Rente wird ab 1. Juli erhöht – dennoch bekommen Hunderttausende nicht mehr Geld

Stand:

19.03.2025, 19:04 Uhr

Von: Kai Hartwig 

Die Renten steigen schon bald, aber viele Senioren haben trotzdem keinen Cent mehr auf ihrem Konto. Die Grundsicherung ist der entscheidende Faktor.

München – Die Rentenerhöhung am 1. Juli dürfte vielen Senioren erfreuen. Doch unter Deutschlands Rentnern gibt es über 700.000 Menschen, denen das nichts bringt. Ihre Leistungen werden vielmehr noch gekürzt. Der entscheidende Faktor dabei: Die Grundsicherung. 

Zwar steigen ab 1. Juli 2025 die Renten in Deutschland um 3,74 Prozent an, wie das Statistische Bundesamt und die Deutsche Rentenversicherung (DRV) angeben. Für Bundesarbeitsminister Hubertus Heil (SPD) „eine gute Nachricht für Rentner“ – aber eben nicht für alle.

Rente wird ab 1. Juli erhöht – Wer Grundsicherung erhält, profitiert nicht davon

Denn alle Rentner, die Grundsicherung beziehen, werden von der Rentenerhöhung nicht profitieren. Die aktuellen Daten des Statistischen Bundesamts vom September 2024 zeigen, dass immer mehr Rentner in Deutschland auf zusätzliche Hilfsleistungen angewiesen sind. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt erhielten 730.305 Rentner die sogenannte Grundsicherung. Und die wird vollständig auf die Rente angerechnet. 

Die Rentenerhöhung ab Juli 2025 verhilft nicht allen Senioren zu mehr Geld. © Frank Hoermann/Sven Simon/Imago

Auf der DRV-Website wird erläutert, welche Bereiche von der Grundsicherung abgedeckt werden sollen. Folgendes zählt dazu:

• Den notwendigen Lebensunterhalt.
• Aufwendungen für Unterkunft und Heizung
• Kranken- und Pflegeversicherungsbeiträge
• Vorsorgebeiträge
• Mehrbedarf für bestimmte Personengruppen
• Hilfe in Sonderfällen 

Leistungskürzung trotz Rentenerhöhung für Senioren mit Grundsicherung

Die DRV erklärt, dass die Höhe der Grundsicherung vom Einkommen und Vermögen abhängt. Dabei wird auch das Einkommen der Ehepartnerin oder des Ehepartners beziehungsweise der Partnerin oder des Partners in einer ehe- oder lebenspartnerschaftsähnlichen Gemeinschaft berücksichtigt. Erst wenn das Einkommen der Kinder von Rentnerinnen und Rentnern mehr als 100.000 Euro im Jahr beträgt, wird darauf zurückgegriffen.

Rentner aufgepasst: Das sind die besten Länder für die Rente

Fotostrecke ansehen

Zum Einkommen zählen „Renten und Pensionen jeder Art aus dem In- und Ausland“, so die DRV. Auch die Riesterrente wird angerechnet, wobei seit 2018 ein Betrag von 100 Euro anrechnungsfrei bleibt und darüber hinaus 30 Prozent bis zu einem Höchstbetrag nicht angerechnet werden. Im Gegensatz dazu werden die Grundrente nach dem Bundesversorgungsgesetz und Leistungen aus einer freiwilligen zusätzlichen Altersvorsorge nicht als Einkommen betrachtet. Der Rentenfreibetrag, der laut ihre-vorsorge.de in den meisten Fällen bei 281,50 Euro liegt, bleibt ebenfalls unberührt. „Dies gilt immer dann, wenn die Bruttorente – also die Rente vor Abzug der Sozialversicherungsbeiträge – 705 Euro oder höher ist“, erläutert das Portal.

