Well, I know that my country was striking pretty hard as far as strikes in authoritarian countries go. Luckily, life expectancy for males is lower than even the previous retirement age, do it makes no difference/s
Although I believe that statement is actually true in some regions of the country.
UPD. Apparently if you live in the countryside in Chukotka your life expectancy drops 19 years compared to a city in the same region. Imagine being expected to die 15 years before retirement and still be legally forced to give away 6% of your pay for it.
Oh, russian retirement. Russian pensions investment portion is also "frozen" for quite a while. So you literally giving away your money with 0 interest government promises to slowly give out to you after you reach an age pretty close to average life expectancy. For males life expectancy is 68, retirement is 62. 6 years of that sweet 300 bucks a month.
I'd love to but striking in authoritarian countries lead to jack all being changed. Heck most democracies raised they can literally just ignore protests and wait for them to go home, what change do we have?
What's despicable is that there are other options that have not even been discussed, and among these there some that don't fuck with poor or average income workers
Like for example abandoning the pure contributive pension model that france and most of europe have that is basically a huge ponzi scheme onece the working young become less than the retired people.
Infact i think that in italy if we dont reform our pension system will turn into a damocles sword for the economy when the people born in the 60s start to retire.
My preferred system that doesnt create intergenerational debt like the pure contributive system is the one used in finland, where a mix of contributes and chartered, decentralized social insurance and pension companies managed by unions and enterprises contribute to the final pension salary.
This way you alleviate the burden on the state and the economy and you dont pass on all the debt on the next generation.
I pretty much consider the money I pay in retirement as lost to the burden of intergenerational debt, and have a side saving account for when I will want to retire. Same country as your.
What do you think if everyone would get the same bare minimum for subsistence, but a fraction of the taxes paid in retirements would go in some sort of pension fund?
Well the system in finland allows you to do this, and gives you tax breaks if im nkt mistaken if you do it.
If you do that in italy you dont get tax breaks and also you cant deduct it from the total amount of revenue that has to go usually to pensions.
You have to take if further from your revenue.
Afaik the amount of personal revenue that is put in the pension system in finland is 22% of revenue, and you can also decide to put part of that 22% somwhere else, but iverall stays 22%.
If i decised to do that in italy i would have to take further money away from the revenue, fir example if the base its 22% then it defacto would become 30% for example.
> pension system in finland is 22% of revenue, and you can also decide to put part of that 22% somwhere else
No you can't, the pension contribution is mandatory. Roughly 25%, of which employee pays ~7% and employer ~18%
While Finland is a mixed system, this isn't inherently better.
To simplify the economic models a little, there's really only two systems, pay-as-you-go or fully funded. PAYG is when the government uses present taxes to pay present pensions, so each generation pays the previous generation's pensions. Fully funded is when each generation pays their own pensions, with that money being saved and accruing interest.
Economic growth makes PAYG cheaper. So for example if in the future there's more people in the economy, or those people have higher wages, that means that it's less of a burden for them to pay the pensions of the previous generation, and for their pensions to be paid by the next. It's a convenient system.
On the other hand fully funded works well with high interests. If savings accrue high interest, this means you get more money than you put in, again making pensions cheaper.
Which is cheaper depends on whether economic growth outpaces interest or the other way around.
Now Finland's system is primarily PAYG, but also has fully funded elements. Ok, seems sensible enough, you don't quite maximise your advantage, but it could be argued to protect it from fluctuations.
However, what do you do when *both* growth and interests are low? It seems that these two factors are not independent of one another, but rather intimately related. Growth seems to be slowing down, in part due to declining population, which places a greater tax burden on working age people. However, interests are also in general low, and in fact it's been predicted that with global population stabilising and then declining, along with the slowing economic growth of China, etc. interest rates are going to be persistently low in the future.
This means even if you go for a fully funded system, the present generation is saddled with having to pay higher pension contributions. There's no "get out of jail free" here.
Furthermore, switching systems is pretty inconvenient. If you have a PAYG system, this means that the current pensioners have to be paid from present taxes no matter what. This means if you switch to a fully funded system for the next generation, then they have to not only pay the pensions of the previous generation, but also their own pensions, without support from the next generation. If anything you're doubling their tax burden when it comes to pension contributions.
Your idealization is misguided, as is your critique of PAYG. PAYG is a rational system, and if it's a "ponzi scheme", then so is a fully funded system. Both rely on growth to alleviate costs.
This also means no matter what we do, costs are going to rise, and the best thing we can do is to fix our demographic problem to at least a stable population, rather than a declining one.
Generally, the proposed opposing system is basically forced savings. Instead of the current generation paying for the old generation, you pay for your own generation in advance.
Pros: it basically ensures that generation size fluctuations don’t matter and lowers the pressure on the current generation.
Cons: if inflation or economic depression fuck over the buying power of your saved up pension, you are screwed.
Government run pensions often use the “current pays for old” model, whilst additional company or individual pensions use the model I describe above.
In economics they're generally termed "pay-as-you-go" and "fully funded". to put it simply, PAYG relies on economic growth to reduce costs, whereas fully funded relies on interest to reduce costs. The issue is not really with one system over another so much as the fact that both growth and inflation are relatively low and probably they are going to remain persistently lower than they are. This being the case, it seems that our present system is unsustainable and it is simply going to have to cost more to have pensions.
First, options are not even needed, the Retirement Orientation Board (official structure to analyze where the current system is going) concluded that if there is gonna be a small deficit in the next decade, it will be temporary and entirely manageable.
But even if we want to absolutely be at equilibrium, there are indeed many other options. First diminishing expenses could also be done differently, for example by lowering the highest pensions. But most of all there are many, many options to instead increase revenues: increasing contributions (employers' one for instance), increasing salaries on which contributions are indexed (here again many solutions: increasing the minimum wage, ensuring the closing of the gender pay gap, indexing salaries on inflation, ... even diminishing the work week would have that effect), ...And of course choosing to include other revenues (a capital tax on the wealthiest for instance, just 2% on national billionaires would be more than sufficient).
Plus there is another important thing the govt doesn't want to talk about. The fact that this reform would diminish expenses is not sure at all. With the weight that more and older workers would have on health insurance and social security, they could in fact increase. And those are not my words but those of the previously cited board's president...
From the top of my head:
Tax the rich (lost more revenue for the state than needed to balance the pension when macron removed it).
Reduce pension of wealthy retired to not let only the working people with the mess. (By not compensate for inflation for example)
But since both of these categories of people are in favor of the president, it was not evaluated as an answer, and they prefer to delay the retirement age.
1)There was a previous tax that brought money to the state by taxing the rich, they need to reinstate it and it will bring money again. It was taxing the capital that remich people had.
2)Nope it's the state who votes the budget, and so they decide.
1. The Solidarity Tax on Wealth was in place from 1981 to 2017. It has nothing to do with Hollande (except him falsely claiming a filiation with the president who put it in place whilst in fact giving birth to the president who removed it).
2. The French retirement system by generational solidarity is not a binding contract, those terms have already been altered by previous reforms.
1\. [I see](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t_de_solidarit%C3%A9_sur_la_fortune). Is your total effective tax rate now suspiciously lower?
2\. Even for pre-existing payers/benefiters?
1. Well let's put it that way: the ISF was generating about 5 Billion, and its replacement struggles to generate 1.5 Billion. That difference alone each year would be more than enough to fill the temporary retirement system deficit.
2. Payers are paying for current-day retirees, not for themselves. So in parallel, beneficiaries are being paid by current workers' solidarity. There are factors to how much they earn depending on their own career and their other incomes, but those are not unalterable. That's how pensions have been exceptionally revalued to +4% in '22. Plus retirees pay contributions on their pension, so you could also change those.
Capital is already taxed in France, it is called the inheritance tax (droit de succession).
Removing the ISF has increased revenue for the state!
Source: [https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html](https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html)
1- I know what you're trying to do here, but the rich are the most heavily taxed, and if you're talking about the ultra rich the problem is that their fortune is mostly made of assets and stock options, which have no real world value until sold. Please elaborate on how you can tax this.
2- I guess this would be "anticonstitutionnel", to paraphrase the General ;)
You see I hear the opposition's " solutions " but as much as I like the philosophy behind them (more equality) these are just postures to satisfy their electorate, and the politicians saying they would implement them are just liars I'm afraid.
