Pascal Reddig, 30, is a CDU member of the Bundestag from Hesse and chairman of the Young Group of the Union faction. The lawyer has been a member of the Bundestag since 2025.
WORLD: Mr. Reddig, you played a leading role in the planned pension reform in the Pension Commission for the Union. We have now seen how pension policy has become a decisive factor in almost all state election campaigns. Do you sometimes have the feeling that the discussion is no longer so factual?
Pascal Reddig: When it comes to pensions, we generally made the mistake of not making any reform decisions in the past 20 years precisely because we were always looking at the next election dates. We were always worried about making decisions that might not be met with particularly great approval at first, but would pay off in the medium to long term.
And part of the coalition is now making exactly the same mistake again. We are presenting something here that does not lead to more cuts, but above all to an increase in pension levels for people. The voters will not appreciate the fact that some people are now falling into a kind of short-sighted social populism and are afraid that they will not make any reforms again.
WORLD: Is this also something you blame on members of your own party? Finally, prime ministers from CDU-led countries have also questioned parts of the reform.
Reddig: A lot of voters want politics to be reliable and for us to finally make decisions. The reason why many people have migrated to the AfD, but also to the Left Party, is not because we have made too many reforms in recent years. On the contrary: Many people see that we have massive structural problems and are apparently no longer able to address them. Before the summer break, we had a compromise that Lars Klingbeil, Friedrich Merz, Bärbel Bas, Markus Söder and the entire coalition committee supported. I didn't think it was particularly wise to question this again afterwards. That's why I didn't think the initiative of some prime ministers was right. It was all the more important that the coalition leaders once again supported the overall package at their meeting at the end of August.
I have often heard in the past few days that we need a justice check for the reforms. Especially if you do such a fairness check on the pension at 63 (deduction-free pension after 45 years of contributions, editor's note), you have to come to the conclusion that its distributional effect is not fair. At 63, the group with the highest income is now four times more likely to claim the pension than those with the lowest. We have to fix that and return the pension at 63 to what we originally wanted it to do: to protect those who are really physically unable to do so anymore.
WORLD: Surveys show that many citizens find the reform to be unfair. Don't you have to react to that?
Reddig: It is completely clear that such a decision does not meet with great approval among the population. I understand everyone who says: I'm about to retire, I've prepared myself for it, worked and paid in all my life and now expect to be able to retire earlier without any deductions. These are the people who have kept the place running for decades. These are enormous life achievements.
Nevertheless, we have made decisions in recent years that have made the pension system increasingly expensive. In the future, this will mean that contributions will continue to rise due to demographic change and pension levels will fall. That is why we in the Commission have proposed introducing a capital pension based on the Swedish model. But for this we also need contribution and cost stability in order to create the financial scope for the Swedish pension. Retirement at 63 is very expensive in relation to its impact. It costs ten billion euros every year. We have a responsibility to the contributors to keep the system financially viable in the long term. Justice is also when young people, children and grandchildren can rely on the fact that they will have a good pension and when they can build something for themselves without being crushed by the ever-increasing tax burden.
WORLD: Let's stick with the pension at 63. According to reports, 46 or 47 instead of 45 years of contributions are being discussed as a compromise. Do you think that makes sense?
Reddig: The pension at 63 was introduced so that people who have worked long hours and physically hard can retire earlier without deductions. In practice, however, we see that it is often not used by the busy roofer or the carer. It is precisely these groups that have to pay the pension at 63 for higher earners. Our idea is therefore not to abolish the pension at 63 without replacing it. We want a hardship regulation, a protective pension for those who can actually no longer work. These people should also be able to retire early without deductions in the future.
WORLD: Now you haven't told me anything about the 46 or 47 years of contributions.
Reddig: We looked at this closely in the Commission and made the fundamental decision unanimously: Retirement based solely on years of contributions is not fair. For example, women often do not reach 45 or 47 years of contributions. What is more important is to reach those who have worked hard physically and can actually no longer do it - even if they may only have 40 years of contributions.
WORLD: Do you have the impression that concrete alternatives or compromise proposals are coming from the SPD?
Reddig: Before the summer break, we had a firm agreement on an overall package that everyone supported. This cannot be canceled unilaterally. If the SPD has a suggestion as to how we can save ten billion euros in the pension system in the short term in order to curb contributions, we are ready to talk. But so far I don't see it.
WORLD: Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania's Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig (SPD) has declared that she no longer wants to discuss pensions at 63. Do you still see opportunities for a compromise?
Reddig: Manuela Schwesig justified this with justice. That's precisely why we should look at the details. If we primarily want to support people who have worked long hours and are no longer physically able, we have to tailor the regulation specifically to these people. I believe that we can then come to a compromise. I firmly assume that Manuela Schwesig will also be willing to compromise in the end. As Prime Minister, she bears a certain responsibility.
WORLD: The draft law should be available by October 7th. The positions now seem quite hardened. Can a workable compromise be achieved by then?
Reddig: That can definitely succeed. After the results of the Pension Commission were presented, many people wrote to us saying that they were grateful that politicians finally had the courage to not only think ahead to the next election, but to ask themselves: Where will we be in ten or 20 years? If we reflect on this and resume the spirit of before the summer break, trust in politics can also increase.
WORLD: If, in your opinion, the draft law deviates too far from the agreed compromise, do you then keep the option open to exerting pressure via the coalition's narrow majority?
Reddig: What is crucial is that we in the Bundestag decide something that is future-oriented. Friedrich Merz proclaimed the goal “Prosperity for Young People”. And prosperity for young people means that we need systems that will continue to work in the future. That's why we will measure everything we adopt based on whether we succeed in making the social security systems, especially pensions, future-proof. The basic requirement is that everything comes into one package, including the capital pension. In doing so, we are sending a clear message to the young generation: You should have a perspective: your contributions will pay off in significantly higher pensions. If this is reflected in the draft law, we would of course be happy to agree.
WORLD: And if not?
Reddig: Then not.
