Opinion
“Boomer-Soli”: This is pension robbery à la Robin Hood!
Pensions of old -age provision? Economic researchers propose the “Boomer-Soli”-a deduction of higher pensions in favor of lower. Our author says: This is cold expropriation!
Take the rich and give the arms. That always sounds good. In fact, this Robin Hood principle is in German tax law. If you take a lot of money, you pay more than those who have less income. Strong shoulders have more than weaker, make a higher contribution to the financing of the common good. That can change from year to year and is therefore fundamentally okay.
It is not okay to proceed in retirement provision on this principle. The economy suggests taking higher pensions to increase lower ones. The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) goes one step further, wants to prove all income from resting people with a levy to increase narrow pensions. The DIW calls his advance “Boomer-Soli”, which would be nothing more than an additional taxation of all age income: on pensions, pensions, operating and supply pensions, private insurance, Riester pensions, interest, dividends, rental income.
“Boomer-Soli”: old-age provision as in the Sherwood Forest?
So if you have developed and saved a reasonably sustainable “shoulders” for retirement, you should now give up part of it. To those who didn’t do that, for whatever reason. With alleviation, dear DIW researchers, that’s not Robin Hood, that would be the end of the performance principle in the social market economy. This could put the German success model Ad Acta.
If you want to seriously tackle the problems of the statutory pension insurance, you should not compensate for something from life benefit, but should deal with their origin. For example with the high part -time quota, especially in women. Or the expansion of the low -wage area. Or with the weakening productivity. For my sake, also with a state -organized, capital -covered financing source for pensions in addition to the levy.
Boomer are entitled to the pension
Distribution among those who can no longer change their economic situation out of their own work is the wrong way. And it is also not an answer to demographic change. Yes, the high Boomer mountain still has to be financed for a good 20 years, increasingly from tax funds, provided that you do not want to burden the active social partners higher.
The boomers have a legitimate claim on this. And social policy has been massive for 25 years: with the lowering of the pension level, with temporary zero rounds in pension development, with the increase in the retirement age or rich discounts – all at the expense of the boomer. In the OECD comparison, German pensions are now below average. At the same time, the taxation of pension income increases steadily. Almost a third of the retailers are already taxable.
After all, social policy has not concealed this development. On the contrary. She called for private and company -organized retirement provision. In addition to the existing taxation and social security obligation with a “boomer” soli, this would simply be a cold expropriation.
Source: Stern