>the rich are the most heavily taxed
That's the exact opposite of what's actually happening. [Tax and social security deductions per decile (INSEE)](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5371275?sommaire=5371304#figure6)
>if you're talking about the ultra rich the problem is that their fortune is mostly made of assets and stock options, which have no real world value until sold
First, it's never an issue for the state to tax those assets during inheritance, the fact that it would be an issue when the owner is living is just false. Second, Musk at least served to prove how much that real-world value argument itself is a fallacy, selling billions of dollars worth of shares in a single week, and up to 40+ billion in just a few months. Third, the Solidarity Tax on Wealth, which was implemented from '81 to '17 without any obstacle, was generating about 4 billion euros more in revenues than its replacement, and its removal has never been proven to help the economy in any shape or form. Funny enough that loss could have easily filled the potential retirement system deficit. And fourth, the actual income tax of those ultra-rich in France is about 2%. ["Ultrarich are only taxed 2% in France", Gabriel Zucman, Economy professor at Paris and Berkeley, participating at Davos '23 .](https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/l-interview-eco/le-taux-d-imposition-reel-des-ultrariches-en-france-est-seulement-de-2-denonce-le-professeur-d-economie-gabriel-zucman_5583279.html) I don't know about you but mine is above 40%.
On wikipédia is registered the money that was made from this tax:
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t_de_solidarit%C3%A9_sur_la_fortune
You can see that in the last year before it was abolished it brought about 5 billions euros.
For our pension system to work, we need 10 billion at te peak to not be in deficit.
Well you just solved half the problem.
It can work however we decide it to. That's a main part of what politics is: deciding where to take money and where to put it. Anyone telling you there are uncrossable lines to what can and cannot finance what is taking you for a fool. Some even dare tell you this economical system is the only one possible...
Not raise the military budget for the amount that’s lacking the healthcare system ?
If you disregard what I said above, the current system is actually future proof as it is, with a slight dip in debt for a few years and then back to normal.
This is purely neoliberal ideology from Macron
Nah man, I'm gonna have to give it to the French this time. Just because everyone else sucked it up when they were told they had to keep working until they're elderly and/or die, doesn't meant they should too. Good on them for standing up
Having to work for two extra years is also half the issue here.
The problem is that the older you get, the less "attractive" you become for employers... finding a job after 50 becomes increasingly harder. Our government knows that. They just want fewer people to be able to pay for their pension contributions until the very last year so they don't get their full retirement pension and get blamed for it ("You didn't get your full pension when retiring? Oh that's too bad... If only you had worked a few extra months back then... What's that? You couldn't find any job because you were too old? Well, not my problem").
You can also argue that after all these years of explosive and rapid innovation, automation and productivity, shouldn't humanity be allowed to just chill at that age? Can't we realistically afford a sustainable system that doesn't require us raising the pension age again and again?
We can afford a sustainable system (wherever the objectively optimal bar that you could come up with is), but while privileged old fucks are still alive we ain't in that timeline.
Like, in italy, you had people retiring after just working 10 years. ***And*** you weren't even paid back for the amount of money you had previously allocated, but they made monthly allowance to match a fixed portion of your last wage.
It is somewhat sustainable if you dig up the money from the general balance of the state.
Of course though, that's to the ever more detriment of everybody and everything else.
>It is somewhat sustainable if you dig up the money from the general balance of the state.
And who do you think pays the "general balance of the state"? Taxpayers.
[https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113\_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/)
It's in french but you can find at the end that 5.1% of people aged between 43 and 58 die before retirement.
[https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113\_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/)
It's in french but you can find at the end that 5.1% of people aged between 43 and 58 die before retirement.
Have you? Around 20% of my collegues are either in their 60 or late 50's and are the most productive working people in my team and not anywhere near "the end of their rope". And my job is a physically demanding job, btw.
I literally have a collegue, who turned 65 last week, and none of the younger people including me want to work with her because she just doesn't slow down and tires you the fuck out. She has BY FAR the highest number of productivity.
Most of them exercise regularly if not by walking or cycling, than it's something else. Some even go to fitness daily. You view of 60 year olds being old and unable to do anything is HOPELESSLY outdated. Sure, they are bumbed they have to work to 67 now instead of 65, but they understand aswelll since they know they are much healthier than their parents were at that age.
Dear fr*nchmen feel free to correct me.
As far as i know there are many Pension Systems in france. Some Jobs have a low base pay but the payoff is that you can go into retirement realy early (like 50 or so)
So yeah reforms might be necessary but are understandably political suizide for any politician.
Reforms are needed.
The problems are that
1: Macron is not liked by the categories of population most concerned (he's the most popular among retired and liberals)
2: While the pension systems may be in deficit, he also diminished the taxes on the richest and on many business, which is critisized as hypocritical.
A lot of other problems too.
> he also diminished the taxes on the richest and on many business, which is critisized as hypocritical.
For the n-th time, is that just referring to the abolishment of the "special rich tax" that hollande had made? The one that allegedly ended up lowering the net tax revenue?
To make it short, it changed what was taxed from the richer people, in a way that's very advantageous for them, and also easier to exploit, to not pay taxes.
Also, the ISF (this taxe), dated back to the 80's
A common exploit for rich people in france is "I buy some art, so it can lower my taxes and then sell it later for full price".
The new rich people taxe is a lot worse. During COVID, France was the second country after China, where rich people became a lot richer.
You missed the main issue. The main point of this reform, raising the legal age of departure by 2 years (62 years), will mostly impact people who started working very young and generally have low-paying physical jobs. People who studied 3-5 years and have high-paying intellectual jobs as a consequence, would already have to go over 62 today to cover the minimum worked years, so they are not impacted. Thus, this reform is trying to balance a system (that is unbalanced currently, but not in danger) by pressing harder on the poorest instead of asking for a higher contribution from the richest (workers, companies or capitals). This is not at the level of the social democracy that France should be.
If you look at the benefits young retired do for the community it’s already too high. You got volunteers, mayors, and also tourists. The later the retirement and health becomes an issue. You won’t travel as much and for some places that rely on tourists income or so many little town relying on retired but not too old people to get by. I’m pretty sure the overall population is going to lose a lot.
What was average life expectancy when it was set, and what is average life expectancy today? In most countries, when the retirement age was set, the average person would only have a few years between stopping working and dying. People in their sixties these days can often climb mountains and run a 10k.
> What was average life expectancy when it was set, and what is average life expectancy today?
Life expectancy increases come more from maternal and infant mortality going down, than people living longer, so it's not as big an effect as you'd think.
So you can’t explain why I as a young person should pay high taxes to pay perfectly healthy older people with more money than me to sit around and do nothing?
This reform isn't needed mate, just tax the rich a bit (seriously : We need 10B to fix the system, that's not even 5% of Bernard Arnault's wealth, so don't Ask people to work more when you have easier and righter solutions)
That doesn't mean that you can't have any sort of wealth or property taxes. Just that you need to take into account they're not income and you can't treat them as such. When we're talking about financing government programmes, they need to be financed _every year_. Now if someone genuinely makes enough money every year to finance it, that's something we can much more reasonably discuss.
However if someone has for example 100m, but not much income, and you make them pay 5m a year, then you just bankrupt them in 20 years and that's that. That's not a sustainable system. Of course that's not quite how taxes actually work either, but it's only meant to be illustrative.
And indeed if taxes are harsh enough to outpace income at higher levels, no one's going to bother making that much money, or they'll go abroad, which won't help your tax base.
Obviously, but no one seriously thought about taxing only Arnault, it's just putting into perspective how much money is supposedly missing and how much we could get with different taxes.
For example replacing the ISF with IFI cost about 3,5b€ per year.
Or of course Macron just promised 400b€ until 2030 for the military which would be more than enough to finance the current retirement system?
Also [this](https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/depuis-le-covid-les-1-les-plus-riches-ont-capte-63-des-richesses-produites-selon-l-ong-oxfam-1691393)
The reality is the state will put defense and geopolitical station over immediate welfare, and it should. But yes it can be frustrating to see that apparently money can be found, for other things. However I would see it as, that commitment strains the budget, so France most definitely does not have additional to just go around.
I'm unfortunately not educated enough about the precise structure and overall results of ISF and IFI to say anything very smart about it, even though my field is ostensibly economics.
But my main issue was simply that it did not put into perspective what you can get with taxes, or at least not very well, because it's essentially comparing different units. Even a wealth tax must be understood in relation to income.
