Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

You are right. However, the problem does not lie solely in the short-sightedness of governments. Our entire social system is built on the production factor labor. This now creates a double problem. On the one hand, demographics are unfavorable, on the other hand, the capital factor has performed significantly better over the past decades. The Riester pension originally aimed somewhat in that direction, and people were supposed to build up a pension on the capital market in addition to the statutory pension insurance (GRV). Unfortunately, in Germany we actually regard the stock market as devil’s work just as much as personal responsibility, and we focused on how to protect people from losses. The result was then a state-subsidized pension provision via insurance (after all, professionals make the decisions there!) with contribution guarantees (who would invest in something that ultimately pays out less?). In doing so, it was ignored that on the one hand professionals do not make better decisions, that they incur plenty of costs, and that the guarantee in times of low interest rates leads to 90% of the portfolio being stuck in government bonds. In the end, you get a return of almost nothing—and that before costs. Similar problems exist with occupational pensions (BAV). A construct similar to a 401(k) would be vastly superior.

Fair enough ;)

I actually wanted to point out that demography is not the root of the problem, but that the productivity growth of recent decades(!) has not proportionally ended up in the pension fund. Demography is an exacerbating factor, not the cause.

And having more children may ease things in 20+ years, but before that they have made things worse for two decades.

It’s easier said than done - in multiple respects.

But what does it ultimately come down to? In the end, the productive power of tangible assets is supposed to contribute to retirement provision. Either through the stock market route or through the route of state insurance, if one also subjects the profits of a pension contribution. In both cases, the earnings of the companies have to pay for it – and always according to the procedure of a pay-as-you-go system, ei der daus.

For planning security, the state route speaks, for personal responsibility, the stock market. Personally, I believe that retirement provision with small pensions is not something that should be subject to volatility, but that can be viewed differently.

Since we have a pay-as-you-go system, the "pot" you are talking about does not even exist. Capital accumulation is explicitly not intended.

Yes, it is demographics plus a string of voter gifts to pensioners.

The route via the stock market has two big advantages compared to a levy: 1. you are not limited to Germany. You can decouple yourself from the local disadvantages of the location. 2. Companies are very creative in avoiding levies and playing states against each other. The saved money always flows to the owners I believe one has to detach a bit from volatility. It is now quite widely accepted that an annual withdrawal rate of about 3.5% of the peak value no longer carries a relevant risk of premature bankruptcy. The end result is a regular cash flow; the rest are just numbers in the account. In addition, of course, one would not switch everything to private provision and capital coverage, not even the Americans do that. That takes quite a bit of sharpness out of the matter

and why is this not being changed? Because in DE only very very very slowly something changes,.