The cynical appeal for self-care: The double pension lie – when the state preaches what it itself refuses

In political speeches, talk shows and information campaigns, it is tirelessly preached that citizens have to make private provisions for old age, as if this were a simple act of reason that everyone could easily afford. The state is directed as a sober admonisher who only speaks the uncomfortable truth that the statutory pension alone is no longer sufficient. Behind this facade isHowever, a deep distrust of one’s own citizens and at the same time a comfortable relief of those responsible. They stand up and explain that everyone has to save additionally, while they themselves were unable or unwilling to organize the state pension insurance in such a way that they were solid in the long term and sustainable on their own for years and decades. This is howFrom the demand for self-protection not a sign of responsibility, but an act of political self-relief.

The state as a bad manager of foreign expectations

It is particularly contradictory that those who appeal to the sanity of the individual citizen have completely failed in the large system. If it really believed that provisions were made through capital formation, clever investment and long-term strategies, it would have been suggested to equip the state pension insurance with a strong capital stock. insteadContributions were used up in the running system, holes were stuffed, short-term political projects were used and reforms were repeatedly postponed, watered down or talked up. The state demands from individuals foresight, while in dealing with the pension of the whole country in the short term mode, he remains in the short-term mode. This discrepancy cries to heaven and undermines every moral right,to admonish people to be more personal.

Missed opportunities and refused sovereign wealth funds

It is no longer a secret that other countries have started to build up state funds that invest in the capital market and secure income for the future. It would have been possible to create a separate state fund in which funds would flow from pension contributions, budget surpluses or special income to generate stable long-term income.There was enough opportunity, time too, examples were plentiful. But instead of setting the course, excuses were sought, risks were conjured up and responsibilities were shifted back and forth. So there was no real capital stock to build up, although exactly this structure is used today as an argument to explain to the citizens that they would now have to do it privately for themselves.The state refuses to the community what it demands of the individual.

The shift of responsibility downwards

Because it is politically more convenient, the consequences of this failure are passed down. If the state pension is not enough, then the individual should save, invest, buy pension products and bear risks. Citizens are declared their own financial managers, who, in addition to work, family and everyday life, should also take on the task of taking their old-age provision against inflation,to secure market fluctuations and tax interventions. The state washes its hands in innocence and declares that he warned early on that those who did not take precautions were to blame. In this way, structural wrong decisions and omitted reforms are concealed and reinterpreted as individual omissions. A system error becomes the alleged character flaw of those who are not enoughhave secured.

Self-provision without financial leeway

It is deliberately ignored that many people are not even able to provide the required precaution. Wages and salaries are being eroded to such an extent by taxes, social security contributions and constantly increasing living expenses that there is hardly anything left at the end of the month. Rent, energy, food, mobility and unavoidable fixed costs eat up income. Who among suchConditions nevertheless something, this usually does this under painful restrictions. The political demand for self-care is ignored and pretends to be feasible to everyone at any time to a significant extent. This is nothing more than mockery of those who have to struggle every month to even make ends meet.

The double taxation of the waiver

The injustice does not end with the lack of leeway. Even those who, despite all the obstacles, bring money back regularly, are asked to pay a second time. The money you save has already been taxed as income. The income from this will be charged again. Interest, distributions and profits are considered by the state as additionalSource of income, not considered what they are: the fruits of renunciation and caution. In this way, saving, which is officially considered exemplary behavior, is practically punished. Anyone who follows the appeal for self-care often finds that in the end a large part of his laboriously built up income disappears back into the state budget.

Inflation as a silent destroyer of hopes

As if that weren’t enough, inflation ensures that even supposedly successful pension products are actually losing their effect. What looks like growth on paper turns out to be a standstill or even a step backwards in the reality of life. Price increases eat nominal income, while taxes also gnaw at capital gains. From the point of view of many saversThis looks like a fight against an invisible opponent who is constantly one step ahead of them. You refrain from today to be secured tomorrow and will later find out that your waiver was devalued by currency devaluation and tax access. The private pension scheme that is supposed to bring security becomes a source of new uncertainty.

The state as a moral judge of the citizens

Despite all these contradictions, the state acts like a moral judge who teaches its citizens. He explains to them that they have to become more independent of the statutory pension, show more initiative, start early and remain disciplined. This language is reminiscent of attempts at upbringing, not a confident dealing with responsible citizens. It would have been the state thatshould have created the framework conditions from the start, in which precautionary measures are not only required, but also realistically possible. Anyone who ignores this task and then pointed fingers at the population does nothing more than an organized shift of responsibility.

Measurement with double standards

In this whole structure, the image of a system that measures double-minded is imposed. Strict expectations apply to citizens: saving, renunciation, planning, bearing risk, being disciplined. For the political decision-makers, on the other hand, a different standard seems to apply: adjourn, talk, talk, experiment, use election cycles and avoid unpleasant truths for as long as possible.If the individual makes mistakes, he must bear the consequences himself. If the system makes mistakes, they are packed into new reforms and the costs are tacitly distributed among the general public. This asymmetry destroys confidence in the honesty of the pension and provision.

A pension policy without a role model function

Anyone who seriously preaches to the citizen how to deal with their money would have to be a role model in their own actions. The exact opposite is the case. The pension policy of the past decades was characterized by short-term thinking, political calculation and an astonishing refusal to consistently create structures that have an effect in the long term. A state that is unable to own oneBuilding a fund that generates systematic and professional income for the pension scheme is poorly advised to stand up and explain to people that they should now do it on a small scale themselves. Whoever fails on a large scale has no moral authority on a small scale.

The growing gap between aspiration and reality

The longer this contradictory policy continues, the clearer the gap between the euphonious slogans and the harsh reality. Citizens hear that they should act independently, but at the same time experience how the financial leeway is deprived of them through taxes, levies and price increases. You hear that saving is necessary, but see how yoursyields are crushed. They hear that the state cannot do everything, but recognize that the same state has not even tried to use its own capital-building opportunities consistently. This gap between aspiration and reality endangers more than just confidence in old-age provision, undermining confidence in the political class as a whole.

A system that promises security and provides uncertainty

Officially, the combination of statutory pension and private provision should create stability. In reality, many people experience a mixture of insecurity, lack of transparency and overwhelm. They should make decisions whose long-term consequences they can hardly estimate in an environment that is constantly being used by political intervention, economic fluctuations and tax rulesis in motion. The state is promoting trust, but provides framework conditions that destroy exactly this trust. The pension issue thus becomes a symbol of a political system that prefers to formulate expectations than to take responsibility for themselves.

The bitter balance of the double standards

In the end, a bitter feeling remains. The responsibility for securing the future is passed on to the citizens, while the political decision-makers refuse to preach in the large system what they preach on a small scale. They could have expanded the pension insurance into a strong, funded pillar that generates long-term income and distributes the burdens fairly. insteadHave you allowed the system to remain sewn on edge and increasingly relying on the victims of each. The result is a double measurement with double standards: from above, requirements are made that can hardly be met at the bottom, and the failure is then attributed to those who have to move within a framework that they have not created. In this constellationEvery demand for self-care does not act like an act of responsibility, but like an admission of political failure that one wants to sell people as a virtue.