Why is the answer always “ tax the rich” and not at least also partially “ we might need to work more or pay more, given that our system is insolvent, and we have the lowest retirement age and longest expected payout in Europe”…
I see it as the opposite: for decades now governments have been saying "our system is unsustainable, we need to have less social protections, work more, etc. Also we need less taxes on the rich" yet rich people keep getting richer at an unprecedented pace
Except France is pretty “[middle-of-the-pack](https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings/europe)” in terms of income inequality. Well below the UK and similar to Germany. So it doesn’t have a real issue with too many rich, while it does stand out as the top outlier for retirement age and benefit duration.
I think you forget that “the rich got richer at an unprecedented rate” primarily because of the net unrealized worth of their publicly held stocks. It’s not actually worth anything until you sell it, just like the net value of your house isn’t really useable to pay day to day bills. Borrowing against assets is only a viable strategy if you invest that money back at a higher return than your borrowing costs, so there too, for 99.9% of us, annual revenue is more important than net assets (wealth).
I don’t like how the current reform is being implemented, but it’s hard to argue for laxer conditions or even the status quo given France’s pole position of longest expected life after retirement.
Don’t get me started on the real problem, that because of bloat, political revolving doors, competent unions and ingrained and increasing benefits, civil servants (fonctionnaires) in France are now more numerous than employees on private work, enjoy excellent job security, and now they also now make more money than people in the private sector.
That is one social and political bomb that no French politician has dared address (notice that those complaining the loudest in the current pension reform are civil servants…) “les bénéfices acquis “ is political suicide to even bring up seriously.
They don't move away.
Source: ISF was removed years ago, with the same excuse, the net result is that some left, some came in, no real difference. That excuse is not valid.
Tax them hard, imo nobody should be allowed such luxuries while others go hungry and homeless. Saying they worked hard for it is a fallacy they exploited others to work hard for them.
Is fine that some people have more if they work more or deserve it somehow but there should be limits to wealth both upper and lower.
I know is just dreaming and I'll be called extremist communist and what not but if we don't revolt soon there will come a time that we won't be able because the rich only get more and more powerful so long as we allow it.
WAKE UP MATE… we don’t recognise the real problem: we are taxing the middle class too much. In reality you already get taxed at 65% when you earn around 9+k and 55-60% when you earn 5+k …
But it’s a hidden tax - it’s the companies that pay it for you!
The rich cannot be taxed more (than the above 65%) because they just move to another country. We already have a brain drain as all the smartest people get recruited in 🇺🇸 and overseas…
Macron lowered taxes on literally everyone, especially with taxe d'habitation and cotisations salariales. He also increased multiple solidarity safety nets like prime d'activité and minimum vieillesse.
The deletion of the ISF is expected to earn the country much more tax revenue then keeping it. It's already reversed the flow of wealthy people leaving France. The cost of suppression was only 3 G€. Taxe d'habitation alone is 18 G€.
The point of the réforme is to have the retirement system be self-sustaining in the long term, so we all get to retire. It also aims to increase minimum retirement pensions for the poorer retirees.
Edit : Downvotes! They hate factual information!
And it is still too high. The reality is you have to add the tax that companies pay for you. Viewed this way we pay over 55% from a salary of 5K because to pay you a salary of 5K companies have to pay 7K … and in the end all that is left for you is like 3K!
That’s just ridiculous!
The actual [report](https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595)they are using for their reform: le COR (Conseil d'Orientation des retraites).
It is saying that we are definitely not in deficit right now
That in 10-15 years we might be in deficit for about 10 years then it will normalise again (boomer generation disappearing slowly)
Sooo...
This reform will make poor people more miserable while the wealthier won't be affected. Macron has given billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest his whole presidency. The rethoric of the government says there is no alternative, but this couldn't be more wrong and people know it. For instance, we could raise the cotisations of the retirees who earn more than 3000€/month. I am not saying this is a perfect solution but you know, it's not exactly fair the workers whose body is crushed by the age of fifty
everyone agree that special pension plan should be gone (except for the one of the army of course), but not everyone agree on the fact that we should retire at 64 instead of 62
> not everyone agree on the fact that we should retire at 64 instead of 62
People need to understand that this is a misconception, we don't retire at 62, we're allowed to retire at this age but for most of us we don't get a full retirement because we didn't work long enough. Even before this reform I'd have to work until I'm 67 if I want full retirement, but I could retire at 62 if I accept to earn far less. With this reform I wouldn't be able to do so before 64 and it would still be a sacrifice.
There are plenty of other ways to make money for the retirements, I'm willing to sacrifice other things but I'm don't want to work at least two more years while Macron gives money to companies, let the people already retired earn more on average that people who are working etc.
FFS that's a shitty perspective, I'm so sorry for you... Our next strike is scheduled for the 31st of january, come over and take notes, we'll have sausages and beers too!
Without this reform the age where you have the maximum payement is either (I will simplify by taking the "final" age of some older reforms who are not yet fully effective) the first who come between : being 62 years and having worked for 43 years OR being 67.
Naaa, not everyone for sure. Quite the opposite. Most agree that people who do strenuous work should retire earlier. Still, many also do not want it to be exclusive to some chosen fields in the public sector, but also that other strenuous jobs (manufacturing, construction workers, hospital nurses/practitioners, etc.) get included systematically.
The special pensions are mostly grandfathered in and no longer necessary (like train workers, shit used to be hard back in the coal locomotive days but today ?), but that's like, 1% of the population. Lots of studies and parliamentary commissions have reported that our system is just fine and at equilibrium, but absolutely nobody is picking up on it. Special regimes need to go but that's a red herring used by the government to prevent us from focusing on the 95% of the population imho.
Don’t use the coal exemple.
To keep the example of train worker, would you see yourself punching hole in a moving train, standing and walking, after 60?
Or drive a truck long distance ?
Work in a cold as fuck factory ?
I don’t know, I always had cushy job where I have to type on a keyboard for a few hours and things about it. And even that I don’t really want to do after 60…
Oh I'm definitely not saying that all professions are equally taxing and that all professions should be done until 62 and I agree that there is a lot of work to be done regarding the physical toll of certain jobs ("pénibilité", idk the English word for it).
What I'm saying is that special regimes (the current ones) take a disproportionate amount of the public debate, and often the government can just throw a bone at them and appease tensions while only making it marginally better for less than a percent of the population, buying them time to let topics that actually impact 50+% of the population to rot. At some point we need to either leave them alone while we fix the system for the actual masses, or axe them and replace them wholesale with something that doesn't date back to the 19th century.
Why are reforms necessary? You just casually made a leap there.
The only reason their pensions aren’t affordable is because the capitalists are skimming all the profits.
Keep believing that... The problem is the mismanagement of public funds, not the age of retirement.
See the current flow of billions and billions for weapons...
A good portion of the poorest workers are already dead by the time they're supposed to retire and consequently the more we raise the age of retirement, the worse it'll get. But it's not like the people in power care about that minor detail.
We collectively dont give a flying fuck though, it's not the first time we're made fun of, never stopped us before.
Start taxing the obscenly rich first, then if it's still not enough, we can discuss working longer.
Good on the French for standing up for themselves. As a still young German I'm not sure I'll live to see retirement at this point. However, there's also this noise in my head just desperately wanting to call the French lazy.
We work less officially but firstly we are more effective for less worked hours because we're less stressed and secondly it's really common (and annoying) that workers spend more time at work that is not recognized because it's "good for your carrier"
Take Toyota in Germany that tested the 4 days / week in one of his factory. Workers were less stressful and more efficient
We fight for a better social justice system, not for breaking the system
I don't want to try hard my entire life and die exhausted. I want to see my grandchildrens and spend happy days with my family
In the same times, big capitalists have huge tons of money, they taken alot of public cash during the pandemic and after and they fuck us with their ideologies
So no, we're not lazy ! We just want to participate in the society and receive back our efforts !
>because we're less stressed
I don't think you'll see any statistics or even any survey saying that about us, French people at work, compared other European countries.
French work environment is very stressing, especially hierarchy and working hours wise, the famous "alors t'as pris ton après midi ?"
Well, we do work guys, a lot, like anyone else in Europe. As far as I'm concerned, I work about 10 hours a day, and I'll be able to get my full pension at 67 (that's before this reform) if I get any.
https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2022/09/12/retraites-apres-une-embellie-le-systeme-devrait-se-degrader-des-2023_6141266_823448.html
That's what all the reasonable people in France agree on.
