CSU wants to enable early retirement in cases of hardship
The fronts in the political discussion about pensions at 63 are hardening. While the CSU relies on exceptions, resistance to abolition is growing in the SPD.
Quick Look
- In the debate about pensions at 63, CSU regional group leader Alexander Hoffmann is calling for exceptions only for cases of hardship.
- The SPD strictly rejects compromises and transition periods.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Ending pensions at 63 is a recommendation from a pension commission appointed by the government.
In the discussion about full pensions after 45 years of insurance, CSU regional group leader Alexander Hoffmann insists that this should only be allowed in cases of hardship. »We have a clear agreement in the coalition: hardship cases yes, normal cases no. Without a change in the rule-exception ratio for the pension without deductions after 45 years of contributions, there can be no pension reform," Hoffmann told "Bild".
The coalition is discussing, among other things, an increase in the number of years of contributions by up to two years, the paper reports, citing faction circles. Employees could then retire without deductions after 46 or 47 years of contributions. There are also discussions about shortening the crediting of parenting periods and limiting early retirement to certain professional groups.
The deputy SPD chairman Alexander Schweitzer, on the other hand, rejects compromises for the reform of the tax-free pension. “There are no transition periods sufficient,” Schweitzer told the Editorial Network Germany (RND). »Those who work long hours must have more than those who haven't worked as long. This is not welfare state crumbs or handouts, nor is it welfare - this is performance justice. And it is part of the generational contract that should be adhered to," emphasized the SPD politician.
However, every contribution made during your working life counts towards the amount of your later statutory pension. In this respect, everyone who has worked for a long time already has more than those who have paid in fewer contributions.
The end of the pension at 63, which is particularly popular with less burdened high earners, is one of 33 recommendations from a pension commission set up by the government. The coalition leaders initially committed to implementing the advice one-on-one. The money saved should serve to secure long-term pensions for the younger generation. Another argument from the supporters of the reform plans is that money is needed to finance a new capital pillar to increase pension levels.
Open Questions
- When will the pension reform actually be discussed in the cabinet?
- Which professional groups should fall under the hardship regulation?
