The Austrian retirement plan consists of financial precautions funded by the government, employers, and privately, from the retirees themselves. Demographic change has an increasingly unsettling affect on politics, because they (the aging generation) know that the government-funded financial precaution will no longer exist. Politics tries to cope with demographic change by drafting pension plans in which tax benefits work as incentives for the population. The keyword, ?tax advantages or tax savings,? is always found as a core argument when talking about the advantages of employer-funded financial precaution. It is believed that if taxes are reduced during the time people work, they could expect to pay lower taxes at the beginning of their retirement in comparison to when they worked. The contributions that financial precaution institutions make are, however, often associated with high administrative expenses and fees. The central questions are ?How much do the tax benefits of the employer-funded retirement plans ultimately increase assets in comparison to possible alternative and privately-funded retirement plans, which do not receive fiscal benefits?? and ?How high must administrative costs and fees for the employer-funded option rise before it loses its advantage over the privately-funded retirement plan?? In this context, it is valid to compare the rates of return for the employer-funded retirement plans with those of the privately-funded plans. The findings should be checked using both empirical and model-theoretical methods of evaluation to see under which circumstances value is added and to what extent the fiscal advantageousness of the employer-funded retirement plan peaks. How the achieved rate of return and the accruing administrative expenses associate with each other will be evaluated, along with how they affect the financial advantageousness of the employer-funded retirement plan.