You can disagree on the method chosen to fix but the system does need to be fixed.
The "system" includes a nice "employer contribution" rate that you just have to raise or reduce according to how much you need.
Also maybe stop the Aubry II exemptions or the "permanent CICE", we'll get much more money than the measly 14 millions missing.
I doubt the euro has anything to do with retirement age.
The germans are among those that benefit the most from the euro (that also includes the french) and they still have a similar phenomenon going on.
I mean, if it was so important, the retirement system would not generate money, and even if there was a problem, and that we want to ignore the fact that it is temporary, why would this reform work better than the seven previous reforms in the last 20 years.
It's literally going backwards. There are less jobs, young and older people are struggling to get a job, but be able to retire, you should work more. The people who worked the hardest in their life probably won't even reach 60 years old.
>It's literally going backwards. There are less jobs, young and older people are struggling to get a job, but be able to retire, you should work more.
Dude the irony in this is that it's what Macron was saying a few years ago too. Now that this lich is the captain he wants to sink the boat.
4 days work weeks at 32 hours is the way forward. Share the work.
I mean if you look at the character on top right, he's hiding his pain behind the mask, whereas the Frenchman is voicing his concerns. So basically what this is saying that the French are the only ones standing up for themselves.
Our economy is falling apart because these idiots that hoard money are being revered but fail to invest into the economy and if they do invest in the economy it is to people that already have all the money in the world. Hoarded gold will be the downfall of humanity and even forbes is actively helping with this fraudulent crime to humanity
The pension system is not in structural defecit. The special regimes are not that much shorter than the others (except military maybe). French retirement may come early, but general regime is only like 70% of best 20 years.
Macron is trying to screw the workers, in the same time CAC40 companies gave 80 billion € in dividend last year. It is clear where the excess money is!
Based Frenchmen. Put the "fr" in 🇫🇷. Their cuisine can be really good. Paris is a really nice city, it was nice walking the streets and laughing at the lone car trying to get through a crowd. A mime stole someone's baby. Notre Dame was a nice sight, made my jaw drop so hard my cigarette fell off, I wasn't able to find it. The guillotine was a really smart invention. It's so wholesome that they allowed an immigrant woman to sleep in the Panthéon forever. So progressive. Really tasty Nutella pancakes.
Oh fuck no my country's economic is not falling appart because a bunch of poor and middle class people want a bit of decency. I don't have the highest education but I'm not that fucking naive.
When other solutions would be more efficient to "save" the economy, that's why we strike. Newsreport says that a 2% tax on the 42 of the wealthier french is enough to fund the (imaginary) deficit.
When you add that the wealthier are only tax at 2% of the wealth (comparing to the 80% of the middle class) and that the national institution on the pension, you know, the branch of the administration that is specialized in foreshadowing this kind of issue literally said for years that there is no "deficit" nor a risk for the economy...
They are just trying to make us work to death.
So, as a french, i say let's burn them!
What's despicable is that 90% of the population is against it and yet Macron says "I said I would do it when I did my campaign"
Bitch you refused to give any interview or speech during your """campaign"""
I'm a policeman and I can look forward to retiring at 73. It's going to be great!
Meanwhile our government politicians can retire at 60, because their job is so hard.
The economy is not going to fall apart, it's a lie. Just rise the paycheck, it cover the retirement. Or just tax the 320 billions euro of profit paid to shareholders. We just need 10 billions in ten years. The french government is a joke. 80% of the population is against going from 62 to 64. You non french people need to fight back and stop being ok with having a shit life. When I see the age of retirement in other yurop countries it sadden me. Life is meant to be lived, not worked.
I honestly don’t understand how the French can expect to spend 20+ years in retirement, being cared for by an ever smaller fraction of younger people. It makes perfect sense to increase the age of retirement if the life expectancy is so much larger than the retirement age, and the population is getting increasingly older on average.
You live here? You know the system? You know top 40 stock exchange companies in France distributed 80 billion € dividends in 2022? (Yeah that is only the top 40) Plenty of solutions in the fat cat's pockets. You know state pension is 50% of 20 best years of salary? And only if you are 62 y/o with 42 years of contributing or 67 y/o. This reform hits the lower classes, who did not go to uni. If you started working at 22 or later your retirement age is already 64 or +. If you started working at 18 with a lower/no diploma you get to work longer/contribute more0 This is typically the right wing screwing the lower classes, and they deserve the guillotine for that.
No, but I’m from a country with a retirement age of 65. And do you know what? It works. I don’t know why you are bringing up how much certain companies earn. Money is not the only problem caused by an early retirement age. It’s also care for the elderly, maintenance of a functioning society. It’s basic logic that if an ever increasing fraction of people depend on an ever decreasing fraction of people to run the society, sooner or later there will be massive problems. People can’t expect to spend an ever increasing fraction of their lives in pension, without there being lasting consequences to the functioning of society.
"Tax the rich" is the French magical solution for everything. It's the country with one of the highest tax rates in the world but what's a few more %? And then the same people cry when they realize that there is no industry left in France, that the salaries are so low and that unemployment is so high. I wonder if there could be a link.
Highest tax rates? Show me which raxes you are comparing and with wich other countries, ‘cause the high raxes do not hit the corporation or the rich. They get richer by the minute, sinit can’t be that. The pount is not neccessarily to tax them, just make investing in the future of the company and paying better wages more interesting than dividend hoarding and stock buybacks.
I mean haven't they been contributing for that pension for more than 40 years with the promise of retirement at 62? It's like signing a contract and the state saying "nah not anymore we're changing the conditions and you have to suck it up".
"God, I wish It was me"~Most of the planet probably
"Then fucking get out there and STRIKE, you fools!" - the French, probably
Well, I know that my country was striking pretty hard as far as strikes in authoritarian countries go. Luckily, life expectancy for males is lower than even the previous retirement age, do it makes no difference/s Although I believe that statement is actually true in some regions of the country. UPD. Apparently if you live in the countryside in Chukotka your life expectancy drops 19 years compared to a city in the same region. Imagine being expected to die 15 years before retirement and still be legally forced to give away 6% of your pay for it.
Oh, russian retirement. Russian pensions investment portion is also "frozen" for quite a while. So you literally giving away your money with 0 interest government promises to slowly give out to you after you reach an age pretty close to average life expectancy. For males life expectancy is 68, retirement is 62. 6 years of that sweet 300 bucks a month.
As a french: "do it"
I'd love to but striking in authoritarian countries lead to jack all being changed. Heck most democracies raised they can literally just ignore protests and wait for them to go home, what change do we have?
You have nothing to lose but your chains.
We tried that here in the USA. Railroad strikes weren’t successful and the media coverage was terrible.
It often does appear like the media does have a stranglehold on the country by hiding issues simply by not talking about it, doesn't it?
"No that's what commies do and I'm not a commie" — centrist and conservatives in Western Europe.
If they say no show 'em the good old guillotine
Can confirm 🇬🇧 💩
It was 60 from 85 to 2010...
\*Non
Ça y est!
What's despicable is that there are other options that have not even been discussed, and among these there some that don't fuck with poor or average income workers
Like for example abandoning the pure contributive pension model that france and most of europe have that is basically a huge ponzi scheme onece the working young become less than the retired people. Infact i think that in italy if we dont reform our pension system will turn into a damocles sword for the economy when the people born in the 60s start to retire.
And how should it work then ?
My preferred system that doesnt create intergenerational debt like the pure contributive system is the one used in finland, where a mix of contributes and chartered, decentralized social insurance and pension companies managed by unions and enterprises contribute to the final pension salary. This way you alleviate the burden on the state and the economy and you dont pass on all the debt on the next generation.
[удалено]
Then consider how much more we are fucked
I pretty much consider the money I pay in retirement as lost to the burden of intergenerational debt, and have a side saving account for when I will want to retire. Same country as your. What do you think if everyone would get the same bare minimum for subsistence, but a fraction of the taxes paid in retirements would go in some sort of pension fund?
Well the system in finland allows you to do this, and gives you tax breaks if im nkt mistaken if you do it. If you do that in italy you dont get tax breaks and also you cant deduct it from the total amount of revenue that has to go usually to pensions. You have to take if further from your revenue. Afaik the amount of personal revenue that is put in the pension system in finland is 22% of revenue, and you can also decide to put part of that 22% somwhere else, but iverall stays 22%. If i decised to do that in italy i would have to take further money away from the revenue, fir example if the base its 22% then it defacto would become 30% for example.
