Debate about retirement at 68 Altmaier cashes in on plans from his advisors

As of: June 8th, 2021 3:33 p.m.

Work until 68 – this proposal from the Advisory Board of the Ministry of Economic Affairs creates massive headwinds. After the rejection of the coalition partners CSU and SPD, Altmaier now expressed himself: The retirement age is currently not an issue. Federal Minister of Economics Peter Altmaier has rejected an increase in the retirement age to 68 years, as recommended by an advisory committee of his house. The retirement age was set at 67 in the first grand coalition “at the suggestion of esteemed colleague” Franz Müntefering (SPD). “It should stay that way, that’s been my opinion for years,” wrote Altmaier on Twitter.

“Suddenly increasing financing problems”

The Scientific Advisory Board of the Ministry of Economics is independent, wrote Altmaier. His proposals are not binding on either the ministry or the minister. The Scientific Advisory Board of the Ministry of Economic Affairs – an advisory body – had proposed a reform towards the retirement age at 68. Because there was a threat of “sudden increasing financing problems in the statutory pension insurance from 2025”. The retirement age cannot be decoupled from the development of life expectancy in the long term.

CSU and SPD against raising the retirement age

The CSU also rejected ideas about raising the retirement age to 68 years. “We reject a later retirement age,” said CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt. In order to make pensions more secure, an “effective reform of private provision is required,” he said. This must be “more successful and efficient,” said Dobrindt. The SPD had previously rejected an increase in the retirement age. He thinks this is the wrong way, said the federal labor minister responsible for pensions, Hubertus Heil, according to a statement from his ministry. The statutory pension is a central promise of the welfare state. It is about recognition of lifetime achievement and security in old age. “Everyone must be able to rely on that.”

“Unsocial, what is proposed there”

SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich said that a new regulation for a possible entry age of 68 does not go with the SPD. “Pensioners and the generation that will retire in the next few years must not be further unsettled.” That will also play a role in the federal election campaign. SPD Chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz said: “I stand for the fact that we are not discussing any further increase in the statutory retirement age.” Scholz spoke of a “horror scenario” which should serve to “implement pension cuts for which there is no reason at this time”. According to Scholz, not only are the calculations wrong in the report. “What is being proposed there is also anti-social,” said the minister.

Advisory board proposes retirement at 68

The representatives of the Union and the SPD reacted to an opinion from the Scientific Advisory Board at the CDU-led Federal Ministry of Economics. The Scientific Advisory Board of the Ministry of Economic Affairs – an advisory body – had presented a concept that provides for longer work in old age and a limitation on future pension increases. The proposal mentioned a retirement age of 68 years in 2042. Currently, the rule applies that the age for entry into retirement without deductions should increase to 67 years by 2030. The advisory board warned that the pension system would head for a “financing shock” without further increases.

Employer President: “Lead honestly” pension discussion

Employer representatives were open to the experts’ suggestion. Employer President Rainer Dulger said with a view to demographic development that one should not get into a situation in which there are more service recipients than service providers. “The discussion must be conducted and it must be conducted honestly,” said Dulger. The topic cannot be concluded with stubborn rejection. People who would like to work longer should also be included in the discussion.

DGB and left indignant

The SPD gets a tailwind from its criticism from the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) and the Left Party. The advisory body wants to “drastically cut pensions, dismantle the welfare state and privatize old-age pensions – all of this to massively relieve employers,” said DGB board member Anja Piel of the “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”. She accused the body of announcing the imminent ruin of the state on the basis of a fictitious legal status in order to then justify radical reforms. This is not scientifically based advice, but political propaganda. “From this oblique perspective, those affected are to blame if the pension is not enough: they could have made more private provisions,” said Piel. Left party leader Susanne Hennig-Wellsow spoke of an “asocial Oberhammer.” The left will “defend the rights of pensioners with tooth and nail”. What would be necessary would be a clear pension guarantee that bindingly excludes pension cuts as a result of the corona pandemic, said Hennig-Wellsow.

Government advisory council proposal Will you retire at 68?

Status: 07.06.2021 6:49 p.m.

Advisors to the federal government consider it necessary to raise the retirement age to 68 years. Otherwise, the pension will soon be heading for a “financing shock”. The left reacted indignantly. Advisors to the federal government proposed a reform towards the retirement age at 68 around three months before the general election. There was a risk of “sudden increasing financing problems in the statutory pension insurance from 2025”, predicted the Scientific Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of Economics on the occasion of its new report on the future of pensions. According to the current legal situation, the age limit for the pension without deductions will be gradually increased from 65 to 67 years until 2029. The proposal could catapult the topic of pensions more strongly into the debates ahead of the federal elections. Because the positions of the advisory board are likely to meet with rejection from the SPD, the Greens, the left and the trade unions. “This is the anti-social Oberhammer,” said left party leader Susanne Hennig-Wellsow with a view to the report. Economics minister Peter Altmaier had to “cash in immediately” the corresponding report from his advisors, “otherwise the pension election campaign will start tomorrow”. The left will “defend the rights of pensioners with tooth and nail”. What would be necessary would be a clear pension guarantee that bindingly excludes pension cuts as a result of the corona pandemic, said Hennig-Wellsow.

