The pension commission’s proposals, which were revealed over the weekend and are set to be formally presented on Tuesday, have drawn sharp criticism from both economists and labor unions.
Veronika Grimm, an economist, criticized the suggestions, stating they are insufficient to stabilize the pension finances. However, she argued that the fault does not lie with the commission but rather with the federal government, which she believes has already moved the pension insurance system drastically in the wrong direction. To ensure long-term sustainability, Grimm insists that this trajectory must be corrected and significantly surpassed. She agrees with linking the retirement age to increasing life expectancy and abolishing the pension at age 63. Furthermore, she supports the plan to eliminate mini-jobs, as this would significantly increase the incentive to work for low-income earners.
Grimm expresses skepticism regarding the commission’s proposed capital pillar within the pension insurance scheme. Instead, she suggests implementing this through individualized accounts, arguing that only personalized accounts would guarantee that earnings are protected from future political decisions. She also views the planned integration of the self-employed into the statutory pension system as questionable. While acknowledging the need for the self-employed to secure their own future, she maintains that they must always have the option of using a capital-backed model, as this yields higher returns. She finds it unclear why policymakers wish to integrate the self-employed into a system with comparatively low yields, warning that this would only make self-employment less appealing.
Meanwhile, Frank Werneke, chairman of the Verdi union, stated that the plans fail to account for the reality of working people’s lives. Although he commended certain ideas, such as eliminating mini-jobs and including self-employed individuals in the statutory pension, he strongly criticized the planned reduction in pension levels starting in 2031.
Grimm’s proposal to balance the pension level through a capital-backed pillar is dismissed by Werneke as meaningless for the next generation of retirees. Instead, he advocates for strengthening company pension schemes. He rejects raising the retirement age, given that many professions involve intense physical and psychological strain. Most pointedly, Werneke criticized the idea of abolishing the early retirement pension after 45 contribution years, labeling it a disregard for the contributions and labor of those affected. According to Werneke, any pension reform must recognize the lifelong contributions of individuals and ensure an adequately high pension level.