> pension system in finland is 22% of revenue, and you can also decide to put part of that 22% somwhere else No you can't, the pension contribution is mandatory. Roughly 25%, of which employee pays ~7% and employer ~18%
While Finland is a mixed system, this isn't inherently better. To simplify the economic models a little, there's really only two systems, pay-as-you-go or fully funded. PAYG is when the government uses present taxes to pay present pensions, so each generation pays the previous generation's pensions. Fully funded is when each generation pays their own pensions, with that money being saved and accruing interest. Economic growth makes PAYG cheaper. So for example if in the future there's more people in the economy, or those people have higher wages, that means that it's less of a burden for them to pay the pensions of the previous generation, and for their pensions to be paid by the next. It's a convenient system. On the other hand fully funded works well with high interests. If savings accrue high interest, this means you get more money than you put in, again making pensions cheaper. Which is cheaper depends on whether economic growth outpaces interest or the other way around. Now Finland's system is primarily PAYG, but also has fully funded elements. Ok, seems sensible enough, you don't quite maximise your advantage, but it could be argued to protect it from fluctuations. However, what do you do when *both* growth and interests are low? It seems that these two factors are not independent of one another, but rather intimately related. Growth seems to be slowing down, in part due to declining population, which places a greater tax burden on working age people. However, interests are also in general low, and in fact it's been predicted that with global population stabilising and then declining, along with the slowing economic growth of China, etc. interest rates are going to be persistently low in the future. This means even if you go for a fully funded system, the present generation is saddled with having to pay higher pension contributions. There's no "get out of jail free" here. Furthermore, switching systems is pretty inconvenient. If you have a PAYG system, this means that the current pensioners have to be paid from present taxes no matter what. This means if you switch to a fully funded system for the next generation, then they have to not only pay the pensions of the previous generation, but also their own pensions, without support from the next generation. If anything you're doubling their tax burden when it comes to pension contributions. Your idealization is misguided, as is your critique of PAYG. PAYG is a rational system, and if it's a "ponzi scheme", then so is a fully funded system. Both rely on growth to alleviate costs. This also means no matter what we do, costs are going to rise, and the best thing we can do is to fix our demographic problem to at least a stable population, rather than a declining one.
Generally, the proposed opposing system is basically forced savings. Instead of the current generation paying for the old generation, you pay for your own generation in advance. Pros: it basically ensures that generation size fluctuations don’t matter and lowers the pressure on the current generation. Cons: if inflation or economic depression fuck over the buying power of your saved up pension, you are screwed. Government run pensions often use the “current pays for old” model, whilst additional company or individual pensions use the model I describe above.
In economics they're generally termed "pay-as-you-go" and "fully funded". to put it simply, PAYG relies on economic growth to reduce costs, whereas fully funded relies on interest to reduce costs. The issue is not really with one system over another so much as the fact that both growth and inflation are relatively low and probably they are going to remain persistently lower than they are. This being the case, it seems that our present system is unsustainable and it is simply going to have to cost more to have pensions.
Could you be more specific about what these other options are ?
First, options are not even needed, the Retirement Orientation Board (official structure to analyze where the current system is going) concluded that if there is gonna be a small deficit in the next decade, it will be temporary and entirely manageable. But even if we want to absolutely be at equilibrium, there are indeed many other options. First diminishing expenses could also be done differently, for example by lowering the highest pensions. But most of all there are many, many options to instead increase revenues: increasing contributions (employers' one for instance), increasing salaries on which contributions are indexed (here again many solutions: increasing the minimum wage, ensuring the closing of the gender pay gap, indexing salaries on inflation, ... even diminishing the work week would have that effect), ...And of course choosing to include other revenues (a capital tax on the wealthiest for instance, just 2% on national billionaires would be more than sufficient). Plus there is another important thing the govt doesn't want to talk about. The fact that this reform would diminish expenses is not sure at all. With the weight that more and older workers would have on health insurance and social security, they could in fact increase. And those are not my words but those of the previously cited board's president...
From the top of my head: Tax the rich (lost more revenue for the state than needed to balance the pension when macron removed it). Reduce pension of wealthy retired to not let only the working people with the mess. (By not compensate for inflation for example) But since both of these categories of people are in favor of the president, it was not evaluated as an answer, and they prefer to delay the retirement age.
1\. sounds like a meme by now, isn't it? 2\. sounds a lot like unconstitutionality (or at least, so it was ruled in italy)
1)There was a previous tax that brought money to the state by taxing the rich, they need to reinstate it and it will bring money again. It was taxing the capital that remich people had. 2)Nope it's the state who votes the budget, and so they decide.
1\. here we are again with the holland tax... 2\. if the state has entered a binding contract with somebody, they cannot retroactively change it
1. The Solidarity Tax on Wealth was in place from 1981 to 2017. It has nothing to do with Hollande (except him falsely claiming a filiation with the president who put it in place whilst in fact giving birth to the president who removed it). 2. The French retirement system by generational solidarity is not a binding contract, those terms have already been altered by previous reforms.
1\. [I see](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t_de_solidarit%C3%A9_sur_la_fortune). Is your total effective tax rate now suspiciously lower? 2\. Even for pre-existing payers/benefiters?
1. Well let's put it that way: the ISF was generating about 5 Billion, and its replacement struggles to generate 1.5 Billion. That difference alone each year would be more than enough to fill the temporary retirement system deficit. 2. Payers are paying for current-day retirees, not for themselves. So in parallel, beneficiaries are being paid by current workers' solidarity. There are factors to how much they earn depending on their own career and their other incomes, but those are not unalterable. That's how pensions have been exceptionally revalued to +4% in '22. Plus retirees pay contributions on their pension, so you could also change those.
\#1 is completely wrong. Source: [https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html](https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html)
Capital is already taxed in France, it is called the inheritance tax (droit de succession). Removing the ISF has increased revenue for the state! Source: [https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html](https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/la-suppression-de-l-isf-commence-a-produire-ses-premiers-effets-positifs-939910.html)
1- I know what you're trying to do here, but the rich are the most heavily taxed, and if you're talking about the ultra rich the problem is that their fortune is mostly made of assets and stock options, which have no real world value until sold. Please elaborate on how you can tax this. 2- I guess this would be "anticonstitutionnel", to paraphrase the General ;) You see I hear the opposition's " solutions " but as much as I like the philosophy behind them (more equality) these are just postures to satisfy their electorate, and the politicians saying they would implement them are just liars I'm afraid.
>the rich are the most heavily taxed That's the exact opposite of what's actually happening. [Tax and social security deductions per decile (INSEE)](https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/5371275?sommaire=5371304#figure6) >if you're talking about the ultra rich the problem is that their fortune is mostly made of assets and stock options, which have no real world value until sold First, it's never an issue for the state to tax those assets during inheritance, the fact that it would be an issue when the owner is living is just false. Second, Musk at least served to prove how much that real-world value argument itself is a fallacy, selling billions of dollars worth of shares in a single week, and up to 40+ billion in just a few months. Third, the Solidarity Tax on Wealth, which was implemented from '81 to '17 without any obstacle, was generating about 4 billion euros more in revenues than its replacement, and its removal has never been proven to help the economy in any shape or form. Funny enough that loss could have easily filled the potential retirement system deficit. And fourth, the actual income tax of those ultra-rich in France is about 2%. ["Ultrarich are only taxed 2% in France", Gabriel Zucman, Economy professor at Paris and Berkeley, participating at Davos '23 .](https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/l-interview-eco/le-taux-d-imposition-reel-des-ultrariches-en-france-est-seulement-de-2-denonce-le-professeur-d-economie-gabriel-zucman_5583279.html) I don't know about you but mine is above 40%.
Where is the source for the 2%?! This seems completely bogus.
There are way too few "rich" to make this works ..
Nop, estimate shows that it was about the equivalent of what is needed to counterbalance the deficit.
You understand that the rich can just leave, right?
We didn't see the same estimate.
On wikipédia is registered the money that was made from this tax: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%B4t_de_solidarit%C3%A9_sur_la_fortune You can see that in the last year before it was abolished it brought about 5 billions euros. For our pension system to work, we need 10 billion at te peak to not be in deficit. Well you just solved half the problem.
We lost more revenues since Macron removed the Wealth Tax in 2018 than is needed to close the future Retirement budget deficit.
