Pensioners are cases of Social

Each and every Second in Retirement, the capital of the second pillar pay off. If such pensioners, however, are dependent on supplementary benefits (EL) to the AHV-AVS, they have to travel in the future, worse than those that relate to the capital of the second pillar as the pension. The national Council decided in the case of the EL-Reform is a life-long reduction of benefits by 10 per cent, if the capital is "wholly or partially used up." Although the Council of States rejects the sanction, insisting the bourgeois social politicians of the national Council in the parliamentary final round on the criminal action.

Now the cities and municipalities are trying to the national Council of the punitive action to dissuade. Because the local authorities fear that they will have to bear the consequences of the EL-reduction. To about 63 million Swiss francs per year, the Federal social insurance office estimates the concessions in the EL. A significant proportion of this sum would have to compensate the municipalities on social assistance, warn +++the Swiss village Association and the Association of cities in a joint Letter to the national Council the social Commission.

social assistance is in a nursing home

Consequences of the reduction in the EL would be especially if the patient is retired. On average, the costs borne by the pensioners in the nursing home, 3300 Swiss francs per month. This amount will be reduced by 10 per cent, must be taken of the shortfall is necessarily social assistance.

Actually, the bourgeois national councils want to punish those retirees who spend the pension Fund money. The Problem, however, is that many will be hit by the sanction, where there is no careless handling of their second-pillar can be accused of. "The deduction is provided even when only a part of the capital and if the house keeps the balance was handled", criticize the cities and the municipality of Association.

The Association of organisations of disabled people, Inclusion of Handicap, for example, a hairdresser that used with 40 of her modest pension Fund capital for the construction of a Coiffeur salons. With 55 years suffering from multiple sclerosis and receives a disability pension. In addition, you need on a monthly basis to 1800 francs, EL, in order to cover their costs of living. In spite of successful self-employment, the woman as the IV and AHV will be punished - Pensioner for the capital related to the company's founding. In National Council and Council of States rejected the Federal Council's proposed ban on the capital reference, to allow the use of funds from the second pillar for start-UPS.

lack of understanding in the Council of States

Real money waster to be affected by the sanctions, however, hardly. This is because both councils have agreed on a new regulation, according to which excessive asset consumption EL be computed as the verprasste assets would still be available. So if you live after Retirement, with its 300'000 Swiss francs from the second column for a few years in the lap of luxury abroad, receives in his return to Switzerland, no EL more.

In the Council of States met the 10 percent sanction of the national Council of the past on a lack of understanding. Konrad Graber (CVP, LU), speaker stand ätlichen social Commission, out of the small chamber remains firm on this issue.

May be the Front of the national crumbling Council's sanction, supporters of the SVP, FDP and CVP, if both councils met in March to a settlement conference, to clean up careabout the differences. Several bourgeois social politicians stress from the national Council that they want to enforce in the circuit ausmarchung especially a new asset threshold of CHF 100'000 to net worth to exclude pensioners from the EL reference. This threshold was rejected by the Council of States so far, because of the simultaneous exemption for homeowners to be impractical.

Good for the "Ratspsyche"

Graber suggests that the small chamber could give in to the asset threshold, if this was for the "Rats-psyche" of the large chamber. His party colleague, Ruth Humbel of the national Council, accuses the Council of States, in contrast, stubbornness, because he puts more of the provisions against unjust EL-relation. Humbel defended the 10-percent penalty, because everyone had to be in the case of a lump-aware of the consequences. Humbel would, however, have maintained a ban on the Capital receipt from the mandatory occupational Pension plan for the better solution.

(editing Tamedia)

Created: 08.02.2019, 22:06 PM