LOL well if Marton said so…
We will all take a hit on this one and it will be a matter of “you wanted it you got it”. Like Böhm Schneider said yesterday in an interview, the money will not fall from the sky…
Just look at insurance premiums and increases and every year we say “it cannot possibly go higher…”
I never said the money are blocked in an account somewhere safe, you digressed; what I said was - that it basically functions like any other insurance - health insurance, unemployment insurance etc and you payed/are paying your contributions. It is not “Sozialhilfe”, that was my point. (not that I wouldn’t agree with the idea that people who need it should benefit from this, in one form or another)
But as I also said, glad that we agree that it will be mostly the active population that will take the hit. I guess each of us is trying to look after their own interests, and depending on the age group - our views may vary wildly. It is OK, but we shouldn’t deny that this proposal (which was voted in the end) was a bit…someone said it above - populist, or imprudent to say the least.
In the US it is known as Social Security, it IS the same thing!
Social Security is the US name for AHV pension, so for those who spent time in the US it is the EXACT same thing!
Yes, I figured we got trapped into semantics here. But some seemed to conflate it with social help. (or maybe I misunderstood them, as their choice of words was very misleading)
Glad that you don’t have the groan button at your disposal, I would have already had a few groans by now lol. Now I have successive posts basically saying something I already clarified. Please, you made your point, no more replies needed on this “theme”.
It may seem unfair that a married couple only get 1.5 times a single persons pension but when it comes to inheritance tax singe people are treated very badly.
As an example, in Zürich, a married person inheriting 1 MChf from their spouse would pay zero inheritance tax. A partner inheriting 1 MChf would pay 309 KChf, a "friend in need of permanent care” would pay 333 KChf.
What is your point?
We can talk about financial pros and cons of being married but if I and my spouse paid into AHV all our working life, then why the heck should we only get 1.5 pensions instead of 2?
If your answer is “it’s the rules” then be it - to me it makes no sense and I am used to question things versus accepting them no matter what.
Kri, I have already came up with a conclusion - AHV functions like an insurance. Just think of how much some of us have payed into supplementary and goodness knows what other type of health insurance, or other…insurances. Or those who have worked on a high salary and payed their unemployment contributions and were never one single day unemployed. It is not always about what you put in, is it. Not saying it is fair or unfair, just trying to put things into perspective. Personally I am more worried about the avalanche of the “side effects” of this populist move as I think we do pay quite a lot in taxes already.
And apropos of a previous post, I do believe that the maternity leave should be longer. (it is a joke now)
I disagree, it isn’t an insurance. It is part of your planned retirement. 1st plus 2nd plus 3rd.
It’s a given, if you live to 65 you collect it. If you live to 85 (guessing) you get out what you put in.
Which is why it needs to be funded differently than unemployment.
The only thing is they didn’t come up with an acceptable plan to finance this increase.
I agree, you pay insurance to cover risks and it only pays out if that risk happens whereas AHV (at the moment) is guaranteed.
I get what you are saying Greenmount - however the trigger for this insurance is reaching 65 years of age and then being paid until you die.
I guess it has attributes similar to insurance. But insurance normally is a contractual agreement.
You don’t have any contractual rights with AHV as such. In fact, we’ve seen the payer unilaterally changing the terms e.g. the age you receive the payout as well as the payout amounts.
Some years ago we were joking with some friends that our generations will have to work till we’re 70 or something and compete with the people our age back then… I suppose it is too early for another vote on raising the retirement age 
…and the system, as it is, does penalise you if you want to retire earlier btw.
I was chatting about this with a work colleague. If you are a desk jockey in a relatively stress-free job, you could probably keep on working till you’re 70 but if you’re working day in, day out on a building site doing heavy construction, you are likely physically burned out by mid-50s latest. Likewise, I know a hairdresser in her 50s who has hip and back issues from being constantly in a standing position most of her working life.
Different professions have different effects on people long-term but I guess it would be a complicated discussion getting into early retirement for certain occupations.
As an aside, don’t air traffic controllers have forced early retirement? I’m sure I read this once before.
Probably not them but each country will have their own rules. But (most) countries that follow ICAO recommendations require that the Pilot in Charge (PIC) of a commercial passenger aircraft be no older than 60. That doesn’t mean they can’t fly as copilot, they just can’t be in charge.
I think there are quite a few professions where early retirement or change of role is ‘forced’ on people.
Firemen, police officers etc.
Construction workers here retire at age 60
But they don’t receive their AVS until 65, I believe.