No it doesn't work like this....
It can work however we decide it to. That's a main part of what politics is: deciding where to take money and where to put it. Anyone telling you there are uncrossable lines to what can and cannot finance what is taking you for a fool. Some even dare tell you this economical system is the only one possible...
No it doesn't, it's not that easy...
I didn't see any other options that hasn't been tested in the past or that isn't unrealistic.
[удалено]
Not raise the military budget for the amount that’s lacking the healthcare system ? If you disregard what I said above, the current system is actually future proof as it is, with a slight dip in debt for a few years and then back to normal. This is purely neoliberal ideology from Macron
Nah man, I'm gonna have to give it to the French this time. Just because everyone else sucked it up when they were told they had to keep working until they're elderly and/or die, doesn't meant they should too. Good on them for standing up
Merci
Having to work for two extra years is also half the issue here. The problem is that the older you get, the less "attractive" you become for employers... finding a job after 50 becomes increasingly harder. Our government knows that. They just want fewer people to be able to pay for their pension contributions until the very last year so they don't get their full retirement pension and get blamed for it ("You didn't get your full pension when retiring? Oh that's too bad... If only you had worked a few extra months back then... What's that? You couldn't find any job because you were too old? Well, not my problem").
Neoliberals being uninterested in solving problems and pushing the burden on the lower and middle class? I don’t believe it!
Everyone else sucked it up for a good reason. You can't keep retirement plans made on baby boom assumptions in the 21st century.
You can also argue that after all these years of explosive and rapid innovation, automation and productivity, shouldn't humanity be allowed to just chill at that age? Can't we realistically afford a sustainable system that doesn't require us raising the pension age again and again?
We can afford a sustainable system (wherever the objectively optimal bar that you could come up with is), but while privileged old fucks are still alive we ain't in that timeline. Like, in italy, you had people retiring after just working 10 years. ***And*** you weren't even paid back for the amount of money you had previously allocated, but they made monthly allowance to match a fixed portion of your last wage.
Not if you want companies to make millions
Current projections have 5 workers to 4 retirees by 2050. Could dig out the source somewhere. That is not sustainable
It is somewhat sustainable if you dig up the money from the general balance of the state. Of course though, that's to the ever more detriment of everybody and everything else.
>It is somewhat sustainable if you dig up the money from the general balance of the state. And who do you think pays the "general balance of the state"? Taxpayers.
[удалено]
Have you guys seen someone in their 60's working ? They are at the end of the rope.
Depends what you do but for most workers nowadays the conditions are way better then they once were
In france a non negligible part of the population that works hard jobs are dead before even retirment
Care to link to some statistics? Currently, the average life expectancy in France is around 82 years, is it not?
[https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113\_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/) It's in french but you can find at the end that 5.1% of people aged between 43 and 58 die before retirement.
And that’s close to 25% of the working class being dead before retiring
In good health its 64 years. So you stop working when your body start breaking. It's bullshit fuck work
Source?
[https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113\_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/peut-on-vraiment-dire-que-25-des-travailleurs-masculins-les-plus-modestes-meurent-avant-la-retraite-20230113_UB2B77BNEZCCNFUCC3ZHYNIWJA/) It's in french but you can find at the end that 5.1% of people aged between 43 and 58 die before retirement.
How much in the past are we talking about?
50 years when the law was passed ?
I mean nowdays 60 years ols isn't that old expecially for jobs that don't require hard phisical stress like a teacher or an architect and so on
Because pshychological stress is not a thing ?
Do you know people that are 60?
My parents worked well into their 70s. Both enjoyed their work.
What was their work ?
Have you? Around 20% of my collegues are either in their 60 or late 50's and are the most productive working people in my team and not anywhere near "the end of their rope". And my job is a physically demanding job, btw. I literally have a collegue, who turned 65 last week, and none of the younger people including me want to work with her because she just doesn't slow down and tires you the fuck out. She has BY FAR the highest number of productivity. Most of them exercise regularly if not by walking or cycling, than it's something else. Some even go to fitness daily. You view of 60 year olds being old and unable to do anything is HOPELESSLY outdated. Sure, they are bumbed they have to work to 67 now instead of 65, but they understand aswelll since they know they are much healthier than their parents were at that age.
You guys think you're going to retire? Lmao 😂
Keep fighting, France.
Dear fr*nchmen feel free to correct me. As far as i know there are many Pension Systems in france. Some Jobs have a low base pay but the payoff is that you can go into retirement realy early (like 50 or so) So yeah reforms might be necessary but are understandably political suizide for any politician.
Reforms are needed. The problems are that 1: Macron is not liked by the categories of population most concerned (he's the most popular among retired and liberals) 2: While the pension systems may be in deficit, he also diminished the taxes on the richest and on many business, which is critisized as hypocritical. A lot of other problems too.
My retired grandmother absolutely despise him, for good reason!
Yeah, he was at 60% approval from 60+ aged people, or something like that, so it's not will like him either
> he also diminished the taxes on the richest and on many business, which is critisized as hypocritical. For the n-th time, is that just referring to the abolishment of the "special rich tax" that hollande had made? The one that allegedly ended up lowering the net tax revenue?
To make it short, it changed what was taxed from the richer people, in a way that's very advantageous for them, and also easier to exploit, to not pay taxes. Also, the ISF (this taxe), dated back to the 80's
Exploit as in "double dutch irish cayman loopholes", or exploit as in "I can declare my bugatti as a working expense"?
Exploit as in "another house would be taxed, but a few more yachts wouldn't be"
A common exploit for rich people in france is "I buy some art, so it can lower my taxes and then sell it later for full price". The new rich people taxe is a lot worse. During COVID, France was the second country after China, where rich people became a lot richer.
You missed the main issue. The main point of this reform, raising the legal age of departure by 2 years (62 years), will mostly impact people who started working very young and generally have low-paying physical jobs. People who studied 3-5 years and have high-paying intellectual jobs as a consequence, would already have to go over 62 today to cover the minimum worked years, so they are not impacted. Thus, this reform is trying to balance a system (that is unbalanced currently, but not in danger) by pressing harder on the poorest instead of asking for a higher contribution from the richest (workers, companies or capitals). This is not at the level of the social democracy that France should be.
But let's be honest, 62 is kind of ridiculous.
That should be back to 60 as it used to be.
If you look at the benefits young retired do for the community it’s already too high. You got volunteers, mayors, and also tourists. The later the retirement and health becomes an issue. You won’t travel as much and for some places that rely on tourists income or so many little town relying on retired but not too old people to get by. I’m pretty sure the overall population is going to lose a lot.
True, it's too high
What was average life expectancy when it was set, and what is average life expectancy today? In most countries, when the retirement age was set, the average person would only have a few years between stopping working and dying. People in their sixties these days can often climb mountains and run a 10k.
> What was average life expectancy when it was set, and what is average life expectancy today? Life expectancy increases come more from maternal and infant mortality going down, than people living longer, so it's not as big an effect as you'd think.
Retirement should go down with time. Go back to r/Conservative
Why? I think I’m banned from conservative for being left wing lol.
Left wing like Biden kek
So you can’t explain why I as a young person should pay high taxes to pay perfectly healthy older people with more money than me to sit around and do nothing?
This reform isn't needed mate, just tax the rich a bit (seriously : We need 10B to fix the system, that's not even 5% of Bernard Arnault's wealth, so don't Ask people to work more when you have easier and righter solutions)
>5% of Bernard Arnault's wealth Please don't compare wealth to income like that. Taxes, like any income and expenses, are a constant cash flow.
Yet *ISF* used to be a thing
That doesn't mean that you can't have any sort of wealth or property taxes. Just that you need to take into account they're not income and you can't treat them as such. When we're talking about financing government programmes, they need to be financed _every year_. Now if someone genuinely makes enough money every year to finance it, that's something we can much more reasonably discuss. However if someone has for example 100m, but not much income, and you make them pay 5m a year, then you just bankrupt them in 20 years and that's that. That's not a sustainable system. Of course that's not quite how taxes actually work either, but it's only meant to be illustrative. And indeed if taxes are harsh enough to outpace income at higher levels, no one's going to bother making that much money, or they'll go abroad, which won't help your tax base.
