Political financing lacks neutrality, it is influenced by politics

The pension insurance system, a cornerstone of financial security for millions, is currently facing numerous challenges. These include demographic change, economic instability, and uncertain social policy in the federal budget. However, the solution to perceived issues with the pension insurance may not lie in further cuts in benefits or increased private provision.

Despite the ongoing debate, it's essential to remember that the pension insurance is stable and reliable, ensuring monthly pension payments even in difficult economic times. Federal subsidies to the pension insurance follow politically agreed rules in the Social Security Code and are mainly used to reduce the increase in the contribution rate and co-finance non-contribution-based benefits.

The pension insurance system also offers additional advantages, such as democratic control and mutual, solidarity-based security. Studies show that paying contributions to the pension insurance does pay off, and the "return" on pension insurance does not need to be hidden. Contrary to popular belief, the pension insurance system is self-stabilizing, with higher contributions and federal subsidies following increases in expenses with stable benefits.

However, the greatest challenge for pensions lies in the debate about the pension insurance itself. Ignoring the advantages of public social policy, failing to identify "affordability" as a distribution issue, or debating in ignorance of the facts contributes to the loss of trust, narrowing of scope for action, and prevention of debates.

It's crucial to focus on setting fair pension goals and finding ways to achieve them. Debates about pension policy should address issues such as poverty prevention and retirement age, rather than solely focusing on benefit cuts and private provision. The pay-as-you-go pension insurance is surprisingly flexible, able to be adapted to different requirements and ideas of justice.

Research on retirement provision is being conducted at the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, where Prof. Dr. Justus Haucap works on social insurance issues as part of the scientific advisory board advising the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy on pension reform. Meanwhile, Florian Blank at the Institute for Economic and Social Research (WSI) of the Hans Böckler Foundation in Düsseldorf is also studying questions of social security.

One misconception is that paying little into the pension insurance guarantees a large payout, regardless of the return. Contrary to this suggestion, the return on pension insurance would also be roughly the same with a lower contribution rate and lower benefits. Intervention is impossible if individual provision fails, whether due to a wrong product choice or insufficient savings.

Politics has room for maneuver and possibilities for correction that private provision does not know. The debate about pension policy must be discussed correctly, as financing is a political term, and what is feasible depends on societal negotiation processes and conflicts of interest. The greatest challenge for the pension insurance at present is ensuring that pension policy is discussed properly. Ensuring that all voices are heard and that the debate is informed and fair is crucial for the future of pension insurance.