New study: "children are at risk of poverty"

New study Anyone who has children pays extra in the pension system

The pay-as-you-go principle applies to the financing of the pension: what comes in is immediately passed on to the 20 million retirees. There is no provision for savings. The current record reserve of EUR 31 billion in the pension fund should have melted away in a few years.

Dräger speaks of a demographic and justice problem: In order to make the system "demographically-proof and family-friendly", it must be fundamentally reformed – in good time. So in the next 15 years, before the birth-strongest age groups retire. "Despite the large number of family policy benefits, children are at risk of poverty," the Bertelsmann Foundation notes.

Expensive pension plans under fire: Nahles shreds Schröder’s agenda

In order to get out of this vicious circle, she advertises two reform alternatives that improve parents in the active family phase. One model envisages supplementing the pension system with child allowances based on the model of the tax system. This would mean that parents would pay less into the pension fund at this stage – without reducing their pension entitlement. The state would then have to fill this gap with tax money.

37 comments on "New study: If you have children, you pay in the pension system"

Commenting on this article has been disabled.

On the subject of discrimination, we can only say that we feel discriminated against as a family:
1. We feel discriminated against when we want to go on vacation with our children: Since this is only possible during the holiday season, we usually pay more than twice as much as all those who can go on vacation during the vacation period.
2. We feel discriminated against, because we get child benefit, but this goes largely back to childcare in kindergarten and school.
3. We feel discriminated against because our neighbors see us as a nuisance because our children actually play and make noise in part. How outrageous!
4. We feel discriminated against because our employers get upset every time a parent has to stay at home because of a child’s illness.
5. We feel discriminated against because we do the educational work and put new taxpayers into this world, who will then also finance childless pensioners.
6. Do we feel discriminated against because we already received their tax number two weeks after the birth of our children? This is really the most important thing in the life of a toddler and shows you again what is going on in this country?!
7. We feel discriminated against because we feel that families have no lobby in this country.
Germany is and remains a child-friendly country and nothing will change that quickly.
Politicians prefer immigration rather than good family policies to keep the system running.

It’s the same thing over and over again, throw the pack a piece of meat and they’re distracted.
Children, children here – in the end it will only become clear in the future whether all children have a job and thus also pay into the pension fund. It would be much more important to think about whether all income is used for the pension, i. H. The self-employed, civil servants, capital and rents – in different degrees, then the pension fund would certainly not have any financial problems – not in the future either!
In addition, a cap on the upper limit (Swiss model) and we would not have a pension discussion for a long time!

I know this study.
Again and again I find it strange that no one ever mentions how many non-insurance benefits are paid from the pension fund. One should openly state what that is. It is theft.
Because they are all services that would be government contracts. Or why do the contributors to the pension verse. Pay NS or Stasi injustice alone? Just as an example

Pensions are also tax financed and they are much higher than pensions! Everything belongs in one pot! Everyone has to deposit without a single exception. At least to Contribution limits. Everyone can do more as he wants. But that also means that the entire policy must be turned upside down, because today’s Lauschen don’t get it! All that remains is emigration!

The following principle applies: every insurance system must finance itself on a collective basis. This principle has long been abandoned in the GRV. The GRV (and by the way also other social insurance) are largely financed through taxes. Solution for the pension insurance: By eliminating the contribution ceiling in the GRV and the inclusion of other groups of people with simultaneous coverage of benefits, the contribution rate can be significantly reduced without additional tax billions. If a member of the board of directors (today generally pays no contributions to the GRV) of a DAX company earns EUR 5 million, of which (AG and AN share e.g. 12%) delivers EUR 600 thousand in pension insurance contributions. For example, if 30 pensioners are financed, solidarity is more transparent and fairer than if the system became completely non-transparent and unsolidarated by ever higher taxes. The remaining 7-8% of today’s GRV contribution should flow into a funded, company pension scheme, which is demographic-proof in contrast to the GRV. The deposited savings contributions are paid out in the form of a pension at retirement age. Riester and Rürup pensions are unsuitable for this.

I can only laugh at all the nonsensical comments here. Because it is about much more than pensions etc.

Most of them will still get stuck in their little houses and their greed.

Our politicians are all puppets of the USA !! That is why the US system is installed here.

And the biggest problem is the middle class itself!!

Abstract: "What is parallel is a worldwide explosion of poverty, but also of the middle class.

From an economic point of view, a member of the middle class differs from one of the poor mainly by its massively increasing energy requirements.

Middle class people live more comfortably with all kinds of power-consuming slaves such as refrigerators, washing machines or computers. But above all, they claim the right to implement the “American Way of Life” one-to-one.

This lifestyle is characterized above all by unlimited mobility. Everyone can go anywhere at any time. By private car, now and then by train, but preferably by plane. "

It’s always nice how the rulers incite everyone against everyone! And only to disguise the actual problem and what is going on behind it!

Pensions are NOT a THEME !! The problem is the politics with the public service, which enrich themselves immeasurably on the worker!!

We have a conservative revolution of the upper class !! And then a battle of the rich for the best resources, that is, the world’s raw materials. As always, those who are at the bottom of the hierarchy pyramid have to bathe it.

The stupid GERMAN UNDERSTAND PEOPLE ONLY still pisses me off!

SHOULD PAY ALL INTO THE RETIREMENT as in Switzerland! Should the rich / corporations finally pay their taxes based on their profits!!

The naive middle class prefers to kiss the feet of the upper class / the rich than to finally move and act. I’m already sorry for the poor innocent children who have to pay for it because of their cowardly selfish parents!

You are not properly informed. The problem of low numbers of children can be observed in a number of industrialized countries, such as in Germany.

The fertility rate in Germany is very low. Perhaps you should consider Mr. H. W. Sinn’s words.

Today’s 45-year-olds are the most populous part of the age pyramid. At present, it is still very easy to finance the pension problem and has to bear relatively little costs for the education of children and young people, since fertility rates are – as in Japan – low and the state therefore has to spend relatively little money on schools and universities.

This trend will continue and we are already talking at the district level about which schools and kindergartens in one pair Years must be closed.

When the 45-year-olds retire today, you can simply rewrite my text to the contrary.

Then only one question remains:
Will my children and their fellow generations put more children in this world than we do? For me that remains to be hoped for.

And then I have a very specific problem in today’s discussion. Should we solve the problem of immigration – against which I have nothing – then we are talking about the danger of a two-tier society, namely that of the wealthy immigrants and that of the possessing class of Germans.

If we want more immigration, then I want to see these people wealthy in our country because I want to live among my own. Dear fellow 45s, no matter what you do, it will be redistributed because otherwise there will be significant social upheavals. And you definitely don’t want that, do you?

"How about the following me? Every action, work whatever lies the risk of failure and I prefer someone who does something and fails than someone who sits and all on the risks points out and does nothing itself."

A true word spoken.

As wrong as the correlation between the number of children and the security of the pension system is, it is repeated many times. The criterion is not quantity but quality. In a Hartzer environment, there will hardly be any future top performers, but rather additional ballast for society, and with the increasing degeneration of our education system, this will soon also apply in general. At most, one could make the parents’ pension level dependent on the tax revenue of the children. What helps is only qualified immigration, as long as there is still an incentive for hi-potentials to come to Germany, which is less and less the case, if it ever was, who wants to deal with the human garbage otherwise imported here will be lumped together. Here the general conditions have to be changed.