Economic expert Werner Vontobel classifies as follows: Why should the AHV be a watering can?

class = “sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Correct: If the 13th AHV pension is adopted, it will cost around 4 billion francs per year and this amount will have to be withdrawn from the AHV fund, at least for now. This place will be empty in about ten years.

It is also true that old-age poverty could be better alleviated if the 4 billion were used specifically to plug deficits rather than being distributed equally to all retirees.

It is also true that as a voter I cannot have a say in how this 4 billion will be financed. This makes the decision even more difficult.

SP National Assembly Member Jacqueline Badran proposes that AHV contributions should be increased accordingly, i.e. by approximately 1.2 percent of wages. On the other hand, the mandatory salary percentages in column 2 should be reduced. Such a solution is unlikely to win a majority, but it would at least alleviate two fundamental problems of our economy: We save too much and distribute income too unilaterally.

The second pillar is partly the fault of both. Switzerland has had a current account surplus of up to 350 billion francs in the last decade. All this and a little more can generally be attributed to the redundancies of the 2nd column.

However, during this period, our net balance with foreign countries decreased by 45 billion dollars; because for decades our foreign currency balances have tended to depreciate. All in all, we are saving in vain and owe this idleness to the over-financed second pillar.

Oldies are needed as consumer engines

From an economic perspective, pension funds have one main purpose: they have to transfer purchasing power to the fifth of the population leaving the labor market. This is not just a social duty due to old age poverty, it is also about creating sufficient demand. We need legacy as a consumer engine. Boys’ jobs also depend on this. Overall, the system doesn’t do this very well, but it manages it manageably: Per capita, those over 65 consume about 15 percent less than those who are “just” active.

But the second column contributes almost nothing to this. About 40 percent of pensions go to the richest, but less than 2 percent goes to the poorest fifth of retirees. Pensions in column 2 are distributed almost as unilaterally as market income as a whole: about 50 percent for the top quintile, less than 3 percent for the bottom quintile.

Beneficiaries are landowners

There is another redistribution effect: billions of dollars of savings from pillar 2 flow abroad in equilibrium, but before that they make a few trips to the Swiss real estate market and drive up prices there. The beneficiaries are the small layer of landowners. On balance, the bottom 60 percent are suffering. Column 2 thus contributes to bottom-up redistribution in two ways. It gives tax breaks to upper income earners and makes rents more expensive for ordinary citizens.

In contrast, AHV is a top-down redistribution tool. However, this effect is particularly significant if the 13th pension is financed by higher AHV contributions. On the other hand, if VAT is increased further, ordinary citizens will effectively finance their own pension increases.

Seen this way, the upcoming vote is only half the battle. The decisive battle will be fought later and probably lost.

Source :Blick