AHV- «Arena»: Only the last question from the moderator gives some hope
In the pension “arena” the studio guests fight about the retirement age of women. And SGB chief economist Daniel Lampart cheerfully pours fuel on the fire. Only the last question from the moderator gives hope.
The retirement provision of the Swiss population – besides Corona, probably one of the record-holder debates in Leutschenbach. This has already been discussed in 35 SRF “Arenas”. On Friday evening, the holiday representative of Sandro Brotz, Mario Grossniklaus, invited to the 36th pension “arena”. And as sure as the amen in church, it won’t be the last either. Because Switzerland has been waiting for a reform since 1995.
For 26 years neither parliament nor the people have found a consensus. The last attempt failed in 2017. Four years later, Parliament dared to do it again. Time is of the essence: According to federal calculations, the AHV will lack around CHF 26 billion by 2030. The Federal Council proposes that the retirement age for women be increased from 64 to 65. As a result, additional money should flow into the AHV fund. But the increase in the retirement age for women is a thorn in the side of the left.
This is how our retirement provision is structured:
Video: watson/Helene Obrist, Emily Engkent
Enter Regula Rytz: “Women have an average of CHF 20,000 less in pensions. They earn less and have saved less pension capital due to part-time jobs and family care. ” This discrimination must be eliminated before the retirement age of women can be increased, said the Green National Councilor.
Rytz ‘Nationalratgspändli Albert Rösti sees it differently. «Our goal is to reorganize the AHV. We cannot avoid raising the retirement age for women. ” Like a cat about to jump in the bushes, Rösti’s statement Daniel Lampart shoots off the defensive. The chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB) leaves nothing to be desired with his first few sentences.
“I don’t know where you live that instead of improving the pension situation of women, you want to take more things away from them,” says Lampart, gesticulating wildly. Before Corona, he met a 55-year-old postman who told him about her hopeless situation. “She started to cry and told me that she would hardly be able to make ends meet with AHV and the second pillar after retirement and that she had too little money to pay for the third pillar.”
Lampart’s emotional outburst does not just allow SVP National Councilor Rösti to sit on him. “I don’t know where you live”, he takes up Lampart’s question, “if you think it is wise to prevent the AHV from being restructured at any cost”. The fact that women should retire at the age of 65 is just one of many measures. “The women only pay 30 percent of the renovation. With the increase in VAT and the flexibility of the retirement age, the rest is on everyone’s shoulders. “
The SGB chief economist was not impressed by Rösti’s remarks and played his next trump card: the unions had collected over 300,000 online signatures against the AHV reform within a week. “Women no longer just let themselves be offered everything.”
Regine Sauter is now jumping into the breach for Rösti. The FDP national councilor is bothered by the fact that the whole discussion about the AHV reform degenerates into a discussion on women. “I’m not denying that there are still inequalities. But now and today it’s about the security of our social welfare and the restructuring of the AHV. ” Spend money that you don’t have. “The AHV is financed on credit. The young, working people will be left behind without reform and then have to plug the holes. “
According to Sauter’s sentence, a good half an hour has passed. And from then on the discussion turns in circles. They are willing to compromise when it comes to making the retirement age more flexible (whoever does not want to retire until the age of 70 should do so) and the increase in VAT. But the retirement age of women becomes the Gordian knot. And moderator Grossniklaus is not able to crush that either.
Alternative suggestions for restructuring the AHV are only mentioned in passing. At the very end, Regula Rytz tries to raise the inheritance tax. And Regine Sauter mentions the idea of using the reserves of the Swiss National Bank to rehabilitate part of the AHV. But not a viable option for the FDP National Councilor. In their eyes, a national bank should not be earmarked.
The spectators are left perplexed. You might scratch your head and ask yourself: Will the next reform possibly fail before it even comes to the attention of the people?
Only the last moderator’s question to the guests allows us to look a little more optimistic about the future. “Do you think that we can bring about a good and useful pension reform in this Parliament within a reasonable period of time?” At least three of the four studio guests were able to answer this question with “yes”.
Would you like to support watson and journalism?
(You will be redirected to complete the payment)
The last AHV reform failed in 2017:
Can we use weed to finance the AHV?
You might also be interested in:
Subscribe to our newsletter