Pension dispute over civil servants and politicians: “Privileges are out of date”

The SPD wants to boost the pension fund with pensions, much to the dismay of the CDU/CSU. Is this realistic? Necessary, says Verena Bentele, president of the social association VdK. An interview.

VdK President Verena Bentele Susi Knoll

Barely in office, the new Minister of Labor, Bärbel Bas, is already causing controversy: With her proposal to include civil servants and the self-employed in the statutory pension insurance system in the future, she is initiating a fundamental reform debate. The Social Democrat, who has been nominated as a possible co-chair of her party, is thus raising high expectations among large sections of the population. At the same time, this initiative is causing unrest in the governing coalition – her coalition partner, the CDU/CSU, is particularly unenthusiastic.

Instead, the Christian Democrats favor the so-called active pension, which would allow older people to earn up to €2,000 a month tax-free. Bas, however, receives support from Verena Bentele, president of the social association VdK. The Berliner Zeitung spoke with her.

Ms. Bentele, Federal Labor Minister Bärbel Bas is currently provoking people by suggesting that civil servants and the self-employed could also contribute to the pension fund – the Association of German Confederation ...

First, let me congratulate Ms. Bas on her courageous start. It's long been necessary to question traditional privileges. It's completely out of date for civil servants and politicians to evade solidarity-based pension insurance . I sincerely hope that we'll take a step forward with Ms. Bas's initiative. But we've all already seen the backlash she's encountered.

So you don't expect there to be any real political will in Berlin – or will such a reform perhaps fail because many politicians are themselves civil servants or enjoy civil servant status?

The past has shown that there is no real will for reform and that resistance is very strong. For me the focus of the debate is not on additional revenue, but on the fact that we should treat all workers equally. The many special systems and benefits that exist for civil servants , politicians and also those with private insurance are out of date. I want everyone to be treated equally when it comes to their statutory pension, healthcare and long-term care. Anyone who wants and can make additional private provisions for additional benefits should be able to do so. But everyone should have equal rights to a good pension, doctor's appointments and basic long-term care services, and everyone should pay contributions for them.

Taxpayers finance 1.7 million pensioners with 60 billion euros

Opponents of the reform warn that including civil servants would actually make the pension system more expensive in the short term. Is this a pretext to secure privileges?

First, the facts: Taxpayers currently finance 1.7 million pensioners and their dependents with 60 billion euros, and 21 million pensioners with 80 billion euros. In the short term, the system would definitely not become more expensive. The Council of Economic Experts calculated this in its 2023/2024 report and expects positive revenue effects until the 2070s. And even today, many federal states are avoiding building up pension reserves for their civil servants or are constantly siphoning off money from them. Of course, the federal government, the states, and the municipalities would then have to pay pension insurance contributions. But if we were finally to properly tax large fortunes, we would have considerable leeway and could certainly ease the burden on the pension fund.

Let's assume it's not completely wiped off the table. How long would it take for such a change of course to be implemented and for everyone to contribute to one fund?

For reasons of protecting existing civil servants, one would have to start with the new civil servants. While this would certainly have positive revenue effects initially, when this generation retires, corresponding pension entitlements would naturally have to be met. The key point, however, is that we would see additional revenue over the next 20 years, as the baby boomers retire.

What is the current reality, i.e. in comparison, what do people receive from the statutory pension fund and what do civil servants receive from the pension fund?

If we look at how much people receive in retirement in Germany, we notice a clear difference – between the statutory pension and the pension for civil servants. On average, men who have paid contributions for 45 years currently receive around €1,900 gross per month. For women, the figure is lower – around €1,560. This results in an overall average of around €1,800 per month. Of course, there are also regional differences: In eastern Germany , for example, in states like Saxony-Anhalt or Thuringia, pensions are on average somewhat below the national average – there you receive around €1,510 gross per month. The situation is completely different with pensions for civil servants. They come directly from the state and are based on the last salary. This makes them significantly higher. In January 2024, the average pension for civil servants was around €3,240 gross per month – roughly twice the statutory pension. With such significant differences, we must take political action.

Bentele calculates: “Easily finance a pension level of 50 percent”

In other words: If we had more contributors in the system, including civil servants and the self-employed, could pensioners finally benefit from real improvements instead of lumbering from one pension reform to the next? Do you have any calculations? The Council of Economic Experts has calculated the positive revenue effects up to 2070. We at the VdK have also conducted calculations on how we could reduce the burden on social insurance overall if we financed the overall social benefits of pensions, long-term care, and healthcare from tax revenue. In retirement, we could easily finance a pension level of 50 percent with this. The relief for health insurance would be even greater. But we must not forget one thing: Three-quarters of pensions are still financed from contributions and thus from the wages of the insured.

The most promising measures are therefore those aimed at strengthening women's employment, improving the integration of refugees into the labor market, and improving the integration of older workers. Proactively harnessing the potential of the labor market and migration , as well as building high-quality care and education infrastructures, remain key approaches to addressing the demographically driven challenges of statutory pensions. Therefore, we need greater efforts to ensure that women can pursue full-time employment, that refugees are integrated into the labor market more quickly, and that good wages are paid in construction, agriculture, and office work.

This unequal treatment makes people feel excluded – especially if they themselves have worked and paid in for decades.

Many citizens have lost confidence in pension policy. Do you think the exclusion of certain groups is a reason for this?

One reason for the dwindling trust in pension policy is certainly the feeling of injustice. When certain groups, such as civil servants, receive significantly higher retirement benefits even though they do not pay into the statutory pension system, many people feel this is unfair. This unequal treatment makes people feel excluded - especially when they themselves have worked and paid in for decades. Many see this as a kind of two-tier system in which some are secure while others have to fear poverty in old age. In the long term, this can undermine trust in the entire system. But the constant calls for cuts to mothers' pensions , widows' pensions, and pensions without deductions after 45 years of contributions also contribute to this. We need a positive narrative again about the effectiveness and crisis resilience of the pay-as-you-go statutory pension.