Pension age debate threatens to splinter Germany's fragile coalition
The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has largely sidestepped the ticking timebomb of the greying population since taking office in May, preferring instead to announce sweeteners such as tax breaks for older Germans to continue working past the retirement age.
However his economy minister, Katherina Reiche of the Christian Democrats (CDU), a former energy executive who grew up in the communist east, has stepped into the breach with repeated calls this summer to get real about old-age benefits.
'Demographic change and ever-increasing life expectancy make it unavoidable: the lifetime labour period must increase,' she told the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung late last month. 'We have got to work more and longer.'
She said a major economic thinktank, the DIW, had argued two decades ago that the minimum pension age should be 70 by 2025 but that instead most Germans were on track to spend 'only' two-thirds of their lives employed – a ratio she described as untenable.
A displeased Merz reportedly told her, quietly, to stay in her lane and show consideration for the concerns of the twitchy Social Democrats (SPD), junior partners in the ruling coalition who are polling at a meagre 15%.
But the outspoken Reiche doubled down, insisting that for many Germans, 'happiness is not about retiring as early as possible but being able to still bring their experience to bear'.
The SPD did not wait long to pounce, with pension age threatening to become a wedge issue in the fragile centre-right coalition government that replaced the previous three-way administration that collapsed in November.
The SPD general secretary, Tim Klüssendorf, said flatly: 'A hiking of the pension entrance age is out of the question for us.' He described any such move as in effect a pension deduction.
He argued for increasing contributions to the system by making it more attractive for women to work full-time, including expanding childcare and fostering job flexibility.
Many economists back such a move, saying integrating more people into the workforce, including immigrants, would make a lasting contribution toward keeping the state scheme in balance.
Other analysts have suggested pegging the retirement age permanently to the average life expectancy, as practised in the Netherlands.
The German labour minister, Bärbel Bas of the SPD, has suggested tax increases and a requirement of freelancers, civil servants and MPs to pay into the pension system – proposals the conservatives have rejected out of hand.
The writing, however, is on the wall: in the mid-1990s there were four employees paying into the social welfare system for every pensioner. By 2020, it was only three, and projections indicate that by 2035 the figure will be 2.4.
Germany already shows higher-than-average labour market participation among 65- to 69-year-olds, with 21.2% in that age bracket listed as employed versus 16% in the EU. The average German pension start age in 2024 was 64.7.
Denmark's parliament in May put the country on course to having the highest retirement age in Europe by adopting a law raising it to 70 by 2040.
The SPD in the 2000s, when Germany reported more than 5 million jobless, spearheaded the biggest structural changes in decades by overhauling the labour market with a stick-and-carrot approach to unemployment and gradually raising the retirement age to 67 by 2031.
The CDU general secretary, Carsten Linnemann, has said that kind of 'courage' was needed again, hoping that Germany's similarly gloomy economic mood now with its 'back to the wall' would spur on painful, necessary overhauls.
But with fears rampant that Germany's once vaunted work ethic will prove insufficient to sustain its social welfare system, Merz drew ire earlier this year with comments widely interpreted as a swipe at 'lazy Germans'.
The chancellor, who will himself turn 70 in November, warned at a business conference in May: 'We won't be able to maintain the prosperity of this country with a four-day week and work-life balance.'
He sought to fine-tune his message last month, explaining he was not saying 'all Germans need to work more' but rather that the national average needed to be lifted.