“Dynamic coupling of the retirement age to life expectancy”

The experts emphasized that the retirement age cannot be decoupled from the development of life expectancy in the long term. “Instead, the additional years of life must be divided according to a clear rule between working more and receiving a longer pension.” To this end, there should be a “dynamic link between the retirement age and life expectancy”. The relationship between the time spent in work and in retirement should remain constant. According to current projections of life expectancy, such a rule would reach retirement age in 2042 at 68, said the director at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Axel Börsch-Supan, who was in charge of the report. The advisory board emphasized in its announcement: “Should life expectancy decrease, the retirement age may also decrease.”

“Sharply increasing subsidies from the federal budget” necessary

By calling for the retirement age to be linked to life expectancy, the committee made a proposal that has been causing waves in the pension policy debates in Germany for years. It is illusory to expect “that higher contributions and a lower pension level can be avoided in the long term”, according to the panel of experts. In the opinion of the advisory board, “sharply increasing subsidies from the federal budget” would have to flow into the pension fund if the valid holding lines for contributions and the pension level were to be maintained. “That would be at the expense of future investments, for example in education, infrastructure and climate protection, and would undermine the sustainability of our social system,” said the chairman of the advisory board, Klaus M. Schmidt, according to the announcement. The advisory board’s proposals also include making existing pensions less dynamic than new pensions when it comes to pension increases.

As a bride, everyone wants to be beautiful on their big day. Therefore, the choice of wedding dress is always carefully chosen by women. One of the criteria for choosing a wedding dress is the ability to flatter and be fashionable. In addition, many people also want to be unique, creating an unforgettable impression for important moments. Because of this desire, many women are ready to “play out” wearing unique, overly creative designs of fashion houses. Recently, the DailyStar page posted a “difficult” image of the bride Rielle on her wedding day. Specifically, she wears a wedding dress with a cup shape, a deep slit to help the bride flatter her full bust. If the upper part of the dress is designed like a corset, the lower body is a transparent, see-through chiffon. Seen from behind, Rielle almost shows off her hot bust, despite the disapproving glances of many people. Not only that, the cut-out details are “dangerous” to make people look “hot”. In order to avoid exposing her private area, Rielle had to use a whole bunch of chemicals to cover it. Immediately after the image of Rielle was posted, many comments criticized the bride’s dressing like no other. In fact, not only Rielle was “stoned” for dressing offensively. In many cases, brides also have similar problems when choosing outfits with 1-0-2, which is likened to a wedding dress disaster. A bride once caused a stir when wearing a wedding dress that could not be shorter, revealing her bust and high socks. Not to mention, she also used chiffon to decorate the back of her hips, which looked extremely “painful”. While the above brides tried to show off their breasts, this girl showed off her oversized bust. Looking at these pictures, surely many guests are embarrassed. A bride with a confusing outfit. Using the dominant white tone, the hotpants and accompanying accessories make the overall look extremely difficult. The bride has a good-looking face, but the point that attracts others’ attention is the wedding dress that is no different from the revealing swimsuit. If compared to the short, bold, sure, this lingerie wedding suit has no “rival”. Photo: Internet. Invite readers to watch the video: Fashion show of plus size people. Source: VTV24.

The idea of ​​​​conquering Mars has been a dream of mankind for many years, this could be the first step towards realizing the dream of many science fiction scientists that is to explore outer space. Sending humans to another planet, even within the solar system, has the effect of reducing the risk of a global catastrophe that could destroy life, such as a large asteroid impact or nuclear war. Even in the future, the Red Planet could be an abundant source of resources. Obviously the ambition to travel to Mars is impressive, but there are many doubts and obstacles attached. Tech billionaire Elon Musk put forward the idea of ​​humans traveling to Mars on 1,000 rockets and creating land for 1 million inhabitants, this is clearly an extremely expensive and technologically difficult task. major barriers have been listed. First, Earth science has not yet been able to create spacecraft with the ability to send humans into distant space that is “immune” to deadly cosmic radiation. The solution to this problem could be to wrap lead plates, but that would increase the weight of the ship and reduce its carrying capacity. Engines for spaceships are now well beyond construction. Second, solar radiation is a big problem, the Red Planet is different from Earth in that it doesn’t have a magnetic field protecting it from ionizing radiation. Astronauts will have to hide in bases hidden deep below the surface, not be able to walk freely on the surface. Third, Mars is cold and has no atmosphere, but the radiation background is 2.5 times higher than that of astronauts on the International Space Station ISS. It is impossible to live in such conditions without a special space suit. There are many other problems as well, but it is clear that expanding space into outer space requires accumulation and huge investments in technology. Before this fact, scientists expressed doubts about Elon Musk’s initiative, when he proposed to carry out bombardments with thermonuclear warheads at both poles of the Red Planet. A “fusion attack” would cause glaciers to melt, forming liquid water and releasing greenhouse gases, which help create the atmosphere on Mars. Then the “reclaimers” could walk around without a spacesuit. But mathematician Robert Walker calculates that to carry out the first part of the plan requires at least 1 million nuclear bombs with an explosive yield of 100 Megatons, must be assembled on Mars 3,500 a day for 7 weeks to achieve desired results. There are no such large numbers of nuclear weapons on Earth, and the lack of means to deliver them to another planet, is the first hurdle. CO2 reserves on Mars would not be enough to create a suitable atmosphere, even if the first problem were solved. Since the Red Planet does not have a magnetic field, solar radiation will gradually “suck” the gas that has already formed, which is the second barrier. Finally, Elon Musk does not take into account that after many nuclear explosions, the surface of the planet will be radioactive for a long time, people cannot walk with oxygen masks and plant trees. Elon Musk’s initiative is clearly impractical and perhaps the billionaire himself understands this, but what is his meaning. The head of Russia’s state space corporation Roscosmos – Mr. Dmitry Rogozin made a remarkable remark. “Anyone calling for the reclamation of Mars or other planets is well aware that this is just an excuse for launching nuclear weapons into space for military purposes on Earth.” “It’s true, you can’t just put nuclear warheads on Mars. They need to first be put into orbit and assembled somewhere with the means to send them in large batches.” “Assuming an orbital station being built by the US and its allies will be tailored to target China and Russia. Will nuclear warheads reach the Red Planet then? “It is no secret that Elon Musk is working closely with the Pentagon on the space and satellite program. So why not experiment with the best cause of Mars exploration, to advocate for the idea of ​​​​putting US nuclear weapons in space,” concluded Mr. Rogozin.

