As of: February 27, 2024, 8:37 p.m
By: Amy Walker
Comments
Press
Split
The President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, was a social judge for 36 years.
In his view, politicians have too often made bad decisions out of fear of voters.
Berlin – For a long time, politicians in Germany have relied on a stable economy with low unemployment figures and a solid welfare state.
Everyone was aware that demographic change was just around the corner - but no one wanted to make unpopular decisions that would now benefit the country.
Nowhere are the consequences of this action seen as clearly as in the case of statutory pension insurance.
The delayed pension reform now means that pensioners have to make do with less, even if they have worked for many years.
Pension reform is urgently needed
One person who has always kept a close eye on these developments is Rainer Schlegel, President of the Federal Social Court, who is now retiring.
He now takes this as an opportunity to once again express his opinion on developments in the welfare state.
In an interview with the
Frankfurter Rundschau,
he recently warned: “Our society lacks the necessary respect for our welfare state.
A welfare state that we can be very proud of.
Our social security systems are often criticized – I rarely hear praise and gratitude for these achievements.”
Rainer Schlegel, President of the Federal Social Court, in the Ludwigskirche in Saarbrücken.
(Archive image) © BeckerBredel/Imago
Nevertheless, he is critical of calls for more and more social benefits when, on the other hand, the economy is not booming.
“Many people lack the insight that our welfare state can only do as well as our economy does,” Schlegel told
FR
.
“Those who go to work every day and pay taxes and contributions every day are the ones who essentially keep this welfare state running.
And they too deserve the appreciation of the entire society.”
Those who have done exactly that for a particularly long time are soon-to-be pensioners.
With the statutory pension, seniors should receive appreciation for all their years of service to society as a whole - at least that is the idea.
But the system is increasingly crumbling as baby boomers slowly retire and the remaining working population cannot bear the costs of all of these people.
There needs to be reform, and quickly.
And that also means making politically unpopular decisions for the benefit of everyone.
What is “pension at 63”?
The discount-free old-age pension for those who have been insured for a particularly long time (45 years of insurance) is colloquially called “pension at 63”, but this term is misleading: the start of the pension depends not only on the period of insurance, but also on the year of birth.
This meant that everyone born before 1953 could retire at the age of 63 without any reductions.
But this no longer applies to all people born between 1953 and 1963.
The entry age gradually shifts upwards depending on the year of birth because the retirement age is gradually increased.
If you were born in 1964 or later, you can only retire without deductions from the age of 65 after 45 years.
“Politics is often done out of fear of the voter”
In an interview with the
Tagesspiegel
, Rainer Schlegel regrets that this insight only reached politics so late.
“It was certainly a mistake to introduce a pension at 63,” the 66-year-old thinks today.
“The economy is flopping at the moment, that’s also why.
It would take a bold move by lawmakers to end retirement at 63.
But it would be very important.”
My news
Traditional company has to close and lays off all employees
Taxpayers shell out 23.3 million euros for rents from citizens’ benefit recipients – per month
Citizens' money fraud by fake Ukrainians: Authorities announce larger scale than previously announced
1 hour ago
Verdi calls on Lufthansa ground staff to go on a warning strike lasting several days
Is smoking weed at work allowed from April 1st?
A lawyer will provide information
Clear-cutting at large chocolate manufacturer: 2,500 jobs at risk
But he seems to understand that politicians keep making such mistakes when it comes to the welfare state - after all, decision-makers in this country are dependent on the voters' favor.
“Politics is often done out of fear of the voter.
[...] In recent years, no party has argued that we need to save on social spending.
Maybe that would have been successful.”
Economists are calling for early retirement to be abolished
The social budget currently amounts to almost 40 percent of government spending per year.
In 2024 alone, the federal government plans to spend 127 billion euros on pension insurance.
This is despite the fact that a large proportion of pensions are financed through contributions from employees (insured persons).
Ten years ago the state spent 88 billion euros on pensions.
If people had already looked for ways to keep government spending on pensions at a stable level, not only would the state budget be in a better position, but the financial situation of many pensioners could also be better.
The topic of “retirement at 63” has been heating up people’s minds for a long time; in recent weeks, numerous economists have clearly spoken out in favor of abolishing early retirement.
Particularly clear recently was the economist Martin Werding, who said in an interview with Ippen.Media: “Abolish the pension at 63!” But there has not yet been a clear positioning from politics.
But with Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) there will be no abolition of the “pension at 63”, he has already confirmed this several times.