Ulrike
Schielke-Ziesing
Basic
Pension
German
Bundestag, July 2, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/170, pp. 21182-21183
[Ulrike
Schielke-Ziesing is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the
eastern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. She
is a pensions administrator and member of the Bundestag social security
committee and here responds to the government’s plan for a basic pension. Hubertus Heil (SPD) is German Minister for Labor and Social Affairs.]
Right
honorable Herr President. Honored colleagues. Honored citizens.
At
the first reading, we heard from colleague Brinkhaus of the CDU/CSU delegation
that there will be no second or third reading of this draft law if the basic
pension [Grundrente] was not solidly
financed. Now, this statement does not last very long, although nothing in the
least has altered in this draft law. In other words, the CDU/CSU delegation yet
again allows itself to be lead about by the SPD and yet again betrays its principles
– or perhaps it should be said, its former principles.
Alexander Kraus (CDU/CSU): The Grundrente belongs to our principles because it is equitably
effective [Lesistungsgerecht].
In
other respects, hearty congratulations to the CDU on its 75th
birthday. It should be thought that at such an age sufficient experience was
gathered so that one might assert oneself against a hyperactive coalition
partner. Yet that, to be sure, is not so.
We
have debated a great deal over the Grundrente
in this place, over why we hold the Grundrente
to be fundamentally false, why we hold this concept to be too expensive
and, before all, unjust, why we hold it to be destructive to weaken to
such an extent the equivalence principle – that for an agreed achievement there
is to be an agreed compensation - why it
is false to overburden the Pension Insurance with bureaucratic duties, to
disburse money by the most complicated ways and means imaginable, from which in
the end so few people profit.
Matthias Bartke (SPD): 1.3 million
are a few?
I
want to spare myself all that here
today, since all that could be said on this theme has been said: From numerous
public hearings, from the Pension Insurance and even from the grand coalition’s
own members – as we know today – futilely…
The
pension instruction is certainly not simple to understand. The insurance
executives and pension advisers here provide very good help to the pensioner. But
these pension advisers themselves cannot comprehend the Grundrente accounting.
Daniela Kolbe (SPD): That is not
agreed!
The
Grundrente will amount to an average
of 75 euros monthly. If the married couples have sufficient income, there
follows an income charge and there is not even this 75 euros. What will the Grundrente recipient now say when she
receives a pension instruction with so small a payment? Minister Heil had
promised them 200 euros, in some speeches 400 euros, today 300 euros. Will they
accept their Grundrente? They can no
longer comprehend the instruction.
They
will feel that they have been treated unjustly and complain, precisely like the
pensioner who has no claim to the Grundrente,
or the married couple for whom there is an income charge in contrast to those
living together for whom this is not so, or pensioners who do not want an
automatic income adjustment undertaken by the Finance Office which crushes the
restraints of data defense. Those who cannot defend themselves may not refuse
to accept the Grundrente. There will
be among the pensioners very much disillusionment, since the name “Grundrente” implies that all receive
this pension. Which is however not so.
Uwe Schummer (CDU/CSU): That would
be an everyone pension!
I
would have very much preferred that we today speak of a law which actually
improved the living circumstances of the many needy pensioners. Many people who
live in precarious circumstances, even though they have worked a lifetime, had
hoped for that. This concept of the Grundrente
is too expensive, is socially unjust, is ineffective and it burdens the
succeeding generations.
The
financing of the whole is entirely open, the conversion is a disaster – even without
Corona. No wonder that colleagues of the CDU/CSU have resisted this hand and
foot. Alone the leadership have decided otherwise.
With
a motion in April 2019, we of the AfD delegation have already shown how we can
exactly and efficiently help pensioners living in poverty: An allowance
resolution [Freibetragslösung] of the
old age basic security determined by need and which does not place the Pension
Insurance under so much pressure.
Matthias W.
Birkwald (Linke): That would be even less than the thin soup of the FDP! You do
not still mean that quite so earnestly, Frau colleague?
You, Minister Heil, have even taken up our
proposal with the Grundrente law, yet
have installed the great hurdle of “35 years insured time”. Why do you not
permit this support for the good of all needy pensioners? That would be a
measure precisely aimed at combating old age poverty. Yet unfortunately only
the pensioners who have worked 33 to 35 years count for you. All others, even
those pensioners capable of earnings, remain outside.
Not all the CDU/CSU members are happy with
the Grundrente. The Mittelstand Union issued a paper on that, in
which is to be read – I cite with permission of the President –
This Grundrente creates injustices which are not only aimed at the needy, who are not
solidly financed, it burdens, amidst the great economic crisis, taxpayers and
contributors and will unnecessarily burden succeeding generations.
I
can agree with this estimate one hundred percent. It is a pity that these
members represent only a minority within their delegation.
Many
thanks.
[Translated by Todd Martin]
