Enlarge image
Visitors in the dome of the Reichstag
Photo: Sonja Wurtscheid / dpa
SPIEGEL:
Mr. Geyer, the statutory social insurance funds spent a good 804 billion euros in 2022, the FDP is calling for a three-year moratorium on social issues.
Does the welfare state have to go on a diet?
Geyer:
Large sums alone are not an argument.
Most expenses relate to claims protected by the Constitution.
You can't just shorten them.
The question is how well we use them.
Germany, for example, spends more per capita on health than comparable countries - but life expectancy is no higher.
We obviously have efficiency reserves.
SPIEGEL:
According to a report for business associations, contribution rates threaten to rise from 41.5 to over 50 percent by 2050 without reforms.
Geyer:
An aging society increases spending.
In retirement anyway, technical progress drives up costs in health and the necessary improvements in care.
That's so.
If the number of contributors remains the same, their burden increases.
SPIEGEL:
The paper warns of a "tipping point": Younger people are fleeing excessive contributions into illegal work, self-employment or abroad, causing the entire system to collapse.
Geyer:
This analogy to climate science, in which a system goes into a state from which there is no return, is nonsense.
Because of the taxes, very few highly qualified people who can work anywhere leave the country.
They are not a driver of large migration movements, especially since other industrialized countries are also aging.
Last but not least, the welfare state itself is an argument for Germany.
Not only does it cost, it also delivers – and it supports a peaceful and secure society.
fdi