Für eine Standardrente bei durchschnittlichem Verdienst und 45 Beitragsjahren bedeutet die Rentenerhöhung ab Juli 2025 einen monatlichen Anstieg um 66,15 Euro. Für Rentner, die zusätzlich Grundsicherung beziehen, ist die Erhöhung jedoch keine positive Nachricht. „Da die Regelsätze bei allen Sozialhilfeleistungen unverändert bleiben, ändert sich für Senioren, die (meist als Aufstockung einer niedrigen Rente) Grundsicherung im Alter beziehen, nichts. Durch die Rentenerhöhung zum 1. Juli 2025 wird die Sozialamts-Leistung sogar ab diesem Zeitpunkt gekürzt“, berichtet ihre-vorsorge.de. Eine Tabelle zeigt, wie viel Geld Rentnerinnen und Rentner ab Juli erhalten werden. (kh)

A German Expat in the Philippines (XVIII): The Year of a Serious Decision

 

ONE COMMON ANCESTOR

 

During the last days of the Lenten saison and Easter Holidays, I experienced again, what it means to have a family. Especially as an expatriate living together with a Philippine family. What a blessing for me!

In his divine wisdom, God intended the family atmosphere where there should be parental love so that every toddling, helpless, fragile child that comes into the world finds warmth, care and security. Family life is, therefore, the first and foremost calling of every married couple.

Understanding how life began and evolved on Earth is a question that has fascinated humans for a long time, and modern scientists have made great advances when it comes to finding some answers. Now, our recent study hopes to offer new insights into the origin of life on Earth.

The first thing one should look for in a married couple, is not how successful they are as lawyers or businessmen or professionals, but how successful they are as family couples and family members. For me, if they fail as a family man or woman, I consider them complete failures in life. Strong words, I know!

According to modern evolutionary biology, all living beings could be descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth. Common descent is an effect of speciation, in which multiple species derive from a single ancestral population.

Again, strong words! Though a bit exaggerated, there's a lot of truth there. When one gets married, he/she assumes the grave and sacred task and responsibility of begetting and rearing children for God. And if they fail as parents, they fail in his first and foremost obligation to God.

The human family is a sacrament. As such, it is a sign, a witness, that should point to a mirror of unity and love. Of course, the so-called human family is a very imperfect reflection of the so-called "Holy Family", what with all the problems, trials and difficulties. Believe me, also in "my" family, there's a lot of impatience, anger, cruelty, many times NO TIME for one another, lack of communication, callousness or insensitivity to the other's needs.

When my wife and I were newly-married, after coming home from a hard day's work, our dogs would bark and meet me, while my wife brought my slippers. Time changed. My dog will bring the slippers now...! Joke lang!

Let's keep in mind: there's no stressing enough the value and importance of the family. If the basic unit of society is weak, fragmented, decadent, so is the whole country. For as the family, so the country. The Philippines!

British lawyer Kaufman preparing for ‘strong defense’ to acquit Duterte at ICC

BY RAYMUND ANTONIO

Mar 18, 2025 10:51 PM

  

---

British-Israeli lawyer Nicholas Kaufman, the lead counsel of former president Rodrigo Duterte’s defense team, said they are preparing “a strong defense” for the former president’s acquittal in the crimes against humanity of murder case before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
 

Former president Rodrigo Duterte and his British-Israeli lead counsel Nicholas Kaufman (Screengrab from ICC, ABS-CBN News video)  

 

In a chance interview with reporters after a meeting with Duterte in The Hague on Tuesday, March 18 (Netherlands time), the lawyer shared that the former president is “in good spirits and looking forward to conducting his defense.”
 

“There will be petitions, obviously. Once again, it’s not for me to comment on the defense strategy at this moment in time,” he added when asked about any petitions the defense will file before the Sept. 23 scheduled hearing.
 

One of the things that the defense plans to raise is under Article 59 of the Rome Statute.
 

He said Duterte was “completely denied all his rights in the Philippines,” noting “that would obviously be a argument in the course of this defense.”
 

Article 59 of the Rome Statute outlines that a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant “shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State,” which will evaluate the arrest.
 

