The 16% is mythical because the USS is significantly in deficit. The actual cost will be whatever your employers' actuaries tell them will be required to meet the benefits you are promised.
So what should I put as the employers contribution (and where should I put this) ?
You are required under code section 402(b) to enter the vested accrued benefit of the plan each year. This is a legal obligation and is not optional.
Electing into the treaty also reduces your effective tax basis in the plan so may not suit your circumstances especially if you are planning eventually on taking the 25% so-called lump sum commutation.
I don't really understand this. Where should enter the vested accrued benefit and how can I determine this?
What does "reduces your effective tax basis" mean? Does it mean I have more tax to pay when the pension pays out (than if I had included my pension contributions as taxable income and offset them with foreign tax credit?)
Don't overlook that the vested accrued benefit is foreign earned income but does not qualify for the foreign earned income exclusion if you are electing to claim this.
I don't understand this again but I think its because I don't know really what "vested accrued benefit" means. Vested means when it is paid out to me? or when it is in the plan?
If I understand there are two main options. Exclude employer + employee contributions up to $17k under the treaty, which requires filling out a 8833 and inserting some clause there which remains a mystery. (Could I also just exlcuder employer contributions under the treaty but include my personal contributions in my normal foreign excluded income)?
The second option is to include employer + employee contributions as taxable income. Employee contribtuions can be included in the foreign earned income exclusion, but employer contributions can not be, so to avoid paying tax in this situation one should use 1116 to claim foreign tax credit to offset the tax due on the employer contributions. But then one may or may not need need to declare the pension as some sort of trust.
But then there is some difference in what ends up in the pension depending on which of these two routes are taken which I don't understand. Is the second one better? Or are they both equivalent? In both situations the gains and the eventual payments are still subject to income tax?
I want to keep my citizenship for the next 5 or 10 years to have the option should work take me there, but given this rediculous tax situation it seems much better to renounce citizenship significantly before retirement (perhaps in 10 or 20 years). Do either of the above have an impact on that? Ie would I have to pay tax on the pension I had not received yet when renouncing citizenship?
I'm sorry - I am trying to keep positive but this is the third full day I've spent on this now (and much more time over the last two weeks). It just seems obscene to put people through this - I have never earned more than $48000 in a year. Now it seems that the 1 year of pension I was so happy to finally have at the age of 32 is more trouble than it is worth! Effectively I need to funnel several times more than my personal pensioin contributions directly to a tax advisor each month in order to deal with the employer contributions - and I should certainly forget about having any sort of savings!
Yours in desperation,