German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/4, pp. 220-221.
Herr President. Frau Minister. Dear colleagues. Honored citizens.
The statutory old age provision in Germany is a renovation project. For millions of people, the pension does not suffice for a living. Even those who worked life-long, and always had an average earnings, need be happy if they just make ends meet – still.
You all are acquainted with the numbers and know that the financing of the statutory provision is nearly marginal, and this in future will not be simpler but more difficult, even though the contribution already today is so high and even though the state takes so much taxes as never before. We here have often debated on it. The demography is in this regard only one factor, and you know that. Yes, the pensions crisis is a crisis of state legitimacy, and it needs to be solved. Yet how, as it happens, by the two parties which are responsible for the entire misery? As it happens, by the CDU and SPD, which without intermission have governed in the last decades, of which 15 years together? We thus here look at decades of pensions policy failure by SPD and CDU, according to the motto, “It could, it should, it would, it needed to” – decades in which the pension was piece by piece hollowed out and slashed.
I want for once to tell this here because it is so easily forgotten: First in 1983, the pension sickness insurance contributions were payable, then later also the contribution for care insurance – first for half, then from 2004 completely. The same was then done for the company pensions and direct insurance, even back-dated from the 2005 tax year, to say nothing of being gladly doubled. And with all of this, the pension was ever further reduced. For that, the citizens were indeed promised an adjustment which however never came.
That the Riester pensions do not work is known for decades. Despite that, up to today, over 86 billion euros in promotion sums were swallowed up. What one would have been able to do with that! Dear colleagues and citizens, in the entire time other countries have constructed large stocks of capital for their pension accounts, and are therefore better here than we. Perhaps also because their governments have not continually sold out to the contribution money of the insured. Since what was produced over the years, quite especially by the SPD in non-insurance benefits at the cost of the contribution payers – that goes into the billions. All of that is money which is lacking for the pensions.
Now shall all be better with the SPD and CDU. Only, when I look at the coalition contract, then I see a further so into the blue. When I no longer know what to do, then I found a works circle.
Peter Aumer
(CSU/CSU): You could make a proposal, Frau Schielke-Ziesing!
That means here a “commission”, and is the umpteenth pension commission following Rürup which is commissioned to square the circle. The last one, as is known, could not even once agree on a a common result. Yet the problem is nevertheless long since no longer the analysis but the lack of political courage for a decision. How wooly are the coalition’s proposals on the pension theme has already been shown regarding the first concrete proposal of the new Minister Bas, which takes on the inclusion of officials in the statutory Pension Insurance. That was again torn up, scarcely had the light of the Bild newspaper caught sight of it. Good, such a change of system may not be taken on in a heave-ho proceeding, yet in the long-term such a consideration is sensible.
Yet perhaps one should begin with something smaller. We as the AfD already in the last legislative period brought in a motion for inclusion of politicians in the statutory Pension Insurance.
Stephan
Brandner (AfD): Sehr gut!
That would be a good signal and a first step – not here unconditioned by the financial volumes, but because then politicians themselves would finally be affected by the consequences of their policy. Perhaps then the pension policy also would change, namely for the better.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!
Of course, you have rejected this motion on account of the firewall.
We as AfD delegation in the last two legislative periods brought in a whole series of motions to stabilize the pension system, among which were measures for fighting poverty for pensioners in the basic security, for example higher allowances for pensioners, or the expansion of insured circles which are now sold to us by the other delegations as just the thing. Some of it you similarly copied from us, like the one-time payment for the victims of the DDR pension bridge.
From the equities pension, the Ampel took its leave, Gott sei dank. This construct was a real barrel buster. Only it’s a shame that with your idea for an early start pension, you again jump much too short. I do not understand that: Ten euros per month, and the remainder the insured himself should then set aside? That is still much too little. With our junior savings deposit, we have long since put forward a sensible alternative. There, you can re-read and reconsider how, with straight-forward contributions for today’s newborn children, is saved in the long run an authentic asset – without debts, financed by taxes, without a social contribution. So goes long-term pension policy.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
