"Hard but cruel" to the basic pension by Hubertus Heil: "Large cinema"



[ad_1]


One of the most striking allegations against Hubertus Heil's land rent is that the SPD was driven by "poor pity" from falling to a very serious problem. Anyone who has paid for a period of 35 years and who still lives at the poverty line should be able to stay on your pension in the future? The Democratic Social Democrats consider voters of their constituency!

Christoph Schwennicke is from "Cicero" that analyzes "hard but fair". Of course. Parties make politics for people to choose. Named democracy, which alerts the deputy Frank Plasberg. Schwennicke's second argument is not much better that the money should not come from the pension property, but it should be taken from tax revenue.

Here is Verena Bentele, president of social society VdK, who is allows the public to enter the word. From tax income? Why not? Although a person can also talk about a low, but earnest salary, if the companies that would be in a position would They also benefit from paying their taxes, they would have won much. And: "Later on, there is still news about billionaire, a very good cinema!"

As a wild cradle of "two million people who retired the practitioners," Bentele does not; even even eats and even the word U eats the mouth. Indeed, the Labor Forces Minister does not want to talk about re-allocation, but despite that, he describes the Schwennicke's address in a democratic social game: "The expectation that we do not disturb people is too free for me!"

He is worried to "hard working and effective people who keep the country", bus drivers, hairdressers, nurses, freight workers. Older age deprivation affects 75% of women. It is about "respect for the performance of life" of people who had been dismissed after completing a vocational career from the state, saying Heil: "We do not want to pay a yellow as in France! "

No, we do not want. And so Heil comes through her story. What is 1000 miles despite a cleaning specialist – which still remains? Gathering bloody claims after three discreet words in the hospital and they need to do the next 18 years – you must do it with respect – it does not have an explanation.

Why not? Because people like Susanne Holtkotte, specialty, inter-abrasive cleansing practitioners, are almost all; Anyone expects anything from politics at least. The "Basic Commitment of the Welfare State" (health) should be resolved in 2011 with its "Subsidiary Pencil", 2012 with its " "Life Benefit Pensions", 2013 with "Solidarity Life Benefit Pension" and "2016" recently with the "Legal Union".

As a cleansing expert in the hospital, Holtkotte earns a "slightly small" employment (Plasberg) 2000. Hubertus Heil's respect and a shift away from Hartz IV that included SPD in age "was a bit, but not much" more life. When the dealers work out that she can now work part-time in accordance with the Heil model and she can only get 25 euros less, she needs to smile. What then would it be, if it's just to mention the bare requirements, pay your rent?

The "test of requirements" is a disturbance and a problem; eliminating people who are affected – a different process that is currently being used when a person is in a position; apply to basic benefits. Is there a need? Sometimes Father Staat is just visiting home. Is Rolex on my arm dangled? Is Maserati in the garage? Maybe a holiday home in Corsica? Does the person who is affected is & # 39; delete the savings to light? Well, so it's obviously unnecessary.

Holtkotte says: "If you work and save money, it is a good right to cost or save this money without being given to- near anywhere. " It was "just as funny that people are punished in the end in this way". Why not pay reasonable remedies in this rich country? "Then people also pay reasonable payment tax."

The pants are down, Schwennicke does not see "it's not hard". If you do so without a useful test, "we can rain". Bentele agrees with her work: "There are so many older people who do not apply for basic insurance because they are embarrassed.

Johannes Vogel, FDP speaker for workplace and social issues is not easy. He did not want anything else, in fact, the pension right above social help level. But Heils' recommendation was "unfair and expensive" – ​​compared to FDP's "basic pension". Heil does not argue that his opinion is "expensive". It is worth a single-billion billion, however.

No testing needs does not work, bird is trying. There is no child benefit for non-children. And anyone who pays a 35-year-old part-time "just the same pension" as a person who works and paid a full time. Is that fair?

Anyone who paid 35 years into the coffins and living at 896 euros should be tired of health, that he would get landlords. There is no flat rate, especially assessed. Part time? These are, so health, "women in particular", which still costs more time in our country; raising children or taking care of their relatives.

In any case, in the evenings, the voluntary neighbors are not economically related to their basic pension opinion as their allegations have come in. Susanne Holtkotte does not understand why, as a society, we do not "bring everyone together" on this important issue.

Well, Plasberg says, that's what you say democracy.

[ad_2]
Source link