We have an unholy union when opposite extremes converge. Applied to Swiss politics, this means that all of a sudden the SVP and the SP have teamed up and are both fighting for the same bill. Although they do it for completely different reasons, the result remains the same.
Especially the revision of social security, AHV or BVG, sometimes create unholy alliances. As a result, the final vote in the autumn session of 2010 rejected the revision of the AHV with the adjustment of the retirement age for women. At that time, the social protection of women went too far for SVPs and not enough for SPs.
The same fate threatens the revision of the 2nd pillar, BVG. It’s on Tuesday’s agenda in the Council of States. The National Council discussed this issue a year ago and rejected the revision proposal of the Federal Council, which wants to cover all transitional pensioners with grants. In other words, those who will not have to accept any reduction in pensions despite a reduction in the statutory conversion rate.
For a preliminary advisory committee of the Council of States, the decision of the National Council cannot obtain a majority. Although it does not go as far as the Federal Council, it does go a little further than the National Council. In the National Council model, transition generation subsidies are 9.1 billion francs, in the Council of States model, 11.7 billion francs.
Damian Müller is a member of the FDP Council of State for the Canton of Lucerne. He complains that only transition generation costs are mentioned and not long-term costs in general. Because in order to be able to maintain the pension level while the conversion rate drops, more francs need to be pumped into the system. But higher contributions also mean higher costs – for both workers and employers. And not just for a limited period of 15 or 20 years.
Therefore, Commissioner Damian Müller submitted a minority proposal, which is due to be considered on Tuesday. Without going into details: when it comes to subsidies for the transitional generation, she is more generous than the National Council and the Commission of the Council of States; in turn, it slows down long-term measures, among other things, by less severely reducing the coordination deduction. With its application, the overall costs are lower than with previously known models.
In this way, the FDP man hopes to attract farmers and businesses. Because if the trade association opposes this proposal, and the unions stick to the Federal Council watering can model, we will have an unholy union again. The crash will be programmed – if not during the final vote in Parliament, then at the latest at the ballot box.