Rente: Vorbild Österreich? Wie ein Kompromiss zur „Rente mit 63“ aussehen könnte

Seven country leaders have questioned the "Holy Grail" of the pension reform, as they do not want to abolish the "rent with 63". The criticism comes from both parties. CDU fraction leader Thorsten Frei attempted to end the debate with the statement that there is "no room for negotiation." However, the discussions are expected to continue after the state elections in eastern Germany and at least with the first draft law on pension reform in the fall.

The abolition of the "rent with 63" is financially one of the most important parts of the reform, as it could save between six and 16 billion euros per pensioner cohort over the remaining life expectancy, depending on how many people actually work longer. So, what could a compromise look like? At its core, it revolves around two different political desires that are both tied to the introduction of the "rent with 63."

On one hand, it is about valuing a "life service," i.e., a long work period and corresponding many contribution years in the pension insurance. On the other hand, this pension form should explicitly benefit people who work in physically and mentally demanding professions and may not be able to perform their jobs until the regular retirement age.

Former SPD labor minister Andrea Nahles, under whom the "rent with 63" was introduced in 2014, said in the Bundestag at the time: "Those people have fulfilled their entitlement." Politically, a compromise that abolishes the "rent with 63" for a portion of currently entitled people - with exceptions for those who already earn little or perform particularly heavy work - seems feasible.

Experts see several options: Option 1: "Heavy work pension" after the Austrian model Former SPD Bundestag faction business chief Dirk Wiese introduced an Austrian model into the debate. Entitlement to the 2007 introduced "heavy work pension" in neighboring Austria, requires proof of certain strenuous activities. These include heavy physical work, irregular night shifts, regular work under extreme temperatures or chemical exposures, and since early 2026, caregiving professions as well.

Starting from early 2026, Austrian heavy work pensioners must accept reductions of 0.15 percent per month before the regular retirement age. This is half as much as in Germany with the "rent for long-term insured" from 35 contribution years, where the reduction is 0.3 percent per month. In 2025, 12.5 percent of male first-time pensioners used the model, with agriculture being the largest group.

For women, it was only 2.8 percent. However, this is due to the fact that in Austria, women could already retire at 60 years old regularly until 2024. In 2024 alone, around 8,000 people took advantage of this regulation, according to WIFO expert Christine Mayrhuber. Applied to Germany, this would result in a high five-digit number of beneficiaries.

German economist Martin Werding, also a member of the Pension Commission, is against a heavy work rule. He said the list of eligible professions is "more driven by good organization and strong lobbying than by occupational medicine insights," and it is based on an outdated image of physically demanding jobs. It no longer fits in an era when the share and absolute number of people retiring early due to mental and psychological impairments are growing.

However, these impairments can be much less strictly tied to certain occupations. Mayrhuber acknowledges that the Austrian solution is partly a "construct born out of necessity," just as in most countries there is a lack of systematic recording of working conditions in individual professions. Werding also raised another argument against occupation-specific rules: "The German Pension Insurance does not know its insured persons' professions.

It could therefore not implement such regulations." Monica Queisser, who was also part of the commission, stated that the OECD generally recommends organizing early pension access due to heavy work through health checks and early retirement pensions, as this is more precise. However, prevention has been important long before retirement age, "so that people do not have to suffer long-term health damage."

Option 2: Expand early retirement The Pension Commission had suggested in its recommendations to make it easier to access early retirement, which was recently re-regulated. This is now significantly higher than ten years ago and falls "about 60 percent higher than a decade ago." It is possible to expand this further. Currently, full early retirement is granted to those who can work less than three hours a day, while half the amount is provided for three to six hours a day.

The individual early pension depends on previous contribution years and age. On average, early retirees received 1,041 euros per month in 2024. The commission writes that the goal should be an individual case assessment, such as during a regular doctor's visit at 45 or 63 years old, when it could be determined who needs rehabilitation and who needs early retirement.

If necessary, people could then retire two years before the regular retirement age without deductions after an individual health assessment. However, in the model projects, there is a "prevention dilemma": Men are far harder to reach for rehabilitation measures than women. Additionally, people with lower education and a higher risk of later receiving an early retirement pension are in the trial phase.