The same claim: The stubborn legend of the alleged equality of old-age income

The assertion made again and again that many pensioners had a company pension scheme in addition to the statutory pension and is made in the political space with conspicuous perseverance. It serves as an apparently plausible tool to downplay the big difference between civil servants’ pensions and pensions. This representation is convincing at first glance because itpicture of common additional services. But this impression is created primarily by a targeted shortening of reality. The actual structure of this supplementary supply remains conspicuously blurred in the public presentation. It is precisely in this blur that lies the decisive trick with which a structural inequality is hidden.

The construction of the average

In the old-age security report, the federal government states that pensions in the old federal states are improved slightly on average through company pensions. At the same time, it is admitted that such additional provision does not actually exist in the new federal states. Even this contrast shows how fragile the idea of a comprehensive additional cushion is. theThe average value on which the argumentation is based is not a clear standard, but a gathering area of different forms of financing. In it, employer-financed, employee-financed and mixed models are mixed into seemingly uniform values. This creates a statistical construct that obscures more than explained.

The crucial distinction

Only employer-financed company pension schemes should be used for a fair comparison. Only she can be compared to the fully tax-financed pensions of civil servants at all. All forms of deferred compensation must be exempted because they ultimately come from the income of the employees themselves. The same applies to privateForms of pension schemes such as Riester contracts, which civil servants can also conclude and which therefore do not prove any particular disadvantage of pensioners. Nevertheless, exactly these elements are regularly included in the argument in order to artificially inflate the supplementary care. In this way, an equivalence that does not exist in reality is suggested.

The actual proportions

The same government data shows that only a small part of the company pensions are actually financed by the employer. The realistic additional amount, which can be used for a comparison, is therefore significantly lower than the values that are spread in political debates. The central assertion thus collapses, the difference between pensions andPensions are put into perspective by additional provision. In truth, this difference only becomes visible when the statistical distortions are removed. The pensions remain fully tax-financed and are based on the last income. The pensions, on the other hand, are based on the average income of an entire working life.

The structural imbalance

An official goes through different grades in the course of his professional life and ultimately achieves a significantly higher income than at the beginning. This last income forms the basis of its supply. His actual average income over the decades does not matter. This creates a level of supply that is far above what an employeerealistically can reach. Even with additional precautions, the difference remains because the starting conditions are fundamentally different. This construction leads to a systematic shift in favor of civil servants.

The burden of workers

An average employee pays considerable contributions to the pension fund throughout his professional life. At the same time, he has to finance additional provisions from his net income if he wants to improve his old-age income. The state, on the other hand, takes over all the supply for civil servants. If an employee wanted to reach a comparable level, he would have toadditionally cover a disproportionately high proportion of his income. Even taking into account tax relief, this burden is out of reach for many. Inequality is not only theoretical, but practically noticeable.

Political mechanisms in the background

The political dimension of this inequality is particularly evident in the so-called sustainability factor in pension adjustment. This mechanism has a dampening effect on pension development. At the same time, pensions are indirectly strengthened by political decisions and adjustments. In this way, officials’ incomes are gradually increasing, while pensions are real in purchasing powerlose Internal calculations show how large the distance actually is. These figures show what surcharge an employee would need on his income to reach a civil servant’s level of pension.

The expansion of the advantages

This effect is further increased in couples of civil servants. The spouse surcharge is eligible for pension and thus increases the assessment basis for the pension. At the same time, income components that play an important role in employees are often not taken into account in the same way for civil servants. This asymmetric treatment leads to a further distortion in favor of thepensions. The differences did not arise by accident, but systemically anchored. They show how deep the inequality is in the system.

The role of rhetoric

The recurring emphasis on alleged additional provisions among pensioners is part of a political narrative. It uses numbers, terms and statistical constructions to create a distorted image. This gives the impression that the differences are smaller than they actually are. In reality, this argument serves to stabilize an existing system. theStructural inequality is not eliminated, but linguistically covered. This is exactly where her actual effect and her persistent explosiveness lies.