The Future of German Social Democracy

The mistaken route that our society has taken is evident in the way that pensions get discussed. Please don't let it be the case that pensions can only be considered from the point of view of the Confederation of German Industry,1 who are only interested in how high they believe additional costs ought to be. That is not the first question that we ask when we discuss pensions, comrades. We ask: How high does a pension need to be to enable elderly people, who have spent their lives working, to live well and with dignity in their old age?

We know that the average pension for women is still about 900 DM a month and for men it's about i600 DM. Let us think about the average female pension of 900 DM. What is going on in !he heads of those people who devise plans to cut pensions-because of the issue of additional costs-when what we are talking about is a pension for women of 900 DM? They cannot be serious! This is evidence of the way in which our society has taken a wrong turn.

It is true that not everyone who crops up in the statistics is living off a 900 DM pension. It is true that some people also own property. It is true that some of them receive an employer's pension too. That is all true. But there is also a portion of our society that does have to live off 900 DM a month. We are thinking about these people. Social Democrats have a duty towards them. That's why we reject the coalition's plans for cuts.

If pension reform is the issue, then please let us consider two other figures. If the cost of carrying out unification had not been off-loaded onto the social coffers, the West would have had a pension-fund surplus Of 70 billion DM, and a national insurance surplus of I 2o billion DM. I am giving these figures in order to make clear that it is the misfinancing of tasks that should have been borne by the whole society that suddenly lands us at the conclusion that we have got to change our welfare systems. Of course, those who then suffer the cuts are the asset holders. But asset holders does not mean the spokesmen of the business associations -- those whose names I mentioned earlier. No, the asset holders are women who are cheeky enough to defend a pension of 900 DM per month. That is the level of debate in our country. We cannot allow it. It is shameful to want to cut monthly pensions of 900 DM. That is the view of the Social Democrats.

That is why our discussions do not just took at formulae to do with demographics, but also take into account the wealth in our society. In view of the immense wealth in our society, we inquire what elderly people, who have spent their lives working, have a right to expect. Our answers are quite different. Our discussions of pension reform also cover the position of women and their pension rights. These must be reformed, in line with our committee's proposal. Since Bismarck, the rule has been too per cent for men, 6o per cent for women. This is no longer in keeping with the times. If we want structural reform, this is where we must start, and not with demographic formulae.

Another factor is the ever-increasing numbers of part-time workers. If it is the case that reduction of working hours and the new distribution of earnings have led to more and more part-time jobs being created, then pension legislation also has to be reworked, in order to make part-time work viable from the perspective of future pension expectations. This means a pension reform, which, on the one hand, keeps in mind the costs of business and the burden on the employee, but, on the other hand, bases itself on that key issue of what older people have earned. From this basis we can attempt to grasp the structural developments in our society --namely that more and more women are working, and more and more people want to take on part-time jobs -- and we can attempt to incorporate this into pension legislation. I'll make the offer here once more: If the coalition rejects the demographic formula, that is rejects pension cut-backs, we are prepared to cooperate with a policy of refinancing via consumer tax, in order to prevent further rises in pension contributions. That could be set in motion tomorrow.

Of course there is a connection here to tax legislation. I'll make that offer again: We are prepared to lower the tariff by 4 per cent, but social justice must, in turn, be safeguarded by corresponding factors. We stand by our promise that skilled workers and commuters must not be allowed to be the losers-out in tax reform. I make that comment also on account of discussions being held within the coalition fractions.