Opinion
The debate about the pension package is misleading. Pensions cannot be secured through arguments between generations, but only through more work and more investments.
Now the experts are again warning about the “insanity” of the traffic light government’s pension package. Representatives of the younger generation like my colleague Lisa Becke see young people as the big losers in the proposed law. However, these debates miss the core of the problems.
Between the lines it sounds as if today’s pensioners are the problem. But that is wrong in several respects. Anyone who is retired today has fulfilled their part of the generational contract. He worked and paid contributions for many years. He used his taxes to finance the training of those who are active today.
And as sad as it is: in the year 2040, around which so much of the pension debate revolves, most of today’s retirees will have already died. So leave the pensioners alone!
It is right to look at the baby boomer generation who are retiring in these years. Because there are so many baby births in the age group, any change here has a major impact on pension finances. It is true that the so-called “pension at 63” without deductions is currently putting a strain on social security funds after 45 years of contributions. However, this age limit is also increasing.
Age limit is a good keyword. What many people overlook is how severely pension entitlements have already been reduced by the reforms of recent years. Until 1999, many women were able to retire at 60. Until 2009, three years of contributions were credited to the pension account for studying. The legal age limit increases gradually from 65 to 67 years. The 1964 birth cohort can only retire at the age of 67 – each month earlier means a pension reduction of 0.3 percent. And this discount applies for the rest of your life. The much-maligned baby boomers are also making a contribution to stabilizing pensions.
Young pension package critics would have to say: We want to work longer!
The current dispute particularly revolves around the so-called holding line for the pension level. It should not fall below 48 percent. However, this is only a mathematical construct. Nobody lives off the pension level; what is important is the amount paid out and its purchasing power. With strong wage increases and high employment levels, you can live well even at low levels. In contrast, with inflation and recession, even the highest pensions lose purchasing power.
A look back shows that not a single long-term forecast regarding pension levels and contribution rates has ever been correct. Amazingly, things have turned out much better to date than was predicted in the 1990s.
The keys to prosperity for both active and retired people are growth and employment. And here we come to the core of the problem. Germany is in recession. Our business model of exporting industrial products all over the world is in crisis. If we don’t solve this problem, we’ll all be pretty poor by 2040.
And yes, the truth is that the working life of those who can still work will increase. If millions are about to turn 100, then they will probably have to work until they are 70 – and many will probably want to do that in the end. But we don’t hear anything about this from the young critics of the pension package. The complaint about alleged discrimination would be much more credible if it were accompanied by the announcement: Sure, we want to work more and longer!
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
