mai 11, 2025
Home » Majority of the Luxemburger considers pension reform necessary

Majority of the Luxemburger considers pension reform necessary

Majority of the Luxemburger considers pension reform necessary

Not only among the parties, but also in the Luxembourg population, the view prevails that a pension reform is necessary. At least that is the result of the current issue of the Sonndesfro, which the Ilres opinion research institute carried out for the « Luxemburger Word » and RTL.

According to this, only 15 percent of those surveyed stated that they did not agree with the statement that the country needed a pension reform. In contrast, there are 37 percent who say that they « completely agree » and 38 percent « agree ». Only ten percent of the participants have no opinion on the question. The Luxembourgers therefore apparently deal intensively with the question. An exception is the youngest age group between the ages of 18 and 24, for which the pension is the most away. Here almost a fifth stated that he had no opinion.

The same rules in the state and private sector

In March, the parties in the chamber debate positioned themselves for a possible pension reform. One issue is whether the system of civil servants must also be adjusted. While the CSV does not see any acute change of change, other parties, including the coalition partner, see it differently.

The judgment of the respondents in the Sonndesfro, on the other hand, clearly fails: 82 percent of the participants say that the same rules in private as in the public sector should apply. Almost 60 percent of this said that they “completely” agreed with the statement. Only four percent were « disagreed » and only five percent had no opinion.

A pension reform becomes necessary because, due to the change in the population structure, more and more pension recipients are facing fewer and fewer deposits in the future. The pension fund could slide into the minus from next year. Without a reform, the pension reserves could be exhausted by 2045.

More private provision

A means that the government has to prevent this is to strengthen the second and third pillar of retirement provision, i.e. operational and private pension insurance. In order to achieve this, tax incentives for supplementary insurance are to be reinforced. The Luxembourgers are generally positive about this. A total of 76 percent of the respondents agreed that more money should flow into the supplementary insurance.

Higher contributions

Another means of relieving the pension funds are higher contribution payments. The system is currently financed by paying eight percent of their salary as a pension contribution; The same amount is paid by employers and the state. In the Chamber discussion, the ADR had suggested that the respective contributions gradually to be lifted to nine percent.

Read too:

Maybe surprisingly, an increase in contributions for the majority of the population is not a red cloth. Only 21 percent stated that they disagreed, of which only seven percent « did not agree ». However, over 70 percent could make peace with an increase in premiums.

However, the different age groups see this differently: the respondents between the ages of 18 and 24, who would have to pay the higher contribution rates the longest, are naturally a little more skeptical than those who are already pensioning today. Only every fifth of the youngest age group was « completely agreed » with the increase in the sentence, while the over-65-year-olds are 42 percent.

Skepticism during longer working hours

Most Luxembourgers see longer working hours rather critically. While the statutory retirement age of 65 is seriously questioned by none of the parties, the actual retirement age should be increased. Because the Luxembourgers are currently retiring at an average of 60.2 years.

In parliament, it was proposed that the state is incentive to adhere to legal and actual retirement age. With the prospect of having to work longer, 56 percent of those surveyed were not at all or rather disagreed. Only 40 percent can imagine moving their retirement back.



View Original Source