Contents
In the debate about pension provision, large gaps between left-wing and bourgeois parties are becoming apparent. In addition to the reform of the BVG occupational pension scheme, political opinions also differ on the questions of how the AHV should be reformed and whether a higher retirement age is needed.
It was the citizens’ big promise to women: their situation would be improved by reforming the second pillar. Taken a year ago when women’s retirement age was raised to 65. Have the commoners kept their promise?
“No,” said SP National Councilor Tamara Funiciello on Friday in the “Arena”. “Women are now working longer hours. But you pay more into your occupational pension scheme than you will later receive as a pension!” This applies to women over 50 years of age with a certain income. Conclusion: Another reform under the belt of women – and the bourgeois promise; nothing but a heap of shards.
“The promise has clearly been kept,” said Center Councilor Erich Ettlin. Funiciello only cites individual cases. “The basic rule is: you pay more into the pension fund – and in the end you also get more pension.” FDP Vice President Andri Silberschmidt argued similarly. Since employers also pay into occupational pension plans, employees would always receive more in the end anyway.
The bourgeois parties also emphasized in unison that the reform would improve the position of part-time workers, low earners and women in particular. Conclusion: The reform as an important modernization of occupational pension provision.
The left and trade unions are fighting reform with the referendum
“Pensions are falling and can hardly finance the retirement of people in this country,” criticized Green Party National Councilor Natalie Imboden. She recalled that the employers’ association and unions had originally presented a social partner compromise to reform the BVG.
Pensions are falling and can hardly finance the retirement of people in this country.
This would have provided for more generous pension supplements than the variant approved by Parliament. “But the bourgeois simply wiped this solution off the table in parliament!” The SP and the trade unions have therefore called for a referendum against the reform.
Ettlin, on the other hand, praised Parliament’s version, in which only a targeted group of people with relatively low incomes receive pension supplements. “With the social partner compromise, I would also have received a pension supplement – I don’t need that.” GLP Vice President Melanie Mettler emphasized that the backlog of reforms in pension provision must be put to an end. “The BVG reform is an absolute game changer for women.”
Civilians and leftists are also divided in the first pillar
There are also reform projects for the first pillar of pension provision, the AHV. Because pensioners have less and less money to live on, the trade union federation is calling for a 13th AHV pension through a popular initiative. Funiciello believes the additional costs are justified: “People are too big to fail too – not just the banks!”
“A 13th AHV sounds very tempting,” replied SVP National Councilor Diana Gutjahr. Until you think about who is paying for it. “The left always only thinks about distributing money – but not about how the money is actually earned!”
You used to receive a pension for 13 years – today it’s already 23.
The FDP, on the other hand, supports a popular initiative by the Young Liberals, which aims to gradually increase the retirement age. According to Silberschmidt, its connection to the increased life expectancy is essential: “In the past, people received a pension for 13 years – today it is already 23.”
Imboden, on the other hand, argued that not everyone has the same life expectancy: “Those who have a low income or a hard job die earlier.” A general increase in the retirement age is therefore unfair.
Both the AHV initiatives and the BVG reform are expected to be voted on next spring. So, as is often the case, the voters have the final say.