac8,994, supplementary \u20ac5,209, old-age social benefit, ASV (flat-rate portion) \u20ac1,286, for 35 years of contributions with a professional income of \u20ac45,000 and a social security contribution base of \u20ac33,300 (income less the 26% allowance). Calculation assumption: points in the supplementary scheme are proportional to the contribution, with a maximum of 30. The income used for calculating pension rights is taxable profit: income before contributions is slightly higher, therefore the actual pension is slightly higher (sensitivity is tested below). 10% allowance of \u20ac1,550, resulting in \u20ac13,950 taxable income and \u20ac258 tax before any withdrawal from the PER (Retirement Savings Plan).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CARPIMKO contributions 2026<\/td>\nBased on this calculation: base \u20ac3,530 (8.73 % then 1.87 %), supplementary \u20ac2,897 (8.70 %), ASV up to \u20ac357 (\u20ac224 flat rate for the member's share plus, at most, 0.40 % of the calculation: the fund's page does not detail the member's share), disability-death \u20ac1,022, i.e., a maximum of \u20ac7,806<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Capital exit<\/td>\n10 equal annual withdrawals from age 67 to 76, with no return after age 67 (simplifying assumption that isolates the effect of tax); the income-averaging mechanism is not modeled.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annuity payout<\/td>\nConversion rate of 4 % of capital at age 67 (calculation assumption)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Assurance-vie<\/td>\nContract of more than 8 years, no other contract in the household, 10 equal annual redemptions from age 67 to 76, social security contributions of 17.2% on gains, rates of 7.5% and 12.8% spread each year according to the remaining premiums<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n
\n

Typical case<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Situation.<\/b> A 47-year-old single self-employed nurse has \u20ac45,000 of taxable profit, an expected CARPIMKO pension of \u20ac15,500 per year at age 67 (34 % of her income) and \u20ac4,710 per year to save until age 67.<\/p>\n

Issue.<\/b> She is hesitating between the PER (Retirement Savings Plan), which reduces her taxes immediately, and life insurance, which remains accessible and whose gains are taxed at a low rate after 8 years. Every euro paid into the PER will be taxed again upon withdrawal: the advantage only exists if the withdrawal tax bracket is lower than the entry tax bracket.<\/p>\n

Strategy.<\/b> She compares four investment strategies. Strategy 1: \u20ac4,710 per year in life insurance. Strategy 2: \u20ac4,710 per year in the PER (French retirement savings plan), which gives her \u20ac1,413 in tax savings each year (\u20ac4,710 \u00d7 30 %) and costs her only \u20ac3,297. Strategy 3: \u20ac3,297 per year in life insurance, to compare with Strategy 2 on an equal footing. Strategy 4: \u20ac4,710 in the PER, then the \u20ac1,413 tax savings invested in life insurance, resulting in a net annual cost of \u20ac4,710, like Strategy 1. At age 67, she withdraws the capital from the PER over 10 years. The calculation applies the 2026 tax brackets (Law No. 2026-103, Article 4) before and after deductions.<\/p>\n

Result.<\/b> Assembly 4 leaves \u20ac142,335 net<\/b> after tax, versus \u20ac120,994<\/b> for assembly 1, i.e. \u20ac21,341 more<\/b> with the same effort. The PER alone leaves \u20ac106,037 for \u20ac3,297 of effort per year, compared to \u20ac84,696 for the same amount in life insurance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Capital at age 67 and exit tax<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Assembly<\/th>\nNet effort per year<\/th>\nCapital at 67 years old<\/th>\nincluding earnings<\/th>\nTax and charges on exit<\/th>\nNet after tax<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1. Life insurance alone<\/td>\n\u20ac4,710<\/td>\n\u20ac126,559<\/td>\n\u20ac32,359<\/td>\n\u20ac5,566<\/td>\n\u20ac120,994<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. PER alone<\/td>\n\u20ac3,297<\/td>\n\u20ac126,559<\/td>\n\u20ac32,359<\/td>\n\u20ac20,523<\/td>\n\u20ac106,037<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Life insurance alone, same effort as the PER<\/td>\n\u20ac3,297<\/td>\n\u20ac88,592<\/td>\n\u20ac22,652<\/td>\n\u20ac3,896<\/td>\n\u20ac84,696<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. PER, then tax savings through life insurance<\/td>\n\u20ac4,710<\/td>\n\u20ac164,527<\/td>\n\u20ac42,067<\/td>\n\u20ac22,193<\/td>\n\u20ac142,335<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

Details of the PER lump sum withdrawal<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nBase<\/th>\nRate<\/th>\nAmount<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Payments deducted and withdrawn, in the 11 % bracket<\/td>\n\u20ac94,200<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n\u20ac10,362<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Withdrawals (single flat-rate deduction)<\/td>\n\u20ac32,359<\/td>\n31.4%<\/td>\n\u20ac10,161<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total at exit<\/b><\/td>\n\u20ac126,559<\/td>\n16.2 % of capital<\/td>\n\u20ac20,523<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

