decide that the financing of pensions will no longer be entirely based on work”
Ihe government is hitting us on all tones: “There is no alternative! » It’s the return of “TINA” Thatcherite, in the Elisabeth Borne fashion: we must work more to finance pensions, because otherwise the system will not survive. Everyone knows that this is not the case, that we are faced with a purely political choice: that of Emmanuel Macron to prove to the right – and by the way to our European partners who are worried about the extent of the French deficits – that he is a reformer.
Even if it means adopting the most unfair measure of all: raising the retirement age will put all the effort on those who started working early, by largely exempting executives and those who earn the best their living and practice trades. less painful. The rejection is massive, in the streets and in Parliament, and I fully associate myself with it. That being said, refusing this regression does not exempt the left from thinking about what it would do if it were in power.
Because beyond the injustice of the current project, there remains a reality: the number of active contributors is permanently reduced and is only 1.7 for 1 retiree. The number of new retirees per year (700,000) and the increase in life expectancy increase expenditure a little each year.
43 annuities of contribution, it is already too much
Moreover, integrating hardship criteria – which is fair – will necessarily have a cost, since the people concerned will work for a shorter time. Finally, increasing the level of the most modest pensions, taking into account choppy careers and maternity periods for women will have an additional cost. To say – which is true – that there is no urgency does not mean that there is nothing to do to consolidate our system.
For years, the reasoning has been based on three indicators and all reforms revolve around three possible measures: the contribution period, the retirement age and the amount of pensions. As the level of pensions is not a conceivable adjustment variable, the trade-off is always made on the other two variables: under the Sarkozy five-year term, the pivotal age was pushed back to 62; and under the Hollande five-year term, the setting of 43 annual subscriptions for people born from 1973.
It is already a lot and it is impossible to go beyond. We can even think that 43 years is already too much, including for those who do some studies and start working around 22-23 years old: who imagines that they all work until 65 or 66 years old tomorrow? The right can be; progressives don’t.
You have 59.62% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.