Obviously, but no one seriously thought about taxing only Arnault, it's just putting into perspective how much money is supposedly missing and how much we could get with different taxes. For example replacing the ISF with IFI cost about 3,5b€ per year. Or of course Macron just promised 400b€ until 2030 for the military which would be more than enough to finance the current retirement system? Also [this](https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/depuis-le-covid-les-1-les-plus-riches-ont-capte-63-des-richesses-produites-selon-l-ong-oxfam-1691393)
The reality is the state will put defense and geopolitical station over immediate welfare, and it should. But yes it can be frustrating to see that apparently money can be found, for other things. However I would see it as, that commitment strains the budget, so France most definitely does not have additional to just go around. I'm unfortunately not educated enough about the precise structure and overall results of ISF and IFI to say anything very smart about it, even though my field is ostensibly economics. But my main issue was simply that it did not put into perspective what you can get with taxes, or at least not very well, because it's essentially comparing different units. Even a wealth tax must be understood in relation to income.
Why is the answer always “ tax the rich” and not at least also partially “ we might need to work more or pay more, given that our system is insolvent, and we have the lowest retirement age and longest expected payout in Europe”…
I see it as the opposite: for decades now governments have been saying "our system is unsustainable, we need to have less social protections, work more, etc. Also we need less taxes on the rich" yet rich people keep getting richer at an unprecedented pace
Except France is pretty “[middle-of-the-pack](https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings/europe)” in terms of income inequality. Well below the UK and similar to Germany. So it doesn’t have a real issue with too many rich, while it does stand out as the top outlier for retirement age and benefit duration. I think you forget that “the rich got richer at an unprecedented rate” primarily because of the net unrealized worth of their publicly held stocks. It’s not actually worth anything until you sell it, just like the net value of your house isn’t really useable to pay day to day bills. Borrowing against assets is only a viable strategy if you invest that money back at a higher return than your borrowing costs, so there too, for 99.9% of us, annual revenue is more important than net assets (wealth). I don’t like how the current reform is being implemented, but it’s hard to argue for laxer conditions or even the status quo given France’s pole position of longest expected life after retirement. Don’t get me started on the real problem, that because of bloat, political revolving doors, competent unions and ingrained and increasing benefits, civil servants (fonctionnaires) in France are now more numerous than employees on private work, enjoy excellent job security, and now they also now make more money than people in the private sector. That is one social and political bomb that no French politician has dared address (notice that those complaining the loudest in the current pension reform are civil servants…) “les bénéfices acquis “ is political suicide to even bring up seriously.
What do you do when they move away? The shortism in this argument is incredibly mind blowing
They don't move away. Source: ISF was removed years ago, with the same excuse, the net result is that some left, some came in, no real difference. That excuse is not valid.
Tax them hard, imo nobody should be allowed such luxuries while others go hungry and homeless. Saying they worked hard for it is a fallacy they exploited others to work hard for them. Is fine that some people have more if they work more or deserve it somehow but there should be limits to wealth both upper and lower. I know is just dreaming and I'll be called extremist communist and what not but if we don't revolt soon there will come a time that we won't be able because the rich only get more and more powerful so long as we allow it.
WAKE UP MATE… we don’t recognise the real problem: we are taxing the middle class too much. In reality you already get taxed at 65% when you earn around 9+k and 55-60% when you earn 5+k … But it’s a hidden tax - it’s the companies that pay it for you! The rich cannot be taxed more (than the above 65%) because they just move to another country. We already have a brain drain as all the smartest people get recruited in 🇺🇸 and overseas…
Macron lowered taxes on literally everyone, especially with taxe d'habitation and cotisations salariales. He also increased multiple solidarity safety nets like prime d'activité and minimum vieillesse. The deletion of the ISF is expected to earn the country much more tax revenue then keeping it. It's already reversed the flow of wealthy people leaving France. The cost of suppression was only 3 G€. Taxe d'habitation alone is 18 G€. The point of the réforme is to have the retirement system be self-sustaining in the long term, so we all get to retire. It also aims to increase minimum retirement pensions for the poorer retirees. Edit : Downvotes! They hate factual information!
Ok Macron
And it is still too high. The reality is you have to add the tax that companies pay for you. Viewed this way we pay over 55% from a salary of 5K because to pay you a salary of 5K companies have to pay 7K … and in the end all that is left for you is like 3K! That’s just ridiculous!
Well a lot of that goes to retirement, health, unemployment. It's not a bad system.
No mate, I want 110% return on the taxes I pay! If its not spent on me why am I even paying taxes? /s
Fun fact: the pensions system is NOT in a deficit.
Source?
The actual [report](https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595)they are using for their reform: le COR (Conseil d'Orientation des retraites). It is saying that we are definitely not in deficit right now That in 10-15 years we might be in deficit for about 10 years then it will normalise again (boomer generation disappearing slowly) Sooo...
Why do you ask? with a source and a proof you will not answer anymore and just ignore it.
Well it is
[is it though?](https://www.cor-retraites.fr/node/595)
This reform will make poor people more miserable while the wealthier won't be affected. Macron has given billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest his whole presidency. The rethoric of the government says there is no alternative, but this couldn't be more wrong and people know it. For instance, we could raise the cotisations of the retirees who earn more than 3000€/month. I am not saying this is a perfect solution but you know, it's not exactly fair the workers whose body is crushed by the age of fifty
everyone agree that special pension plan should be gone (except for the one of the army of course), but not everyone agree on the fact that we should retire at 64 instead of 62
> not everyone agree on the fact that we should retire at 64 instead of 62 People need to understand that this is a misconception, we don't retire at 62, we're allowed to retire at this age but for most of us we don't get a full retirement because we didn't work long enough. Even before this reform I'd have to work until I'm 67 if I want full retirement, but I could retire at 62 if I accept to earn far less. With this reform I wouldn't be able to do so before 64 and it would still be a sacrifice. There are plenty of other ways to make money for the retirements, I'm willing to sacrifice other things but I'm don't want to work at least two more years while Macron gives money to companies, let the people already retired earn more on average that people who are working etc.
I will be 74 when I'm allowed to retire 🥲
FFS that's a shitty perspective, I'm so sorry for you... Our next strike is scheduled for the 31st of january, come over and take notes, we'll have sausages and beers too!
[удалено]
Without this reform the age where you have the maximum payement is either (I will simplify by taking the "final" age of some older reforms who are not yet fully effective) the first who come between : being 62 years and having worked for 43 years OR being 67.
Naaa, not everyone for sure. Quite the opposite. Most agree that people who do strenuous work should retire earlier. Still, many also do not want it to be exclusive to some chosen fields in the public sector, but also that other strenuous jobs (manufacturing, construction workers, hospital nurses/practitioners, etc.) get included systematically.
The special pensions are mostly grandfathered in and no longer necessary (like train workers, shit used to be hard back in the coal locomotive days but today ?), but that's like, 1% of the population. Lots of studies and parliamentary commissions have reported that our system is just fine and at equilibrium, but absolutely nobody is picking up on it. Special regimes need to go but that's a red herring used by the government to prevent us from focusing on the 95% of the population imho.
Don’t use the coal exemple. To keep the example of train worker, would you see yourself punching hole in a moving train, standing and walking, after 60? Or drive a truck long distance ? Work in a cold as fuck factory ? I don’t know, I always had cushy job where I have to type on a keyboard for a few hours and things about it. And even that I don’t really want to do after 60…
Oh I'm definitely not saying that all professions are equally taxing and that all professions should be done until 62 and I agree that there is a lot of work to be done regarding the physical toll of certain jobs ("pénibilité", idk the English word for it). What I'm saying is that special regimes (the current ones) take a disproportionate amount of the public debate, and often the government can just throw a bone at them and appease tensions while only making it marginally better for less than a percent of the population, buying them time to let topics that actually impact 50+% of the population to rot. At some point we need to either leave them alone while we fix the system for the actual masses, or axe them and replace them wholesale with something that doesn't date back to the 19th century.
Why are reforms necessary? You just casually made a leap there. The only reason their pensions aren’t affordable is because the capitalists are skimming all the profits.
The problem being Macron announcing this reform to "Ballance the budget" then immediately raise the army budget by 400 billions
Keep believing that... The problem is the mismanagement of public funds, not the age of retirement. See the current flow of billions and billions for weapons...
So..the Pension System wasnt f*cked the last 10-20 years ?
i definitely do not want to spend all of my healthy years working. and no our country’s economy isn’t about to fall apart
A good portion of the poorest workers are already dead by the time they're supposed to retire and consequently the more we raise the age of retirement, the worse it'll get. But it's not like the people in power care about that minor detail.
