The pension commission has presented a reform proposal for old-age security that is facing criticism.
The commission’s report contains some correct approaches, such as the need for a longer working life to meet demographic challenges. The introduction of a funded supplement to the statutory pension is also considered overdue. A pay-as-you-go system cannot function permanently with a declining number of contributors and a rising number of pensioners.
The measures, such as linking the pension to life expectancy and restricting early retirement, primarily affect current contributors, i.e., the younger generation. The commission attempts to hold existing pensioners accountable at only one point by referring to the sustainability factor, which is supposed to take effect again after 2031.
Although this initially appears to involve pensioners, the actual impact remains small. The report makes clear that the pension level for existing pensions and future new entrants should not be lower than under current law. This means that younger cohorts must work longer, pay additional contributions, and bear the transition costs through taxes.
This unequal distribution of burdens is problematic, especially since policymakers made similar decisions last year. By fixing the pension level until 2031 and expanding the mother’s pension, additional security and benefits were promised to pensioners, but this also has financial consequences.
The commission recognizes the challenges posed by demographic pressure and rising social insurance costs, but it remains too cautious on the question of what substantial contribution existing pensioners should make. It is important to distinguish between protecting low pensions and largely sparing the entire pension stock.
A fair reform would need to consider differences within the pensioner group more strongly. Possible solutions include reversing last year’s pension package to achieve a fairer distribution of burdens. Instead, the commission chooses the politically more convenient path by formally involving pensioners but materially protecting them to a large extent.
The younger generation continues to be called upon to take responsibility, pay contributions, work longer, and make private provisions, while existing benefit promises are barely touched. This generation already bears significant burdens, including rising debt levels and high social security contributions.
The pension reform now on the table once again burdens primarily the younger generation and is therefore not intergenerationally fair. The generational contract must not be unilaterally at the expense of younger generations.
Source: www.faz.net
