(Pensions; 10-03; p.4)
In total, the commission argues that applying
their proposals would on the one hand lead to a further cleavage
between pensions and wage and salary developments, thus that the
transition from work to retirement will be related to stronger
Nevertheless the commission supposes a compared to today higher
standard of living of future pensioners. The commission also recommends
a private supplement to the state’s pensions fund.
The in their effects rather moderate suggestions
did cause some rumble among the German (lobbyist) public. Explainable
becomes this possibly only by a lack of consciousness or illusions
about the construction of state-run pension funds in post-war
So, the simple fact has to be mentioned that
the distribution of income
and based on that the distribution of fortune has not changed
within the last forty years, i.e. all measures of trade unions
and employers’ associations as well as all tax and social transfer
legislation did not lead to a "re-distribution", often
conjured up, but did maintain a status quo.
Moreover, even Germany’s constitutional court
only speaks of a “property-similar” status of pension payments
or to put it differently: pensions are nothing else but specially
protected payments of a state-run insurance and not property that
can be sued for.
– One can as well ask the after the Enron-scandals no longer hypothetical
question, what a property right is worth that one can sue for
in case the insurance company goes bust.
The only acceptable method to minimise risks
thus seems to be the one pointed out by the Rürup-commission:
pensioners should supplement their state pensions by private funds.
(read on here)