A statement made recently by the economist Monika Schnitzer is highly controversial. This statement includes the abolition of the widow’s pension, also known as the survivor’s pension. Numerous politicians have already expressed criticism of this initiative. For those affected, this proposal has led to uncertainty and fear.
Many people worry about their future and fear that they will fall into poverty in old age. However, it is important to know that this statement is only a suggestion. Concrete plans do not exist at the moment. Nevertheless, this has led to a fundamental debate. The widow’s pension offers beneficiaries security. But what are the arguments in favor of preservation? And what counter-arguments are known?
What are the arguments for this?
The beneficiaries of the survivor’s pension are people who primarily have to mourn a loss. Spouse is deceased. If they have paid into the pension fund over a certain period of time, they are entitled.
The amount of the pension depends on numerous factors. The aim of this form of pension is to protect the surviving spouse. Losing a partner brings grief and challenges. In particular, the financial hurdles that widows and widowers have to overcome should not be neglected.
Suppose a woman loses her husband. She herself is in poor health. She is dependent on the help of third parties every day. Due to long-term illnesses, it is impossible for you to go to work. The husband was the main breadwinner in the family. If it breaks away, there is a large gap.
If the lady is not entitled to money from the pension fund, there is no source of income. All you have left is the survivor’s pension. If she were not entitled or if this form of pension no longer existed, she would be dependent on state support. This also applies to paying for the costs of a nursing home. Of course, this is an extreme example. However, these circumstances apply to many households.
What are the opposing votes?
In the recent past, it was often expressed that the bereaved had not worked. This may be true in individual cases, but it is by no means true of the majority. It has also been said that these people lead a life of luxury at the expense of others.
That doesn’t correspond to the truth. Rather, they must close the financial gap. Some simply want to cover the care costs incurred and the rising cost of living or buy an age-appropriate sofa in Stuttgart. Of course, the widow’s pension is an additional source of income. It is intended to provide those affected with financial security and to overcome the challenges that arise in old age.
This can also include a nursing facility. With a sofa online configurator you get a seat that meets your personal requirements. A new sofa does not imply a life of luxury. These are standards that should be made possible for all retirees. The same applies to barrier-free living space.
Old age comes with difficulties and problems. This includes the management of conversion measures for more accessibility. The fear of poverty in old age is particularly high among many seniors. The debate about the widow’s pension has intensified this. There are just as many reasons in favor of keeping it as there are in favor of abolition. However, a blanket ban should not be the solution. Rather, each case should be considered individually and in detail. Transparency is also important in order to allay citizens’ fears.
#debate #widows #pension #Stuttgart #Journal
More From Shayari.Page