But legal experts said that the Philippines is not bound by Article 59 because it is no longer a member of the ICC after Duterte officially withdrew from it in 2019.
 

Confident of acquittal
 

Kaufman, who said he had “been involved in a quite few cases” before the ICC, also expressed confidence that the defense team has a strong enough argument for the former president’s acquittal.
 

“I’m very confident of the strongest defense possible and I’m confident he will be acquitted indeed, even at earliest stage possible,” he assured.
 

Asked if he would be able to bring Duterte back to the Philippines, the lawyer responded, “I certainly hope so.” 

Kaufman shared that he would have access to the former chief executive and promised him that he will be there every day while he’s in The Hague, where Duterte is currently detained.
 

“I’m available to visit before the (former) president as long as I’m here, (and) as long as I’m allowed to do so. I have promised him that I would come every day that I’m in The Hague,” he said.
 

Kaufman is a veteran international lawyer who have handled high-profile cases, such as those of Jean-Pierre Bemba, a former Congolese vice president, Aisha Gaddafi, the daughter of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and Maxim Mokom Gwaka, an alleged militia leader from the Central African Republic.

Combat fake news, but keep freedom of expression vibrant

BY MANILA BULLETIN

Mar 19, 2025 09:44 AM 

Fake news here, fake news there.

The spread of fake news is becoming prevalent in this digital age, where information flows faster than ever. With this development, the spread of disinformation and misinformation has become a dire concern. The advent of social media has allowed unverified claims, often fueled either by malice or ignorance, to reach vast audiences with alarming speed. 

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) was hit twice in succession by fake news at the height of the arrest of former president Rodrigo Duterte. Victimizing the ordinary Juan dela Cruz is already bad. Hitting the SC is the worst. It is a gross disrespect for the highest tribunal of the land—the last bastion of democracy that serves as the guardian of our fundamental rights. With this growing issue of fake news, the SC has acknowledged the need to address its spread. This decision, though necessary, raises vital questions on how to strike a balance between protecting the public from the dangers of falsehoods while safeguarding one of the most cherished pillars of democracy—freedom of expression.

The SC’s intervention signals the judiciary’s concern over the escalating impact of fake news on public discourse. It is crucial to understand the pervasive nature of false information, as it can distort public opinion, manipulate electoral outcomes, and even fuel societal divide. In recent years, misinformation has been linked to political unrest, polarized communities, and the erosion of public trust in institutions. 

With this in mind, the role of the Supreme Court becomes even more critical. While it is vital to combat the spread of fake news, it must tread carefully to ensure that measures taken do not encroach upon the fundamental right of individuals to freely express their opinions. The fine line between curbing the proliferation of fake news and stifling free speech is razor-thin, and it is up to the Court to define where that line lies.

The right to free expression is enshrined in the Constitution and is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. It allows individuals to speak their minds, criticize government actions, and engage in open debate without fear of retribution. However, the recent surge in fake news calls into question how much room should be allowed for information that has the potential to mislead or harm others. The proliferation of false narratives can have far-reaching consequences, especially when it involves critical issues such as public health, elections, and national security.

In addressing this dilemma, the SC faces a dual responsibility. On one hand, it must protect citizens from the detrimental effects of fake news. It is incumbent upon the government to ensure that information disseminated to the public is accurate and trustworthy, particularly in a climate where misinformation can lead to harmful decisions. On the other hand, the Court must uphold the right to free speech, which is indispensable to democracy. The suppression of expression, even in the face of falsehoods, risks the stifling of dissent and the curtailing of democratic engagement.

The challenge lies in crafting a solution that doesn’t inadvertently muzzle free expression under the guise of combating fake news. The SC may look to precedents from around the world, where efforts to regulate fake news have focused on promoting transparency, accountability, and media literacy. Moreover, social media platforms, where much of the disinformation originates, should be held accountable for the content they distribute, ensuring that algorithms do not amplify harmful falsehoods.

The balance is delicate but achievable. The Supreme Court must craft a framework that takes into account both the public’s right to be protected from misinformation and the need for open discourse.