The Swiss government has rejected arguments to raise the retirement age to 66 and for a 13th monthly pension payment – proposals that will be decided by voters in March.

__13th AHV__

>In a press release, the Federal Council writes that the introduction of a 13th AHV pension would lead to additional costs of at least CHF 4.1 billion per year. The federal government would have to bear around CHF 800 million of these costs.

>The additional costs for the 13th AHV pension would increase year on year because the number of pensioners is growing rapidly. Just five years after its introduction, the costs would probably amount to around CHF 5 billion. Accepting the initiative would therefore “significantly exacerbate” the AHV’s existing financing problems.

https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/abstimmungen-vom-3-maerz-2024-bundesrat-empfiehlt-nein-bei-initiativen-zur-altersvorsorge

https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-88978.html

__Raising retirement age and linking to average life expectancy__

>On 3 March 2024, voters will vote on the popular initiative “For a secure and sustainable pension scheme (pension initiative)”. The initiative aims to secure the financing of the AHV by raising the retirement age. It calls for the retirement age for women and men to be gradually increased to 66 and then linked to average life expectancy. This automatic approach is too rigid for the Federal Council and Parliament. When determining the retirement age, various aspects should always be taken into account, such as the development of the economy or the opportunities for older employees on the labour market. The Federal Council and Parliament therefore recommend that the initiative be rejected.

https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-99767.html

by BezugssystemCH1903

15 comments

  1. The 13th AHV month is literally impossible to finance without fucking over every single young person in the country.

  2. I don’t know yet but I’ll just say that such things should probably be left to experts (statisticians, mathematicians, economists etc.). Not everything should be voted on. If this stuff passes and turns out to not work as well as the advertisement says, it will be found only later, will be difficult to change, and there will be no one taking the blame.

  3. Take a look at the population pyramid. There will be one pensioner per active person. And since there are mounting calls to limit immigration… how are we going to fund the current level of pensions, let alone increase them?

  4. Retirement age has to go up or Umwandlungssatz has to come down. People just live too long, this is a fact.

    If we cant work longer (which especially in manual labour is the case) we need to plan differently for retirement.

  5. Well we need to rethink our healthcare anyway so anything to get the rock rollin atm i guess.

  6. Def. no. How are we supposed to fund this? Higher health costs? More taxes? Everything will keep getting more expensive but our wages won’t

  7. In the face of it I think it’s probably necessary to raise the retirement age but giving an extra payment makes no sense to me

  8. Clearly no. This is stealing from the young to the old even more. Didnt they raise the VAT to fund the current system?

  9. I thought we just increased VAT because the pension system is running out of money, and now we want to increase the payments?

    Might be a bit selfish because I’m still 40+ years away from retirement but I just don’t see how this is going to work (or benefit me)

  10. Look I am in my thirties and I say let them have it. It doesn’t matter to us yes we pay a bit more but our generation is f***ed anyways why ruin it for our parents.

    I think “universal” basic income will become a thing just starting from a certain age when our time comes. It would make a lot of sense to “test” it on people in their 50s or early 60s

    *Edit clarification typo

  11. I’m going with a yes.
    This is my reasoning:
    There is more than enough money in this country to finance a 13th AHV payment.
    It’s just distributed unfairly.

  12. No, people who don’t have enough are gonna lose the financial help they receive because their income rose and on the other hand those who have enough to not receive financial help will just get more money freely

  14. 13th AHV: No 

    This would be giving more money to the richest age group which is also robbing the younger generations through the 2nd pillar. There is only one vote for young people and that‘s a clear no. 

  15. If this passes it should be funded by a straight increase in the retirement age and delayed for as long as possible

Leave a Reply