How much is it worth that parents invest time and money for their children? And to what extent does this have to be taken into account in the contributions for health, nursing care and pension insurance?
The topic has potential for division, as Markus Essig has already experienced. He and his wife have complained through the authorities with other families in order to fight for a reduction in social security contributions for parents.
Essig reports that some reactions were well below the belt. “According to the motto: You had fun making children – and now you want money.”
Essig has been on the road for 16 years, he says. Supported by the Family Association of Catholics in the Archdiocese of Freiburg. In the meantime, the plaintiffs have filed constitutional complaints with the Federal Constitutional Court. You are of the opinion that the number of children must be taken into account in the contribution to statutory health, nursing care and pension insurance – parents should therefore pay less than insured persons without children. The highest German court wants to announce its decision today. (Az. 1 BvL 3/18 and others)
What is the current legal situation?
In 2001, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in the long-term care insurance case that it was not compatible with the Basic Law for parents to pay the same high contribution rate as those without children. With the care and upbringing of the children, they made a “generative contribution to the functionality of a pay-as-you-go social security system”. The contribution rates were changed as a result. Since the beginning of this year, that for parents has been 3.05 percent of gross income, and for childless people it has been 3.4 percent. No distinction is made here for pension and health insurance.
The Federal Social Court has decided in several judgments that this is legal. Accordingly, it is legitimate if the legislature does not take child-rearing into account everywhere in the form of lower contributions, but compensates for this with benefits. These included free schools and the crediting of child-rearing periods in the pension insurance.
How do the suing families argue?
From the point of view of the plaintiffs, this does not go far enough. “You can’t offset one against the other,” says Essig. Relief must be in the same system that is paid into.
Lawyer Ernst Jürgen Borchert argues, among other things, with the double consumption renunciation that people made in favor of the maintenance of their own parents’ generation as well as the following generation. Constitutional lawyer Prof. Thorsten Kingreen from the University of Regensburg, also attorney-in-fact, refers, for example, to the significantly lower old-age pensions for women. “At the end you get the balance of what you should have done when you raise children.”
The Catholic Family Association calculates that it is a myth that children are insured free of charge in statutory health insurance. This is because the contribution is deducted from the total income of the insured parent. It would only make a difference if money for family members were deducted from income first. In order to make its efforts clearer, the family association has launched the “Parents’ Complaints” campaign. According to the information, more than 2000 other parents have joined the demands.
What does the federal government say?
The federal government claims that after the judgment 21 years ago, it carefully examined possible effects on pension, health, accident and unemployment insurance. But the differentiation between insured persons with and without children did not have to be transferred, explains a spokesman for the Ministry of Health.
The general public has an interest in the care and education provided by families. However, if the need cannot be taken into account within a specific social security system, the costs of childcare and education would have to be balanced as a task for society as a whole – for example within the framework of family benefit equalization in tax law. In addition, there would be improvements in the care and education infrastructure.
How do the insurance companies see it?
The National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds is of the opinion that families are entitled to equalization of the burden. However, this is an uninsured service. In addition, it is unclear whether the children will later pay into the same security systems from which parents would be relieved. That would not be the case, for example, if the offspring moves to another country and insures themselves there. From the point of view of the association, it would be better to solve the relief via child benefit.
What consequences can the decision have?
The effects of the Karlsruhe decision are difficult to estimate in advance. The court has not yet revealed anything about the outcome. It is conceivable that the judges will see the legal situation as constitutional. Then nothing would change.
However, the First Senate led by Court President Stephan Harbarth could also decide that the differentiation between childless people and parents, as in long-term care insurance, must be transferred to health and pension insurance. In other words, parents would then have to pay less than people without children. In this case, as well as when the specific number of children should play a role, the Federal Government and the Bundestag would be asked: They would have to change the laws. It would depend on whether millions of parents would be relieved or whether all the insured without children would face higher costs.
Freiburger fights for the next generation
The decision has no direct consequences for plaintiff Markus Essig from Freiburg. The youngest of his three children is now 27 years old. But he also wants to continue if the Senate refers the legal dispute back to a social court.
Last but not least, the topic is now also occupying his children: the deacon already has his first grandchildren, and two more are due to see the light of day shortly. “They’re now seeing it first-hand,” says Essig. And adds with a smile: “Obviously the situation didn’t deter her that much.”
