Stefan Nacke, the chief of the workers’ group in the CDU parliamentary faction, and Armin Grau, the Greens’ spokesman for social policies in the Bundestag, have agreed on a set of demands for the upcoming pension reform. They assert that securing old-age provision is one of the country’s fundamental promises and a cornerstone of social democracy, arguing that pension policy must not devolve into purely partisan maneuvering, but must gain broad democratic legitimacy.
Both politicians stressed that major decisions concerning the federal pension system have historically been prepared, supported, and handled across party lines, a tradition they wish to uphold.
Crucially, Nacke and Grau oppose the so-called “pension at 63” for long-term contributors. They argue that this policy is outdated and creates substantial disincentives. In their view, it pushes experienced and healthy professionals out of the labor market while simultaneously burdening the pension funds. Instead, they advocate for measures to counteract early retirement trends, focusing on ensuring people remain healthy and capable of working for as long as possible. This requires improving conditions through preventative care, health promotion, rehabilitation, and fostering age-appropriate workplaces and work cultures, thereby allowing the actual retirement age to increase noticeably.
Furthermore, they are calling for mandatory company-based pension schemes, which must be co-financed by all employers. They contend that it is socially unacceptable that individuals in small businesses, those with low incomes, or workers in non-unionized positions often lack sufficient access to retirement savings. They also criticize minimum-wage jobs, deeming them a dead end for many rather than a bridge to stable employment. They argue that these jobs weaken individual pension entitlements and undermine the principle of solidarity.
Nacke and Grau maintain that the statutory pension insurance is the essential foundation of social security in old age and must be strengthened. They insist that the level of benefits must remain reliable in the long term and should even rise prospectively. To achieve this, new collective income sources must be utilized, though they have kept these specific sources confidential pending discussion with the Pension Commission. Their goal is to finance the statutory pension system much more thoroughly than the current pay-as-you-go system allows.
Finally, they demand that all services currently not covered by contributions be gradually supported by federal funds and borne by the general public. They warn that reducing federal subsidies to pension insurance does not relieve the state; rather, it simply shifts costs onto employees and employers.
