There seems to be a large political consensus by now: Without shares, pensions will not be saved.

But how far is that supposed to go?

The dispute is raging over this now.

Patrick Bernau

Responsible editor for economics and "Money & More" of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung.

  • Follow I follow

From 2025 onwards, the baby boomers will retire. The next legislative period is therefore the time in which a solution to the two basic problems must be found. First: Fewer and fewer people of working age have to finance more and more retirees. Second, and that's nice, but also a problem financially: The retirees have longer and longer lives in retirement, which also increases the number of pensioners.

It is now recognized by many parties that long-term equity investments can play a role in this. After the general election, there seems to be a majority in most conceivable coalitions in favor of replacing the dysfunctional Riester pension with an investment in shares. In the long run, a well-composed stock portfolio is an astonishingly reliable investment, safer than many a home, more profitable anyway. Shares also allow employees to share in the profits of large corporations, not only in Germany, but also in those in emerging regions of the world. The state may offer an equity fund in some way, but it does not necessarily become mandatory.

But that does not end the discussion.

If stocks are good for retirement, why should they only qualify for a supplementary pension?

Can't they then also be used for the statutory pension, at least for a certain part of it?

That would be the logical continuation of the idea.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea in principle still has to answer one question: Where should the money for the share purchase come from when the entire pension contributions have long been planned for the current pensioners?

 The retirement age should be more flexible

The Bochum social policy professor Martin Werding has come up with an answer together with the FDP parliamentary group. It basically works like this: The pension at 63 is withdrawn. In addition, Germans should generally retire later, although this is not mandatory. As in Sweden, retirement is to be made more flexible; those who retire later receive higher payments. In Sweden, this has resulted in many people starting their retirement later, quite voluntarily. This is also how it should go in Germany.

These two steps alone are not enough. There are further detailed measures. In addition, the state in particular has to spend money: In the early years, the concept cost him around 20 billion euros. A total of four percentage points are released from the pension contribution rate (currently around 19 percent), which can be invested in shares. If the money has worked for a while, the pension level will rise again from 2040 onwards. In the meantime, pensions are rising a little more slowly than they would without the reform - but those who retire in 2030 or later should get off better with the reform than without, according to Werding's calculations. According to the standard retirement age, these are those born in 1963 and all younger ones.

The deputy FDP leader Johannes Vogel defends the expenditure of 20 billion euros. "The temporary conversion costs are the price of the pension policy that has been forgotten about the future in recent years and even at its peak they have about the same amount of potential savings that our budget politicians see in the budget anyway," he says. “The money is an investment in a future-proof pension system. If we don't do that, the fundamentals of pension and public finances will shake. Then the contribution rate will develop in the direction of 25 percent or the tax subsidy, which is already over 100 billion today, in the direction of half of the federal budget - with the pension level falling further and further. "

The proposal is nowhere near as popular with other parties. "A share pension based on the proposal of the FDP would massively weaken the statutory pension insurance", says the pension expert of the SPD parliamentary group, Ralf Kapschack. “The principle of hope for permanently rising share prices reigns here. That cannot be a serious basis for a sustainable pension policy. "