Zoff about 13. AHV pension: FDP-Nantermod accuses SP-Maillard of lying

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

The left wants a 13th AHV pension based on the model of the 13th monthly salary. To help retirees who are struggling financially. The common people are against it: they complain that even millionaires would benefit from it.

The fact is: Supplementary Benefits (EL), introduced in 1966, already help seniors whose income is not enough to live on. But there is a catch, say the unions.

In the RTS program ‘Forum’, State Secretary Pierre-Yves Maillard (55) emphasized again last week: “If you have put money aside to buy a house and if you start living in it, you have assets. But this wealth, which is taken into account when calculating the right to EL, does not mean that you are rich,” said the social democrat and trade union boss.

“Ignorance or lies?”

The result? “There are people who are not entitled to EL because they have invested in a house. But their situation may be more precarious than that of EL recipients,” Maillard said.

Councilor Philippe Nantermod (39), who sat opposite him during the show, thinks differently. The day after the broadcast, he accused his opponent Maillard on the short message service X of distorting the truth.

“Mr Maillard claimed on the forum that homeowners were not entitled to additional benefits,” the FDP politician tweeted. Article 9a paragraph 2 of the Benefits Act excludes precisely these cases. ‘Ignorance or lies?’ he asked. This article of the law text states that “the real estate that serves as an apartment for the recipient of supplementary benefits is not included in the net assets”.

“You should also read article 11”

Of course, it is not impossible to receive extra benefits as an owner, Maillard counters when asked by Blick. “I say that many people are not entitled to it because, as everyone knows, the value of their home is included in the calculation.” In his contribution, citing only Article 9, Nantermod suggests that real estate assets are not taken into account at all when calculating the EL. “That may be the case, but you only have to read Article 11 to know that,” said the union boss.

Sounds complicated, but it isn’t. There are two ways in the law to exclude people from EL: on the one hand through their assets and on the other hand through their income. Article 11, mentioned by Maillard, refers to the second point.

“What Article 11 shows is that when calculating income, real estate is taken into account, through the imputed rental value and part of the value of the house in which you live,” the SP Council of States continues. In other words: When calculating the EL, the immovable property is taken into account.

“Objectively wrong”

Nantermond does not accept this: “As a lawyer, I have submitted EL applications for homeowners who also receive them.” The lawyer relies on the official calculator of the federal government.

In his example, person X receives a pension of 25,000 francs per year. She owns a property with a taxable value of 367,000 francs – “the median of the taxable value of the properties of retired households”, as Nantermond points out – and reports a remaining mortgage debt of 100,000 francs. The person would therefore be entitled to an EL of 11,000 francs per year, i.e. approximately 900 francs per month.

“In this case, the person has a taxable net amount of 267,000 francs and is entitled to EL,” notes Philippe Nantermod. And this despite the fact that we know that the tax value of real estate is often far below the actual value. In some cases you can have a net worth of 400,000 francs and still receive EL.

He says: “Objectively speaking, it is wrong to say that a pensioner who owns a property is not entitled to EL. The opposite is the case: the last reform explicitly stated that, unlike cash, home ownership is not a fundamental exclusion criterion for receiving EL.

“Show how many EL recipients need the 13th AHV”

Maillard fires back again, stating that he did not say that or generalize. “Mr Nantermod has again tweeted too quickly,” the Vaudois said.

Philippe Nantermod’s examples do not convince him in terms of content. “These examples confirm what I am saying: including part of the home value increases income and thus weakens the right to EL. And in other cases, which Mr Nantermod does not mention, this leads to the denial of the EL claim.” But that does not alter the fact that you should never hesitate to apply for EL. Mr. Nantermod’s examples show how many EL recipients need this 13th AHV.

Source:Blick