The pensions leave the nurse with \u20ac13,950 in taxable income, which is \u20ac15,629 below the top of the 11 % tax bracket (\u20ac29,579). Each year of retirement adds \u20ac9,420 in deducted contributions: the total (\u20ac23,370) remains within the 11 % bracket, resulting in \u20ac1,036 in tax per year and an average of 11 %. Withdrawn in a single year, the same amount of \u20ac94,200 would incur \u20ac27,884 in tax instead of \u20ac10,362, not including the income averaging factor, which we have not modeled. Spreading the output remains the primary lever of the PER<\/b> : with a modest pension, he keeps the whole exit in the 11 % bracket.<\/p>\n

What if the pension was higher than expected?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Annual pension at age 67<\/th>\nTaxable income before exit<\/th>\nAverage tax rate on withdrawals<\/th>\nPER alone, net after tax<\/th>\nDifference with life insurance at equal effort<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
\u20ac15,500 (typical case)<\/td>\n\u20ac13,950<\/td>\n11.0%<\/td>\n\u20ac106,037<\/td>\n\u20ac21,341<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u20ac20,000 (hypothetical)<\/td>\n\u20ac18,000<\/td>\n11.0%<\/td>\n\u20ac106,037<\/td>\n\u20ac21,341<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u20ac25,000 (hypothetical)<\/td>\n\u20ac22,500<\/td>\n15.7%<\/td>\n\u20ac101,589<\/td>\n\u20ac16,893<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u20ac30,000 (hypothetical)<\/td>\n\u20ac27,000<\/td>\n24.8%<\/td>\n\u20ac93,039<\/td>\n\u20ac8,343<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

The higher the pension, the higher the tax rate on withdrawals from the PER (Retirement Savings Plan) climbs towards the 30% tax bracket (%), and the smaller the difference in tax brackets between the initial and final contributions. At a pension of \u20ac30,000, the withdrawal is taxed at an average of 25% (%), and the difference compared to life insurance falls to \u20ac8,343. A nurse who maintains a part-time job or rental income in retirement may find herself in this situation: with \u20ac40,290 in other taxable income per year, the tax on deducted contributions rises to \u20ac28,260, exactly the same as the initial savings over 20 years (\u20ac28,260). The PER alone leaves \u20ac88,139 compared to \u20ac84,696 for life insurance with the same level of effort, a difference of \u20ac3,443. The difference is \u20ac21,341 in the typical case versus \u20ac3,443., The reduction in the retirement bracket costs approximately \u20ac17,898.<\/b> in the result. The advantage of the PER remains in all the cases tested.<\/p>\n

Capital or annuity<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Exit<\/th>\nGross amount<\/th>\nTaxes and levies<\/th>\nDetail<\/th>\nPortion retained<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Capital spread over 10 years<\/td>\n\u20ac126,559<\/td>\n\u20ac20,523<\/td>\n\u20ac10,362 according to the tax scale on deducted payments, \u20ac10,161 flat-rate levy on gains<\/td>\n83.8%<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Annuity at 4 % of the capital<\/td>\n\u20ac5,062 per year<\/td>\n\u20ac878 per year<\/td>\n\u20ac501 in income tax and \u20ac377 in social security contributions (18.6 % out of 40 % of the annuity)<\/td>\n82.7%<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

The annuity is added to the \u20ac15,500 pension and remains in the 11th tax bracket (taxable income of \u20ac18,506). It benefits from the 10th tax allowance, already capped at \u20ac4,439: the additional allowance is \u20ac506. However, it is subject to social security contributions on 40ths of its amount, which are not levied on contributions withdrawn as a lump sum. Both withdrawals retain a similar share of each euro (83.8ths for the lump sum, 82.7ths for the annuity): the choice is less about taxation than about the need for a lifetime income, which is not subject to any withdrawal rules. With a pension of \u20ac15,500, or 34 % of the income, an annuity of \u20ac5,062 per year adds \u20ac4,185 net of life income: the total, \u20ac20,562 gross, remains far from the \u20ac31,500 which represents 70 % of \u20ac45,000.<\/p>\n

Life insurance and the \u20ac4,600 allowance<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Scheme 1 pays out \u20ac94,200 in premiums, below the \u20ac150,000 threshold: all gains remain at the 7.5% tax rate (%) after 8 years, after the \u20ac4,600 allowance per redemption. The \u20ac32,359 in gains, redeemed in 10 installments, yield \u20ac3,236 in annual gains, after the allowance. no income tax<\/b>. Only social security contributions of 17.2% (5,566 \u20ac) remain due. Life insurance is therefore very efficient at this level of contribution; the difference with the PER (Retirement Savings Plan) does not stem from a flaw in life insurance, but from the fact that the PER converts 1,413 \u20ac of tax at 30% into invested capital each year, then withdraws in a tax bracket at 11%. Beyond approximately 6,695 \u20ac in annual contributions, the withdrawals exceed the allowance and tax becomes payable. In arrangement 4, the life insurance receives only 28,260 \u20ac in premiums: 971 \u20ac in gains per year, and no income tax either.<\/p>\n

5. The combination for a nurse whose pay grade is decreasing<\/strong><\/h2>\n