The social association VdK commissioned economists to calculate what everyone knew beforehand: low-wage earners have a shorter life expectancy.

Unfortunately, on average, they do not experience as much of their pension as high earners.

That is unjust, calls the social association and calls for pension improvements for low-wage earners.

In spring there was a similar demand from the ranks of the Greens.

But these considerations are dangerous - especially for people who earn little money.

So far, the whole essence of social insurance is that it takes no account of individual risks.

There are no premium surcharges for “bad risks”.

Society stands for one another, no matter how the individual is.

If Verena Bentele, head of the social association, shakes this principle, then she opens the door for many more debates that she probably won't like.

Should men be given preference in retirement?

High earners in unemployment insurance?

The first is the gender issue. Men live almost five years shorter than women in Germany. How at risk men are has recently become clear in the Corona crisis: Infected men have a measurably higher risk of death than infected women of the same age. So if men live shorter lives, will they have to get more pensions than women in the future? Or should they just be able to retire earlier? It is unlikely that the social association boss Bentele would like to discuss it.

Then we look at health insurance: women not only live longer, but also cause higher costs than men in every age group. That is not all. High earners pay far more into the statutory health insurance than they cause in costs. So would well-paid men in the statutory health insurance have to get a premium discount in the future?

Or let's talk about unemployment insurance: Of course, precarious workers who often commute between work and unemployment benefit from it in particular.

Should they pay a risk premium in the future?

D rather not.

For social equilibrium, it is good that nobody in the statutory social insurance system calculates individual risks.

If you want to do that, you can privatize social security right away.

Then at least it would work more efficiently.

The pension must be secured differently

This shows the whole absurdity of Verena Bentele's idea when you think it through to the end.

The core of their concern is not even wrong.

The statutory pension is facing upheaval; only courageous reforms will secure it.

Many Germans will have to work longer in the future.

It cannot work that the Germans live longer and longer, but that other people should pay for the additional years.

At the same time, not everyone will be able to work until their 70th birthday in the future.

This leads to the problem: the welfare state must grant everyone a sufficient income, including those who have to retire earlier.

But if the pension is simply topped up, another injustice threatens: that people have paid contributions for a long time, but still only receive social assistance.

Solving all of this, however, cannot be the task of the pension insurance. This is already institutionally overwhelmed, as the unsuccessful basic pension from Labor Minister Hubertus Heil has shown. Just a reminder: Every seventh euro that the state now spends on the basic pension does not go to pensioners, but is used for the new bureaucracy in the pension insurance. The basic pension doesn't even hit those who really need it.

To guarantee a sufficient income for everyone, this is not what the pension is for. That is the job of social welfare. In any case, it needs new accounting rules so that the recipients can keep more of their own income. And if the pensioners are ashamed to go to the social welfare office, this problem can be easily solved: the pension insurance can certainly accept the application. Perhaps one day she will even exchange her data digitally with the social welfare offices.