His coalition has said it will ensure a pension level of 48% of average lifetime income until 2031, a pledge critics have said is unfair to future generations without a clear plan for sustaining the system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has driven Britain to the brink. Full-blown crisis will soon be upon us
Britain's fiscal reckoning has arrived. The £20bn 'black hole' has, according to one new estimate, doubled in size under Rachel Reeves's dubious stewardship. Most of the money we are now borrowing is going not towards servicing our debt, but the interest on that debt. Colossal off-the-book liabilities, such as public sector pensions, have been hidden from voters by successive governments. They are now falling due. For years, the country has behaved like a household hooked on payday loans. Now, the bills have come through the letterbox and we've no cash left to cover them. Even the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, traditionally Left-leaning, is warning that if the Chancellor is to remain within her fiscal rules, she must raise taxes or cut spending by £51bn. Not even the Office for Budget Responsibility can maintain the fiction that the current trajectory is sustainable. Reductions in spending are out of the question, as the ludicrous welfare row exposed. What many may not realise is that around 75 per cent of government expenditure is mandated – benefits, pensions, for instance – and cannot be avoided in the short-run. Only a quarter is discretionary – areas such as transport, or defence. This means that major spending cuts would require primary legislation, which feckless Labour backbenchers will never swallow. It also means that further tax rises, which Reeves in January insisted would not be necessary, are inevitable. No wonder asset managers are telling clients to prepare for 'very real, very targeted moves on people with portfolios, pensions and property'. Keir Starmer has refused to rule out further tax increases in the autumn Budget. Be afraid, be very afraid. How did we get into this mess? Not since 2001 has a chancellor presented a balanced Budget. Despite lip-service to fiscal probity, the desire to splurge has consistently outweighed the need for restraint. Lord, give me continence, but not yet. Politicians, of whatever stripe, have engaged in a collective delusion: that the Treasury is so awash with cash it is scrambling to find things to spend it on. Pay rises across the public sector? Green subsidies? A pointless railway to Birmingham? Bring it on. But the overall state of the public finances tells a grim story. In 2024-25, the state is projected to spend £1.2tn. Some £450bn of this will go on welfare, health and pensions – more than the entire take from income tax, National Insurance and VAT combined. The UK entered this century with debt at around 30 per cent of GDP; it's now pushing 100 per cent. The tax burden is at a post-War high, set to be around 37.5 per cent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament, yet core public services are crumbling and the crowd yells out for more. Polling suggests the public are closer to grasping our fiscal reality than politicians, with economic optimism now half what it was in July 2024. But even growing pessimism isn't enough to slake their thirst for more spending. Some 9.1 million people of working age are currently economically inactive. Over half of households are taking more from the state than they are putting in. As the number of net contributors shrinks, who, exactly, do people believe is footing the bill? More than two centuries ago, Adam Smith wrote: 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence... but peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice.' Peace is uncertain, the administration of our increasingly wonky justice has time lags measured in years, and taxes increasingly drag us down. Council tax on our homes. The licence fee. VAT on virtually every product we consume. Vehicle Excise Duty. Congestion charges, tolls, Ulez. The sugar tax. A Digital Services tax on any online orders or subscriptions. Income tax. National Insurance Contributions raised for employers, but which in the end the employee will pay. It's enough to drive us to – massively taxed, of course – drink. And the more convoluted the system becomes, the easier it is for governments to mask the scale of the extraction and the harder it is to scrutinise – or object. Taxes should be visible and just. Currently, they are neither. This is not by accident, but design. Worse still, the public has been fed a series of monstrous lies about tax-and-spend. That it is not only necessary for the state to plunder our earnings and assets, but moral. That squeezing the private sector to fund the public mysteriously delivers growth. That the 'rich' aren't paying their 'fair share', despite all the evidence to the contrary. That we could tax the 'wealthy' without punishing the middle classes. Of all Labour's pledges, none has unravelled faster than the self-defeating promise to shield 'working people' from tax hikes. They punished businesses, and since the start of the year, employment is down, unemployment is up, wage growth has stalled and vacancies are falling. They waged war on independent schools, and since January 50 have closed, with all the job casualties that brings. The affluent, as the Telegraph this week reports, have paid their fees in advance – a luxury poorer parents, those who strain every sinew to privately educate their children, cannot afford. The list goes on. Reeves's inheritance tax assault on family farms has triggered the worst collapse in rural businesses since 2017. Non-doms are fleeing almost as fast as small boats are arriving, taking with them billions in tax receipts, spending and investment. Labour said they would deliver the kind of 'growth' that would haul us out of the post-lockdown economic crisis, but are giving us stagnation. Even if they renege their manifesto pledge not to hike income tax, VAT or National Insurance, it might not be enough. There are major structural problems in our economy – a broken planning system, suffocating regulation – to which this Government has no answer. And, at some point, tax takes begin to destroy growth, with one study suggesting each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent. We are completely boxed in. Politically, of course, breaking their tax triple lock would be a disaster. As Professor John Curtice tells me, it could prompt a tuition-fees moment – a betrayal that would be forever etched in the public's memory. Our overall approach to the public finances is self-evidently unsustainable. A retrenchment of state expenditure is coming at some point and the longer we wait the more painful it will be. We've lived in Neverland for too long. It's time to say no, we don't believe in fairies.
