I am talking about the maximum, not a constellation where someone who has not worked receives a pension. If I can have a maximum of 2400 as a single, the maximum for two people should obviously be twice that amount.
1 Like
That only has a chance to make sense if both contributed the maximum and the whole 40 years. i.e. if they have individual and separate accounts. But if that were the case thereâd be no grounds for the 1.5 factor to begin with just because theyâre married.
Itâs quite remarkable that you lament the lack of inancing for the 13th but completely ignore it in other constellations, where marriage is massively privileged.
We have both worked the same number of years and yet will only get 1.5 of whatever we are entitled. Itâs ridiculous.
But the lift of this cap is being discussed together with taking away spouse pension if kids are older than 25 so I hope it will be done away with.
1 Like
This might happen further down the line. Think it was too soon after raising the womenâs retirement age. Too much too soon for the Swiss.
3 Likes
Divorce. Itâs your choice.
1 Like
Bit of a mad choice though?
2 Likes
So it is a form of âHeiratsstrafeâ then. Thank you.
4 Likes
I am groaning at you right now
3 Likes
In any system, there are winners and losers. The rules of the game are known, and you can simply play to the best of your abilities knowing that certain choices come with pros and cons.
2 Likes
You demand perfection, privilege without any drawbacks. That doesnât exist in the real world.
In their particular, and probably rare case. Most couples however have a clear main earner and are likely to profit.
No less mad than demanding to profit everywhere and at all times.
I knew a Swiss couple who decided on an amicable divorce but continued to live together to maximise their pension income.
As soon as the divorce was final the ex-husband turned up with a woman half his age and regaled us with unsavoury stories about his new sex life,
2 Likes
If she did not get a pension due to her husband and had no other income she could claim social payments so no big difference.
Anyway. I did not mean to trigger a side discussion on marital repercussions, let alone geezer sex.
I think yesterdayâs vote is problematic, but it is what it is. I just hope that we donât see a new trend now of âgenerosityâ votes without addressing how to finance. The June vote on capping health insurance premiums is certainly going to be interesting. At least there we have a counterproposal which looks like it could be a compromise. Maybe also this was an issue yesterday - the popularity of the initiative was underestimated, and the chance of proposing a reasonable compromise was missed.
2 Likes
Disagree completely. Amongst those I know this was the primary topic of conversation.
Nice whataboutery.
The AHV is an enforcible legal claim you worked and paid for, thatâs not even remotely comparable to Sozialhilfe.
Hint: One needs to be paid back if able.
2 Likes
Also worth noting there was no increase in the AHV for 2024 despite 2.1% inflation. So of the 8% increase, only 6% remains to be found.
Its basic social security. I am fine to give a non working spouse something basic - that is what social countries do and look after their people - would never want to become a country where we are not looking after the weakest members.
And I still donât understand why 2 people who worked their whole life should not be entitled to 2 pensions - this would have also partially solved the need for a 13th salary.
Call me whatever you want I donât care at all - itâs what people who have np arguments do.
I wish we had a plonk button also nowâŚ
2 Likes
Hint: At pension age âable to pay backâ is less likely
Sadly, the groan button is missing on the relevant threadsâŚ
When I read that suggestion I thought we were back on EFâŚjust ignoreâŚ
1 Like