EditorialPension package II

Pension Package II comes with a hefty bill for younger generations

The governing parties were pleased with Pension Package II because they were able to reward their base with symbolic successes. However, the pension system has by no means become more stable as a result. Because painful issues were left out.

Pension Package II comes with a hefty bill for younger generations

The pension package II presented by Germany's Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil and Minister of Finance Christian Lindner is a typical coalition compromise. The successes announced are mainly of a symbolic nature. The SPD was again able to extend a state benefit, although the money needed for it is actually lacking. And the FDP is pleased that it will be able to implement a core concern before its expected exit from government responsibilities - the introduction of funded pension provision. What the compromise has not achieved is a sustainable stabilization of the German pension system. The contribution rate, the tax subsidy and the affordability of the system depend very much on how the number of employees covered by social insurance will develop in the coming years. And demographic trends will be enough to determine this: Welcome to Jurassic Park.

It seems inevitable that Germany will become even less attractive as an employer market if the other framework conditions remain unchanged. The cost of stabilizing the pension level at 48% of the last pre-tax income of a retiree will be unilaterally imposed on the younger generations. In years to come, they will have to pay invcreasing pension contributions, co-finance current pension payments through an ever-increasing tax burden and at the same time save more for themselves to be protected against poverty when they hit retirement age. The German economist Monika Schnitzer is certainly not describing a revolutionary approach when she says that what is actually needed is a triad of a longer working life, slower pension increases and more private savings. Naturally, it would also make sense if younger contributors could invest part of their contributions in the capital market themselves in order to acquire their own entitlements. But how can this be done when every cent and more is budgeted to satisfy the claims of existing pensioners?

Lack of a sustainable equity culture

The idea of being able to invest parts of the pension contribution directly on the capital market would face massive political resistance in Germany anyway. The mistrust of the market economy and equity investments is taking on absurd proportions in some cases. For example, Verena Bentele, President of the VdK social association, told the news agency DPA that „an investment in shares only pays off after 30 years, if at all.“ A statement so far from reality that it is hard to believe. In fact, the average annual return on an investment in the German stock index DAX over three decades was between 6.8% and almost 10.3%, depending on the year of investment.

But statements like Ms. Bentele's are no exceptions and shape the opinion that repeatedly gets in the way of the creation of a sustainable equity culture in Germany. On top of this, the fundamental demographic problem of a steadily shrinking number of people paying into the system and a growing number of pensioners is consistently ignored. And the incentive to take a closer look diminishes with each passing year. Because senior citizens are a safe bet at the election ballot box. The SPD has long since mutated from a workers' party to a pensioners' party if you look at its voter structure. The Greens, who have a younger electorate, lack confidence in market-oriented solutions.

The FDP, too, would have to jump over its shadow. The Liberals, who like to proclaim that there will be no tax increases under their leadership, are only true to themselves in terms of semantics. An increase in non-wage labor costs, as decided in the second pension package, is even more painful for middle-income earners than a tax increase. Even a pension solidarity surcharge, which would have affected every taxpayer, would have been a more effective measure than what the government has now proposed. On the one hand, it would have made clear what has long been a fact: taxpayers have to massively cross-subsidize the German pension system. On the other hand, it would have offered the opportunity for contributors to spend part of their contributions on a real, personal equity pension. Instead, they are now the ones holding the short end of the stick.