Pensions: what do Belgium's 10 parties propose in 2026?

What do Belgium's parties propose on pensions in 2026?

In 2026, Belgium's ten main parties fall into two families on pensions. On one side, the N-VA, MR, CD&V, Les Engagés and Open VLD bet on lengthening working careers: a higher legal age, a malus for early departures, a bonus for those who stay on longer. On the other, the PS, Ecolo, the PTB·PVDA and Groen want to return to 65 and strengthen solidarity. Vooruit, in the majority, holds an in-between position.

This dividing line does not pit a "good" manifesto against a "bad" one. It pits two answers to the same question: how to fund pensions for a population that lives longer. The first acts on the length of careers. The second acts on revenues and redistribution. Both camps want viable pensions; they simply pull different levers.

By the numbers, the framework is now set. Since 1 January 2025, the legal age rose to 66 for people born between 1960 and 1963, and it will reach 67 in 2030 for those born from 1964. That timetable, and the so-called Arizona reform passed at the end of May 2026, shape the whole debate this year.

How do you read these positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign per lever here: a green + when it clearly backs that approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system replaces stars or marks out of 5, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column designates a "good" party. A party marked with a + on lengthening careers is often marked with a − on strengthening solidarity through revenues, and vice versa. The two levers answer different priorities, backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

For example, the N-VA gets a + on lengthening careers and a − on funding through new revenues, which it sees as bad for the economy. The PTB·PVDA has the opposite profile. Neither is "in the lead": they are not playing on the same field.

Why did the legal age rise to 66, then 67?

The legal age went up because life expectancy and the number of pensioners are rising faster than the number of contributing workers. Raising the age lengthens the contribution period and shortens the payout period, which reduces the bill for the federal budget.

This increase is not a 2026 decision: it was passed under a previous government and applies generation by generation. Since 1 January 2025, the legal age is 66 for people born between 1960 and 1963; it will rise to 67 in 2030 for those born from 1964. Early retirement remains possible for long careers: 60 with 44 years, 61 with 43 years, 63 with 42 years.

Concretely, a person born in 1962 who expected to retire at 65 must wait until 66, that is twelve extra months of work. Supporters of the increase see it as the only honest way to fund a system that would otherwise pile up deficits. Its opponents reply that the same effort is demanded of an office worker and a bricklayer, even though their healthy life expectancy differs sharply — which is the whole question of arduous work.

What does the Arizona pension reform change?

The reform driven by the Arizona coalition, passed in the Chamber at the end of May 2026, introduces a bonus-malus system and tightens career conditions. Its stated goal: reward those who work longer and discourage early departures.

The malus cuts the pension by about 2% per year of departure before the legal age. The bonus, conversely, raises the pension for each year worked beyond it: +2% per year for people born in 1962 or earlier, +4% for the 1963-1972 generations and +5% from 1973, provided a long enough career is reached. From 1 January 2027, only years counting at least 156 effective days will be taken into account for early retirement.

That 156-day threshold is what crystallises criticism. An independent study reported in the press in April 2026 pointed out that fragmented careers and part-time work — more often female — would be the most penalised. Under pressure from unions and the actions of early 2025, the entry into force of some measures was postponed, allowing thousands of people retiring in 2026 to still escape the malus. The reform's defenders present it as "essential" to make the system fairer and more coherent; its opponents see a disguised pension cut.

What do the parties that want to lengthen careers propose?

Centre-right and right-wing parties want people to work longer and the pension to reward the actual length of a career. The N-VA, the reform's main architect, argues that a pension should reflect work done and that raising the age is unavoidable given ageing. The MR shares this logic and insists on controlling public spending. The CD&V and Les Engagés back the increase while asking for adjustments for arduous jobs and long careers.

The core argument is budgetary and demographic: with fewer workers for more pensioners, a system that pays early and long becomes unsustainable without new debt. The bonus is presented as a positive incentive rather than a sanction: staying on two more years can noticeably raise the monthly amount.

The criticism, voiced by the left and unions, is that these measures mainly bear on those who do not choose to stop early — manual workers, care assistants, part-time workers. A figure: an early departure of three years brings a malus of about 6% on the pension, a loss repeated every month until death. The Open VLD, in opposition but liberal, shares this lengthening line while staying cautious on the detail of the malus.

What do the parties that want to return to 65 propose?

Left-wing parties want to bring the legal age back to 65 and fund pensions other than by lengthening careers. The PTB·PVDA makes it its flagship demand: a return to 65, scrapping the malus, and funding through heavier taxation of large fortunes. It announced a challenge to the reform, which it deems socially unfair. The PS also backs a return to 65 and argues that "pensions are payable" provided they are treated as a societal choice rather than a budgetary adjustment variable.

Ecolo and Groen stress the reform's negative impact on women, whose careers are more often incomplete, and call for a raised minimum pension and better recognition of arduous work. For this camp, the right lever is not working time but revenues: contributions on capital income, the fight against tax fraud, a higher minimum pension.

The criticism, voiced by the right, is that returning to 65 would cost several billion a year and shift the bill onto future generations or onto taxes. In turn, its defenders reply that working until 67 is a fiction for many, who cannot physically hold on, and that a later "legal" age mainly translates into more sick and unemployed older people without a full pension.

Where do Vooruit and the Vlaams Belang stand on pensions?

Vooruit holds an in-between position because it is both socialist and a member of the Arizona coalition. The party backed the government agreement, hence part of the reform, while pushing to soften its effects: a higher minimum pension, attention to end-of-career workers and a postponement of certain measures. Hence its ~ on lengthening and its + on solidarity: it refuses to pick a single camp.

The Vlaams Belang, for its part, combines a social discourse with an identity-based logic. It opposes raising the age for "our own" workers and defends higher pensions, but without supporting the tax or contribution hikes the left proposes to fund them, and often conditioning access to rights on nationality or length of residence. This combination earns it two ~: it fits neither squarely in the "working time" lever nor in the "solidarity through revenues" lever.

These positions are a reminder that a left-right ranking is not enough. Two parties can refuse the age rise for opposite reasons — universal solidarity on one side, national priority on the other — and have almost nothing else in common.

Bonus-malus or a return to 65: what do the votes say?

Beyond the manifestos, the late-May 2026 vote in the Chamber confirms the dividing line. The reform was adopted by the Arizona majority parties — N-VA, MR, Vooruit, CD&V, Les Engagés — against the opposition of the PS, Ecolo, the PTB·PVDA, Groen and the Vlaams Belang, each for its own reasons. The PTB·PVDA immediately announced it would contest the text.

Testing promises against actions is the best antidote to electoral marketing. A party can talk about "fair pensions" in both camps; it is the votes and the government agreement that reveal the lever actually pulled. Vooruit's case is telling: socialist on paper, it voted for the reform in the name of government cohesion, which explains its split profile in the table.

To dig further, the comparator lets you put two parties side by side on pensions, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the quiz starts from your priorities rather than a manifesto. The methodology details how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best: the real effect of an age rise or a return to 65 depends on the economic cycle, on employment among the over-55s and on funding choices that go beyond pensions alone. Nor does it factor in your personal situation — an arduous job, a complete or fragmented career, healthy life expectancy — which often weighs more than a national average.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls, then to test this overview against what you expect from a pension system.