Junge Union leader Winkel: “The pension package is not yet sustainable”

Friedrich Merz repeatedly talks about making politics "grandchild-capable" again, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. However, so far, we've seen too often a kind of premature obedience to the very baby-boom older generation. There's a political fear of honestly putting necessary demands on the table. After all, financial problems don't diminish, but rather worsen, if one simply postpones demands into the future.

Many in the Junge Union and the CDU, as well as in our parliamentary group in the Bundestag, are asking whether this policy can be financially responsible given the aging of society. After all, how sustainable is a policy that abolishes the sustainability factor? When I see that the draft law on the so-called pension level maintenance line even goes beyond the coalition agreement, I have to say that this will be a very, very difficult debate. This policy is not "sustainable for our grandchildren." As of now.

It was agreed to suspend the sustainability factor until 2031. To be clear: Ulla Schmidt, the former SPD Minister of Social Affairs, is right when she says this was a mistake . In any case, the coalition agreement also stipulates that we will, in principle, maintain the sustainability factor. This means that it must be fully reinstated from 2032 onward – to the same extent as it would have been if we had retained current legislation.

Without the planned pension package, the pension level indicator in 2032 would be slightly more than 46 percent, according to figures from the Ministry of Labor. And if we follow the coalition agreement, the pension package will also be the same, as it is only intended to apply until 2031. However, the draft law actually stipulates that the sustainability factor should return to the increased level of 48 percent in 2032. This would mean that the supposedly temporary pension level protection clause would impose permanent additional burdens on the younger generation. But the coalition agreement does not provide for this. This decision is worth over 100 billion euros.

The law excludes pension cuts for good reason, and I have no intention of changing this existing protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that this temporary rule change will not lead to permanently higher pension spending.

This is an important part of a major debate. Essentially, we need to discuss – especially given the current budget situation – how we can apply the fundamental idea of ​​the sustainability factor, i.e., the fair distribution of the burdens resulting from aging, to other policy areas. Furthermore, I would like to remind you that the overall package to be adopted will consist not just of the two already mentioned, but of five elements.

One of these, the Act to Strengthen Company Pensions, is already available in draft form. Furthermore, and this is important for us as the CDU/CSU , the active pension and the early start pension are also included. The Federal Minister of Finance is responsible for drafting these two laws. Only once they are also available will we have all the prerequisites to accurately evaluate the entire package in the parliamentary process. We are therefore still at the beginning of what will surely be a controversial debate.

Yes. Healthy people should find it attractive to work longer in old age. Furthermore, with the early retirement pension, we are finally doing something to put the pillar of supplementary private pension provision on a stronger and broader foundation. This move toward funded pension provision is long overdue.

No, and no again. First of all, if we handle the sustainability factor as stated in the coalition agreement, the figure of 200 billion euros is incorrect...

But if the factor is fully effective again from 2032 onwards, as envisaged in the coalition agreement, this amount will be more than halved. Secondly, tax increases despite record tax revenues and record debt would be a confession of failure. And justifying them with higher pension spending would be even more adventurous. Clearly, anyone in government who wants to spend more money on pensions will have to make the necessary savings elsewhere.

I wouldn't object to this order. But we are in a coalition with the SPD . Of course, the finance minister also has to ask himself how he intends to close his budget gaps from 2027 onwards. I assume that the Social Democrats are also considering whether it might not be better to look for solutions for which they can still assume political responsibility in four or six years. The developments in France—the exploding national debt over the past ten years and the resulting national crisis—are an alarm signal for us as well.

We urgently need to move away from a policy that continually increases social spending without the economic basis to support it. And indeed, looking back on the coalition negotiations , even SPD politicians reflect that we effectively gave up a negotiating lever with the issue of mothers' pensions. Of course, the SPD could always tell us: As long as you have issues like these, we shouldn't be the first to make concessions to our demands. Therefore, all three partners must now ask themselves what parts of the coalition agreement are still financially responsible.

We have to see how the budgetary equation works out. In any case, it's unacceptable that we only adhere to the coalition agreement where it concerns higher pension spending and then raise taxes to compensate for it, in violation of the agreement. Moreover, when I think of the "Agenda 2010" reforms 20 years ago, they weren't included in any coalition agreement. They were a reaction to objective economic and fiscal necessities, rising unemployment, and ever-increasing gaps in state and social security coffers.

The gaps in the 2027 to 2029 budget years are forcing us to set clear new priorities. This means rethinking cherished projects, including those on the Union side.

We must always be open to dialogue within the coalition. A genuine welfare state reform, including in the important areas of citizen's income, health care, and long-term care, can only be achieved together with the Social Democrats. But one thing is also clear: Politics requires not only a willingness to compromise, but also determination.