The restructuring of the AHV must not become a gender issue. The revision is more about a generational contract.
There is no “women” as a homogeneous group, they are not all politically the same.
“We women are the ones who suffer,” “we women have a revision under our belt,” is what is currently being said from the left-green and trade union side. The reason for the outrage is the compromise decided by Parliament on restructuring the AHV and the associated harmonization of the retirement age for men and women.
This attitude is annoying for three reasons: First, the left claims to speak for all women in Switzerland. As if “the women” formed a homogeneous mass and politically all ticked the same way. But if we look around, we see a different picture. We see young and old women, married and single, family women and working, self-employed or employed. And there are also women – often ignored by the left – who position themselves politically in the bourgeois-liberal camp.
Second, it is also factually incorrect. The compromise, which was approved by Parliament with a clear majority, specifically takes into account the situation of those women who will be affected by the increase in the retirement age over the next nine years.
Women with very low wages in particular can draw their pension early on the same or very privileged terms and can still retire at 64. If they work until the reference age of 65, they receive an even higher pension. The solution is therefore socially balanced and fair.
It is also clear that this system cannot be continued forever. Ultimately, the aim of this revision is to make a contribution to the urgently needed stabilization of the AHV, and not to expand it. It is also reasonable that you – as a man or woman – adjust to a new situation that will not come your way for ten years at the earliest.
Third: The equalization of the retirement age for men and women is long overdue. This is for factual reasons as well as for reasons of equality. On average, women live four years longer than men and receive a pension for a correspondingly longer period. In contrast to occupational pensions, there is no so-called “gender pension gap” in AHV, a pension gap that could be explained by gender.
OASI pensions for men and women do not differ, thanks to the parenting and care credits and income splitting introduced with the tenth AHV revision. And finally, it is – rightly so – not appropriate to demand equal rights for men and women while still insisting on privileges when it comes to duties.
It is undisputed that improvements are needed in the second pillar in favor of women or that actual wage discrimination must be combated. Torpedoing the AHV revision with this justification misses the mark. Rather, the motto must be: do one thing and don’t neglect the other.
The restructuring of the AHV should therefore not be made a woman/man issue. It’s about a socio-political question, about the generational contract. The AHV is based on solidarity: between rich and poor, young and old, man and woman (yes, that too, because the men pay in a multiple). This solidarity is wanted and right. But you shouldn’t overdo it. “We women” should also do our part to ensure that this doesn’t happen.
Regina Sauter is Zurich FDP National Councilor; Susanne Vincenz Stauffacher is St. Gallen National Councilor and President of the FDP Die Liberal Frauen Schweiz.