(Gemini Audio)

(de-news.net) – The notion of linking the statutory retirement age directly to the number of contribution years has provoked notable criticism from economic adviser Martin Werding. He emphasized that the initiative lacked both conceptual novelty and sufficient precision. Although the measure might appear to introduce a flexible recalibration of the retirement threshold, he questioned whether such an approach could genuinely secure the long-term stability of the pension system. In his assessment, the reform would generate only marginal fiscal relief, since it would not result in a comprehensive upward shift of the retirement age across the population. Without such a shift, the financial sustainability of the system would remain largely unaffected.

Werding further argued that the distributional effects of the proposal would be uneven. He suggested that men would be more likely than women to benefit, and that the reform would disproportionately favor groups who did not require early retirement privileges, particularly well‑remunerated skilled workers. To illustrate his point, he referred to the existing program for long‑term contributors, commonly known as “retirement at 63,” which allows individuals with 45 contribution years to exit the labor market earlier. In his view, this arrangement has functioned less as a response to genuine physical exhaustion and more as a form of preferential treatment for a relatively privileged segment of the workforce. He described it as a mechanism that effectively rewards the elite of skilled labor rather than addressing widespread hardship.

Conversely, Werding maintained that the proposed linkage would fail to reach those who are genuinely vulnerable, such as individuals prevented by illness or other constraints from accumulating many contribution years. He warned that the reform would undermine a fundamental principle of the pension system: the recognition that time invested in education can later translate into higher entitlements. By eroding this principle, the measure would reduce incentives for pursuing higher education, particularly university studies, thereby weakening the long‑standing expectation that academic investment yields improved retirement prospects. In his conclusion, Werding cautioned that the reform, rather than strengthening the system, risked distorting its underlying logic and diminishing its social fairness.