Image source: Visual China Reporter Cui Puyu Reporter Cui Puyu The European Union on Wednesday announced a series of strict regulations governing the use of artificial intelligence, including restrictions on the use of facial recognition software by the police in public places. This has become one of the most extensive actions in this regard so far. According to the proposal published by the European Commission (the EU executive agency), the use of artificial intelligence in a series of activities will be restricted, including autonomous vehicles, bank loan applications, university admissions, and examination scoring. It will also cover the use of artificial intelligence by law enforcement systems and courts, an area that is often regarded as “high risk” because it may threaten people’s safety or basic rights. Some uses will be completely banned, including real-time facial recognition in public places. However, for national security or other purposes, there may be some exemptions, such as to prevent terrorist attacks, find missing children, or resolve other public safety emergencies. If the 108-page proposal is passed, it will not only have a profound impact on large technology companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. These companies have invested a lot of resources in the development of artificial intelligence; at the same time, they will also invest in the use of this technology for research and development. Drugs, underwriting insurance, and other companies that judge creditworthiness have had an impact. According to this proposal, companies that violate the new regulations will face fines of up to 6% of their global sales.

Over the past ten years, the EU has been the most active in the world in terms of technology industry regulation, and its regulatory policies are often used as templates by other countries. The 27-nation group has promulgated the world’s most influential data privacy bill, and is discussing other antitrust and content review regulations.

European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager said that the regulatory regulations address the risks that artificial intelligence poses to humans and society in certain special applications. “We think this is an emergency, and we are the first on this planet to propose this legal framework.”

Some digital rights activists welcomed some of the regulations, but pointed out that some other factors seemed too vague, and there were too many loopholes to be drilled. Some people in the industry believe that EU regulations will benefit Chinese companies because the latter do not have to face the constraints of similar regulations.

Benjamin Mueller, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation, a technology think tank, pointed out that regulations will make the cost of research and development of artificial intelligence in Europe too high, or even technically infeasible. “When the European Union suppresses its own start-ups, the United States and China will watch happily on the sidelines.”

However, some lobbyists in the technology industry believe that the proposal is not so harsh and feel relieved. They praised some clauses, such as strictly regulating only certain types of so-called high-risk artificial intelligence applications.

Christian Borggreen, vice chairman of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, pointed out that the European Commission has adopted a risk-based approach, which is good. The association represents a number of technology giants including Amazon, Facebook and Google.

However, Wednesday’s proposal still has a long way to go before it becomes law and may be adjusted. In the European Union, such laws must be approved by the European Council, which represents the governments of the EU’s 27 countries, and the directly elected European Parliament. The entire process may take several years.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a meeting in Moscow. Photo: AFP / VNA Speaking at a joint press conference with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in Moscow on April 22, Putin said that the Kiev government has taken steps to destroy bilateral relations with Moscow over the past time. Prominent among them was the intention of Ukraine to restrict the Russian language, destroying Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. “There are many steps to breaking the relationship, which we regret. But if President Zelensky wants to restore relations, we will respond, “Putin said about the prospect of a meeting between the two leaders in Donbass. But according to the Russian President, if it is to discuss the situation in Donbass, the Kyiv government first needs to open meetings with the leaders of the Donetsk Republic and self-proclaimed Lugansk, and then consider direct contact with the party. Tuesday. If it wants to talk about Russia-Ukraine relations, the Russian side is ready to welcome Zelensky in Moscow at any convenient time for the President of Ukraine. Earlier, speaking on April 20, Mr. Zelensky proposed his readiness to meet President Putin in Donbass, amid the outbreak of fighting between Ukrainian soldiers and independence forces in the East.

.