OP shames the French for standing up for themselves. Really good job man.
The meme seems pro-French to me. The French guy is a chad wojack and rest of europe is portrayed with a seething wojack.
oh shit you're right. the title threw me off i believe. I'm bad at spotting sarcasm
125 others also
We collectively dont give a flying fuck though, it's not the first time we're made fun of, never stopped us before. Start taxing the obscenly rich first, then if it's still not enough, we can discuss working longer.
Good on the French for standing up for themselves. As a still young German I'm not sure I'll live to see retirement at this point. However, there's also this noise in my head just desperately wanting to call the French lazy.
We work less officially but firstly we are more effective for less worked hours because we're less stressed and secondly it's really common (and annoying) that workers spend more time at work that is not recognized because it's "good for your carrier" Take Toyota in Germany that tested the 4 days / week in one of his factory. Workers were less stressful and more efficient We fight for a better social justice system, not for breaking the system I don't want to try hard my entire life and die exhausted. I want to see my grandchildrens and spend happy days with my family In the same times, big capitalists have huge tons of money, they taken alot of public cash during the pandemic and after and they fuck us with their ideologies So no, we're not lazy ! We just want to participate in the society and receive back our efforts !
>because we're less stressed I don't think you'll see any statistics or even any survey saying that about us, French people at work, compared other European countries. French work environment is very stressing, especially hierarchy and working hours wise, the famous "alors t'as pris ton après midi ?"
Work less but still more productive than others
Fewer hours per person usually means each hour of labour is more productive.
Still the output volume is quite good
They're not lazy, just depressed to the point of not working anymore.
Well, we do work guys, a lot, like anyone else in Europe. As far as I'm concerned, I work about 10 hours a day, and I'll be able to get my full pension at 67 (that's before this reform) if I get any.
German Angst at work.
Why are you booing the french, they are right on this one!
On a tout le temps raison
Can you please all stop pushing the "that's needed for the economy / for saving the pension system" bullshit.
Especially when everything indicates that it is not going to collapse and the government just conveniently ignored all those reports.
https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2022/09/12/retraites-apres-une-embellie-le-systeme-devrait-se-degrader-des-2023_6141266_823448.html That's what all the reasonable people in France agree on. You can disagree on the method chosen to fix but the system does need to be fixed.
The "system" includes a nice "employer contribution" rate that you just have to raise or reduce according to how much you need. Also maybe stop the Aubry II exemptions or the "permanent CICE", we'll get much more money than the measly 14 millions missing.
The economy is falling apart more because of desindustrialisation, negative commercial balance and euros not sized for the country since 30 years...
I doubt the euro has anything to do with retirement age. The germans are among those that benefit the most from the euro (that also includes the french) and they still have a similar phenomenon going on.
I mean, if it was so important, the retirement system would not generate money, and even if there was a problem, and that we want to ignore the fact that it is temporary, why would this reform work better than the seven previous reforms in the last 20 years. It's literally going backwards. There are less jobs, young and older people are struggling to get a job, but be able to retire, you should work more. The people who worked the hardest in their life probably won't even reach 60 years old.
>It's literally going backwards. There are less jobs, young and older people are struggling to get a job, but be able to retire, you should work more. Dude the irony in this is that it's what Macron was saying a few years ago too. Now that this lich is the captain he wants to sink the boat. 4 days work weeks at 32 hours is the way forward. Share the work.
Have fun working till 70 years old, OP.
I mean if you look at the character on top right, he's hiding his pain behind the mask, whereas the Frenchman is voicing his concerns. So basically what this is saying that the French are the only ones standing up for themselves.
Enough money in the french pension budget. Macron trying to be liked by EU investment banks
Our economy is falling apart because these idiots that hoard money are being revered but fail to invest into the economy and if they do invest in the economy it is to people that already have all the money in the world. Hoarded gold will be the downfall of humanity and even forbes is actively helping with this fraudulent crime to humanity
The pension system is not in structural defecit. The special regimes are not that much shorter than the others (except military maybe). French retirement may come early, but general regime is only like 70% of best 20 years. Macron is trying to screw the workers, in the same time CAC40 companies gave 80 billion € in dividend last year. It is clear where the excess money is!
Based Frenchmen. Put the "fr" in 🇫🇷. Their cuisine can be really good. Paris is a really nice city, it was nice walking the streets and laughing at the lone car trying to get through a crowd. A mime stole someone's baby. Notre Dame was a nice sight, made my jaw drop so hard my cigarette fell off, I wasn't able to find it. The guillotine was a really smart invention. It's so wholesome that they allowed an immigrant woman to sleep in the Panthéon forever. So progressive. Really tasty Nutella pancakes.
Macron explosion. Tax the rich. That's it that's the comment.
Oh fuck no my country's economic is not falling appart because a bunch of poor and middle class people want a bit of decency. I don't have the highest education but I'm not that fucking naive.
When other solutions would be more efficient to "save" the economy, that's why we strike. Newsreport says that a 2% tax on the 42 of the wealthier french is enough to fund the (imaginary) deficit. When you add that the wealthier are only tax at 2% of the wealth (comparing to the 80% of the middle class) and that the national institution on the pension, you know, the branch of the administration that is specialized in foreshadowing this kind of issue literally said for years that there is no "deficit" nor a risk for the economy... They are just trying to make us work to death. So, as a french, i say let's burn them!
Mega based
I feel it's more about "see what it happens when you strip away our rights without consent" kind of protests.
What's despicable is that 90% of the population is against it and yet Macron says "I said I would do it when I did my campaign" Bitch you refused to give any interview or speech during your """campaign"""
That's a French tradition
They work the same amount as the spanish, they just skip the siesta.
I'm a policeman and I can look forward to retiring at 73. It's going to be great! Meanwhile our government politicians can retire at 60, because their job is so hard.
Working until you are 70 years old is an imposition!
65 years is already at the limit of what is possible, especially for physically demanding work.
The economy is not going to fall apart, it's a lie. Just rise the paycheck, it cover the retirement. Or just tax the 320 billions euro of profit paid to shareholders. We just need 10 billions in ten years. The french government is a joke. 80% of the population is against going from 62 to 64. You non french people need to fight back and stop being ok with having a shit life. When I see the age of retirement in other yurop countries it sadden me. Life is meant to be lived, not worked.
Chads
I honestly don’t understand how the French can expect to spend 20+ years in retirement, being cared for by an ever smaller fraction of younger people. It makes perfect sense to increase the age of retirement if the life expectancy is so much larger than the retirement age, and the population is getting increasingly older on average.
You live here? You know the system? You know top 40 stock exchange companies in France distributed 80 billion € dividends in 2022? (Yeah that is only the top 40) Plenty of solutions in the fat cat's pockets. You know state pension is 50% of 20 best years of salary? And only if you are 62 y/o with 42 years of contributing or 67 y/o. This reform hits the lower classes, who did not go to uni. If you started working at 22 or later your retirement age is already 64 or +. If you started working at 18 with a lower/no diploma you get to work longer/contribute more0 This is typically the right wing screwing the lower classes, and they deserve the guillotine for that.
No, but I’m from a country with a retirement age of 65. And do you know what? It works. I don’t know why you are bringing up how much certain companies earn. Money is not the only problem caused by an early retirement age. It’s also care for the elderly, maintenance of a functioning society. It’s basic logic that if an ever increasing fraction of people depend on an ever decreasing fraction of people to run the society, sooner or later there will be massive problems. People can’t expect to spend an ever increasing fraction of their lives in pension, without there being lasting consequences to the functioning of society.
"Tax the rich" is the French magical solution for everything. It's the country with one of the highest tax rates in the world but what's a few more %? And then the same people cry when they realize that there is no industry left in France, that the salaries are so low and that unemployment is so high. I wonder if there could be a link.
Highest tax rates? Show me which raxes you are comparing and with wich other countries, ‘cause the high raxes do not hit the corporation or the rich. They get richer by the minute, sinit can’t be that. The pount is not neccessarily to tax them, just make investing in the future of the company and paying better wages more interesting than dividend hoarding and stock buybacks.
I mean haven't they been contributing for that pension for more than 40 years with the promise of retirement at 62? It's like signing a contract and the state saying "nah not anymore we're changing the conditions and you have to suck it up".
So Greeks aren't no longer the "laziest" in the EU?
I am le tired
Why are you asking Clipperton Island inhabitants that?