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
Bain & Company given £24m of state contracts after UK ban lifted
Bain & Company has been awarded almost £24 million of state contracts since the British government backed down on a ban on the consultancy over alleged state corruption in South Africa. Bain, based in Boston, Massachusetts, and one of the world's biggest management consultancy firms, was given a three-year ban in August 2022 by the Cabinet Office from bidding for government contracts. It was barred over what Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Cabinet Office minister at the time, alleged was 'grave professional misconduct, which renders its integrity questionable'. • Big three consultancies 'rarely worth hiring', say executives The British government's decision followed an inquiry in South Africa into so-called 'state capture' during the presidency of Jacob Zuma, which criticised the role of international firms, including Bain. The company made a legal challenge against the decision of Boris Johnson's government, which it argued was 'based on a flawed process', and pledged to improve its corporate governance. The ban was abruptly lifted in March 2023 after less than eight months; Whitehall sources said a legal challenge could have left the taxpayer with a large bill. An analysis of state contracts by Tussell, the data company, for The Times shows that Bain has since been awarded nine state contracts worth a combined £23.9 million, including with the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. Lord Hain, a former Labour minister and anti-apartheid campaigner, who lobbied the Johnson administration and current government over Bain, said he was 'very disappointed' it had received any British state contracts. 'I trust that there will be no more. Just because it's apparently legally not possible to ban them is no reason to award them any government work.' Bain was approached for comment on the UK contracts. A government spokesman said: 'Bain colluded with the former government of South Africa to damage state organisations. Whilst decisions on the exclusion of Bain from bidding for UK government contracts were made by the previous government, the government will take strong action against any future supplier misconduct wherever it is found.' Sources said the MoD contracts were awarded through an existing central government management consultancy framework. The government has new powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action against suppliers involved in misconduct but they are not retrospective. In October Hain wrote to Pat McFadden, minister for intergovernmental relations, urging a fresh ban on contracts. In his response in January, McFadden said that he had requested legal advice on options to extend a ban but was told 'no legal route existed'. Bain was accused of undermining the South African Revenue Service (Sars) through consultancy work that allegedly benefited Mr Zuma's allies. The management consultancy firm, which was founded in 1973 and operates in 40 countries, has said that it has taken 'significant measures' to strengthen its governance for public sector contracts. 'While there were no findings from two official commissions of inquiry of any illegal actions by Bain, we accepted responsibility for the events at that time and repaid all fees, with interest, to Sars.' Earlier this month, Bain said that it was 'winding down' consulting operations in South Africa and that its Johannesburg office will become a services hub supporting Bain's global operations.
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Alexander Isak not invited to Newcastle players' family barbecue
Alexander Isak's standoff with Newcastle hit crisis point after he was ordered to train separately by Eddie Howe and not included in a player-family bonding day with the rest of the squad. Howe had organised a barbecue with players and their families after the first day back at training, following a pre-season tour in Asia. However, Isak, who has told the club he wants to explore a move away from St James' Park, was told to come into the training after the event in order to be treated for a minor thigh injury. It came just days after Howe publicly insisted Isak needed to 'earn the right' to train with the rest of the squad after missing pre-season matches amid uncertainty over his future and a rejected £110m bid from Liverpool. The Newcastle manager has get-togethers with players' loved ones at the club's training ground throughout the season. This is to include families and help the squad bond. It appears Howe is standing firm over the 25-year-old's conduct during pre-season. On conclusion of matches in Singapore and South Korea, Howe insisted: 'No player can expect to act poorly and train with the group as normal. You have to earn the right.' Howe had sent Isak home from Newcastle's pre-season opener at Celtic after the intense scrutiny over his future and interest from Liverpool. It then emerged that the Sweden international informed the club of his desire to move away from Newcastle this summer, despite having three years left on his current deal at St James' Park. With the club citing a minor thigh injury, he did not travel to Asia but instead flew to Spain where he underwent personal training sessions at his old club Real Sociedad. Howe revealed he heard about the trip to Spain through the media rather than from the player himself. Newcastle's valuation of Isak is £150m and they will stick rigidly to their price. Liverpool, meanwhile, have moved closer to selling Darwin Núñez to Al Hilal in a deal worth £46m plus add-ons.
