The cynical sermon of personal responsibility: when the state demands what it prevents itself

In Sunday speeches and campaigns, the preaching is tirelessly preached that everyone has to make private provisions for old age as if it were just a question of discipline, vision and good will. The state presents itself as a caring admonisher who reminds in good time that the statutory pension alone is no longer sufficient and that the citizen himself has to be held accountable. what inConsistently concealed from these beautifully packaged messages, the brutal reality in everyday life is those to whom these demands are directed. They are to create reserves in a system that pulls the financial ground away from under their feet. The appeal to personal responsibility becomes a cynical request to do the impossible.

An income that is only passed through

The wages, which should actually be the basis of every pension, are already being sucked out at the source. Taxes, taxes, social security contributions and new burdens eat up through the salary before it even ends up in the account. What finally matters is often just enough to pay rent, energy, food, mobility and the inevitable fixed costs. In this situation fromSaving is sheer mockery. There is no room for long-term plans, no air cushion, no reserve. Anyone who has to juggle the everyday bills when paying for their daily bills cannot build up a solid old-age provision, no matter how many brochures and guides want to tell them something else.

The double punishment of saving

Even where people pull themselves together, do without, turn over every euro and still put something aside, the system strikes a second time. The money you are going to have is taxed. But the income that arises from this becomes a source of income for the state again. Interest, distributions, profits – everything will be skimmed off again as if it were an undeserved oneGift and not the result of hard deprivation and years of discipline. Saving is not rewarded, but punished. The person who follows the demand for private provision finds that the state will take every opportunity in his pocket and thus withdraw exactly what is supposed to be built up.

Inflation as a silent asset killer

The creeping attack of the devaluation of money comes to this open burden. Inflation eats its way through the reserves, often imperceptibly, but with merciless consequence. What seems to be a supposedly solid cushion today has a significantly lower purchasing power in a few years. Even if interest or income is shown, after deduction of taxes and price increases, it often remainsNothing left that would have deserved real growth. The savings stand still or even slide backwards, while politicians continue to speak of the importance of private provision. This creates the grotesque image of a system that officially encourages savings, but in practice ensures that saving hardly offers any effective protection.

Private provisions without means – a systematically generated contradiction

In this constellation, two contradictory forces are growing against each other. On the one hand, the state expectation that everyone should not only rely on statutory pensions in old age, but also make private provisions. On the other hand, the reality of salaries eroded by taxes, a tax policy that greedily skims off capital gains, and aInflation, the leftover assets devalued silently. The state behaves like someone who puts a person on the water with a lead and then asks indignantly why it doesn’t swim better. The responsibility is rhetorically passed on to the individual, while the structural causes are deliberately ignored.

Moral pressure instead of real possibilities

The moral undertone, which transports these demands, is particularly perfidious. Anyone who does not provide provisions will later be charged with the taxpayer, he does not think about the future, act irresponsibly. An objective problem of lack of financial resources becomes an alleged character weakness. People who are suffering from financial confinement anywayIn addition, missed a guilty conscience because you cannot save, which is actually not there. This staged morality relieves the state, because anyone who proclaims the citizen as the culprit no longer has to explain why the framework conditions are designed in such a way that many, with the best will in the world, cannot build up any significant provisions worthy of the best will.

A system that requires saving and sabotage at the same time

The suspicion comes to the point that the entire construct is not based on real possibilities, but on political fiction. Citizens should save, invest, make provisions, but the framework conditions are set in such a way that this saving is constantly undermined. Wages that are too tight to allow reserves, taxes that reduce every success of saving, andA monetary policy that only knows price stability as a buzzword ensures that the goal of old-age provision becomes an illusion for many. Nevertheless, the preaching continues undeterred, that you only have to start early enough, stay consistent and choose the right products. Instead of tackling the basic problems, the system is hidden behind advice that ignores reality.

Growing injustice between above and below

Under these conditions, social division is intensifying. Wealthy people who have sufficient funds anyway can build up reserves, spread risks, cushion losses and build up assets even under unfavorable conditions. For them, taxes and inflation are annoyances, but not an existential threat. For people with normal or low incomes, on the other hand,Any additional load on the stumbling block. They are said to do the same in the same system, although they start with completely different conditions. Thus, private old-age provision becomes a privilege that is officially sold as a general duty. This not only conceals the injustice, but deepens it further.

The erosion of trust in any form of provision

When citizens experience again and again that their efforts come to nothing, a gradual loss of trust arises. Anyone who saves and realizes at the end that despite decades of deprivation, there is hardly any more than would have been available without any provision, the next time will think twice about making promises to such a point. So not only the privatePrevention discredited, but also the credibility of state statements on old-age security in general. The distrust eats deep into consciousness: If the system is designed so that effort is not worth it, why should you stick to the rules of the game.

The convenient escape of the state from its responsibility

The demand for private provision also serves as an escape route from political responsibility. Instead of tackling structural reforms, instead of strengthening wages, reducing levies, securing real purchasing power and reliably designing legal care, citizens are pushed into the role of their own insurers. The state is withdrawing step by step, explains itsBenefits to merely base and presents the rest as a question of individual effort. This makes a central task, security in old age, a personal risk. Whoever wins has done everything right, who loses, allegedly misplanned. This is convenient for those who set the rules, but fatal for those who are at their mercy.

A model that promises security and creates uncertainty

Officially, the combination of state pension and private pension provision is intended to create security. In reality, the opposite arises. People see that statutory health care is constantly being questioned, while private provision takes place under conditions that hardly allow reliable planning. fluctuating markets, changing regulations, tax interventions,Cash devaluation and unstable incomes turn the promise of predictable security into a risky experiment on the old age. The apparent variety of pension options only disguises that the basis on which all this is built is shaky. Security is invoked, but uncertainty is produced.

The destroyed trust in the future

In the end, a bitter impression remains: a system that officially praises responsibility, initiative and precaution is in fact designed in such a way that it makes this provision impossible for large parts of the population. People should believe in their future, while the present withdraws the money from them. They should trust the promise that their waiver will pay off whileAt the same time, they observe how inflation, taxes and political decisions devalue their efforts. In this way, not only will trust in old-age provision be destroyed, but the belief that this system is geared towards securing people’s old age. The feeling of being trapped in a contradictory model that demands a lot remains, littlereturns and blames the responsibility for his failure to those who can least influence it.