class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>
They are dressed in the same color when they arrive at Blick for the debate: SP co-chair Mattea Meyer (36) and FDP state councilor Andri Silberschmidt (29). But that’s about it in terms of similarities. The two have very different ideas about the upcoming pension votes. On March 3, Switzerland will decide on the initiative for a 13th AHV pension and the pension initiative of the Young Liberals.
Mrs. Meyer and Mr. Silberschmidt, retirees are currently doing better than ever. There is a demand for a 13th AHV pension throughout the landscape.
Mattea Meyer: The people I meet tell me something different: health insurance premiums and rents are skyrocketing, food prices are rising. This means that people’s entire monthly pension is eaten up, which is why a 13th AHV pension is needed.
Andri Silberschmidt: The current social system provides purchasing power in old age. Thanks to supplementary benefits (EL), everyone in Switzerland can grow old with dignity. If you look at which group of people is most affected by financial worries, it is mainly children and single mothers and fathers. We must focus on the areas where the need for action is greatest.
There will be a pension showdown at the ballot box on March 3. The voters will then decide on two AHV initiatives: on the one hand, on the unions’ popular initiative for a 13th AHV pension. On the other hand, about the pension initiative of the Young Liberals.
The trade unions’ popular initiative “for a better life in old age” calls for the introduction of a 13th AHV pension. If the answer is yes, a thirteenth monthly salary for seniors will be added to the previous twelve monthly pensions.
The Young Liberals’ pension initiative wants to increase the retirement age. First, it should gradually increase from 65 to 66 years by 2033 and then be linked to life expectancy: per month of additional life expectancy it should increase by 0.8 months – to 67, 68 or more. Automatically.
Details about both initiatives can be found here.
There will be a pension showdown at the ballot box on March 3. The voters will then decide on two AHV initiatives: on the one hand, on the unions’ popular initiative for a 13th AHV pension. On the other hand, about the pension initiative of the Young Liberals.
The trade unions’ popular initiative “for a better life in old age” calls for the introduction of a 13th AHV pension. If the answer is yes, a thirteenth monthly salary for seniors will be added to the previous twelve monthly pensions.
The Young Liberals’ pension initiative wants to increase the retirement age. First, it should gradually increase from 65 to 66 years by 2033 and then be linked to life expectancy: per month of additional life expectancy it should increase by 0.8 months – to 67, 68 or more. Automatically.
Details about both initiatives can be found here.
However, Parliament has decided that the EL of many pensioners will be reduced.
Zilverschmidt: The calculation basis has been adjusted so that very wealthy people no longer receive additional benefits. This reform was unchallenged in parliament. Even Mattea Meyer wasn’t against it.
Meijer: I abstained from voting because the revision also brought improvements, for example in the rental maximums. But the fact is that with the EL you save 400 million francs. This is to the detriment of the recipients. There are people who have received several hundred francs less since the beginning of the year. Without the 13th AHV pension, there will be no better pensions in the near future.
Zilverschmidt: The AHV has risen in recent years, even with negative inflation. The purchasing power of the AHV has continuously increased. Someone has to pay the 13th AHV pension. Be that as it may, in the end it is the young people who pay for it. This is antisocial because the older generation is on average the richest generation.
Meijer: Playing families and young people off against pensioners is wrong. The AHV is the most cost-effective and efficient way to get good pensions. Young people also benefit from this. Because they too will grow old someday.
Instead of a 13th AHV pension, the National Council supports a GLP proposal that provides one billion francs for the poorest pensioners.
Meijer: This is a cheap distraction tactic in the voting campaign. If citizens had been really interested in supporting people with low pensions, they would have had the opportunity to make a counter-proposal. This was rejected by the committee.
Zilverschmidt: We have given the Federal Council the mandate to provide targeted assistance where help is needed. But he must find counter financing. We can’t just spend a billion more. You on the left are not just concerned about low incomes; you want 5 billion francs more redistribution at the expense of the working population.
The appropriate keyword for the question of how a 13th AHV pension should be financed.
Meijer: The AHV is systematically reviled by citizens – even though it is currently on a stable footing with 50 billion francs and will generate surpluses in the coming years. By 2030, the country will have built up a record reserve of 67 billion francs.
Zilverschmidt: The decisive factor is whether the AHV spends more money in the long term than it brings in. The AHV will lose 100 billion francs in 2050. In a few years the bill will be negative. To say now that the AHV is on a stable basis is, in my opinion, gross negligence for future generations who will have to pay off all debts.
Meijer: It is important that the AHV is financed from solidarity. For the 13th AHV pension, employers and employees each need 0.4 percent salary. A banker like Sergio Ermotti (63) pays an extra 4,000 francs per month on a monthly salary of 1 million, while an electrician with 6,000 francs only pays 24 francs. In return, they will both receive approximately 200 francs more pension each month. Millionaires don’t actually need the AHV, but millionaires do need the AHV. You, on the other hand, just want everyone to work longer.
Zilverschmidt: This calculation is only half the truth, because it ignores the fact that the AHV already promises more pensions than the financing for them is guaranteed. According to the Federal Council, VAT rates of 11.5 percent would be needed to finance the existing system together with the 13th AHV pension. That would enormously reduce the purchasing power of medium-sized companies.
The left wants to finance the AHV through new additional income, the pension initiative purely through a higher retirement age. Why don’t we give 65 year olds their hard-earned pension?
Zilverschmidt: I wish everyone can retire! There are people who are no longer physically able to work. By implementing this initiative, we make it possible for them to retire early. But for 80 percent of the population it is possible to continue working for another year after the age of 65. This is a better solution than paying more and more taxes over decades. This is a social compromise!
Meijer: If your idea had been introduced in the 1970s, people today would have to work until they were 70. The question is who will have to work with your solution longer. They are the ones who cannot afford early retirement: the salesperson, the daycare worker, the nurse practitioner. High earners such as bankers, on the other hand, are more likely to drop out because they have the money.
Zilverschmidt: Moreover, early retirement for these people becomes more expensive as the retirement age increases. Moreover, the number of early retirements is decreasing. The trend is already moving towards many people working longer than the normal retirement age. The labor market is ready for older workers!
People can now work voluntarily for longer. Why is coercion necessary?
Zilverschmidt: Because otherwise we would be heading for a gap of 100 billion in the AHV. That is three times more than we spent on Corona. And four times more than the NRLA cost us. We cannot leave Switzerland’s most important social work to the voluntariness of the population.
Meijer: Anyone who wants to work longer must do so. But it is something completely different if someone is forced to work longer.
Zilverschmidt: Many countries around us have already raised the retirement age. They’re not stupid. We in Switzerland are serving our own purpose when we think we are an island of happiness and the only ones who can retire at the age of 65. Then we will lose the current prosperity.
Meijer: If you look at the effective retirement age in neighboring countries, it is lower than in Switzerland! And there are some countries with a thirteenth pension. The point is not that we are an island of happiness, but that the people who have made an important contribution to Switzerland’s prosperity can enjoy a dignified retirement without fear for existence.
A conciliatory proposal at the end: both will vote yes twice on March 3. Agreement?
Meijer:(laughs) I really can’t get that out of my mouth.
Zilverschmidt: In the long term – in a few decades – a 13th AHV pension is an option. But first we have to solve the financial problem through a higher retirement age.
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
