Mr. Werding, who says Chancellor: “The Welfare statehow we have it today is no longer financed with what we do economically. “Is that even true?
No, that’s not true. We still get over the rounds, so we don’t have to paint disaster scenarios. But we are under enormous pressure, and this pressure will increase significantly in the next ten years. In this respect, the Chancellor is not right, but the discussion is appropriate.
What is the problem when the welfare state is so big?
The problem is that our system is mainly financed through the levy procedure: The employed people finance the services for the older ones, especially for pension, but also with health and long-term care insurance. However, there are more and more older people who pay less or nothing but use more services. It is as if you wanted to cope with climate change with combustion engines: the levy and demographic aging simply do not go together. But we will not simply be able to change the system, we have to adjust it to take pressure over the next ten years.
To person
Martin WerdingProfessor of Social Policy and Public Finance in Bochum, is a member of the Council of Experts for Economy, the so -called economic methods
What would have to happen to stabilize the pension system?
In autumn 2023, the Council of Experts identified two main causes in pension insurance: the increasing life expectancy and the sunken birth rate. The right set screw is a further increase in the standard age limit, coupled to life expectancy. But that only helps in the long term. There is no adjustment screw for the stronger demographic pressure due to low birth rates. Therefore, we would have to raise the additional capital formation.
A revival of Christian Lindners Generation capital?
No, that doesn’t help. What we need are real reserves that can be used for the pension. This can be done in the pension system by making the contribution payments. But this is politically risky because such reserves can be misused. Therefore, it would be better to expand operational provision and to improve the conditions in such a way that more people benefit, especially with medium and low incomes. A new, state -funded product for private pensions would also make sense – without the mistakes of Riester, i.e. with less regulation, higher returns and lower costs.
That would be outside the legal pension. What else can be done within?
The growth of the pensions would have to be limited, but there was the sustainability factor, but it should be abolished. Alternatively, the pension height could be linked to inflation instead of wages.
Now the boomers retire and give us these problems. That is over at some point. Couldn’t you bridge the time from the household?
That doesn’t work. First, there are no scope in the federal budget. Second, demographic aging is not a temporary phenomenon. The elderly quotient-the ratio of over 65-year-olds to the 20- to 64-year-olds-increases sharply by the retirement of the Boomer by 2035. But even after that, he stays on a high plateau. In the best case, the elderly quotient remains constant, in the less favorable one. That is permanent.
Another proposal for relief is that civil servants also have to pay in pension. What do you think of it?
So far, civil servants do not pay contributions, but also do not receive any benefits. If you include them, more contributions flow temporarily. However, the funds are then missing from the federal states and communities, and most civil servants are employed there. Politically, it might make sense, but it does nothing for pension finances.
Our health expenditure is the second highest in the world, the quality does not justify this
The privileges of the officials are also a topic elsewhere: Is it up to date that they are privately insured?
The system is a little different in the health sector because we collect contributions depending on income, but essentially offer everyone the same performance. If a group – like the officials – is not included, this is not entirely harmonious. But to dissolve the coexistence of legal and capital -covered private health insurance also would have disadvantages. So we would have to reduce the expenses here than to consider where we can get new income. The expenses grow faster than the wage amount and gross domestic product.
The health insurance companies waste money?
Yes, there are great inefficiencies in German health care. We have too many doctor-patient contacts, too many hospital beds. Our health expenditure is the second highest in the world, but the quality does not justify that. This is an opportunity: instead of shortening services, we “only” have to mobilize the efficiency reserves.
How could that be implemented?
Example hospital reform: It has been known for 20 years that we have too many small, poorly equipped hospitals. However, the federal states speak decisively – and are difficult to win for reforms. The Lauterbach reform may improve the quality, but a broad closure of clinics in order to better bundle resources and staff is not to be expected.
The third big chunk is the long -term care insurance. What is the main problem: demography or inefficiency?
Neither yet. Demographic aging will only be really striking in the next few years when the baby boomers come to nursing age. So far, performance extensions have been driving costs. The long -term insurance was designed as a partial insurance, but politics has packed many benefits on it.
That was done because many seniors Care can hardly afford.
There were real improvements, such as dementia. But many services, such as support in the household, could often wear those affected themselves. If you can’t afford it, you get help for care – a social welfare service. There is no risk of mass impoverishment from care. Full insurance is not necessary.
And the rest should pay his care from private assets?
First of all from ongoing income such as pensions. Where that is not enough, assets are of course also used. I understand that people want to inherit their assets. But the state really doesn’t have to worry.
The redistribution character in the German welfare state is not as great as it is often assumed
A significant part of the social transfers goes to the lowest income in Germany.
We always talk about the arms, but actually most of the changes affect people who have property and do not have to get everything cushioned from the state. The redistribution character in the German welfare state is not as large as it is often assumed.
Couldn’t the rich no longer contribute?
It is always about getting majorities for reforms. That is why elements of the redistribution can be part of a reform package. But the rich cannot stuff the billion dollars in social security. High earners already pay a lot in the systems. And even if they paid more, that would not be enough.
There is little willingness to reform in the welfare state – except for the Citizens’ allowance. The costs for this have even dropped. Does something have to happen at all?
As far as the costs are concerned. There is also no great potential for savings that actually relieve the household. But the incentives for additional work should be strengthened. The concepts for this are all known, they would only have to be implemented.
Mr. Werding, from 1 to 10: How optimistic are you that there will be a real “autumn of reforms”?
Autumn is getting closer, commissions are also used. But in particular, there is a draft law that does not fit into reality at the same time. I am at a maximum of 3 on a scale of 1 to 10. Problem awareness still has to grow.
Source: Stern
