The COR (Conseil d'orientation des retraites) has 4 working scenarios and only a single one of them has the retirement system going temporarily into the negatives. The situation is not alarming at all. In addition, there are a lot of solutions that have been on the table to help the retirement system do even better and allow people to retire earlier (for example paying women the same as men: the salary resulting increase will mechanically make more money go towards contributing to retirement funds).
If the GDP portion dedicated to the elderly is maintained at around 14% the system has nothing to worry about, the goal of Macron's reform is to lower this number because he prefers to use public money to fund private companies that are already making profits (through tax mechanism such as the CICE or the CIR for example).
Also, low salaries actually means less money "funneled to the retirement system", since this money is a percentage of salaries. Also, low retirements income means people still working have to financially support their parents. The elderly have to be supported one way or another. The question is whether you choose to do it collectively as a society, or go with the individualistic solution that won't work for everyone.
Every single scenario in the COR is negative for a long time, people should stop lying about it to comfort their political leanings. And it's not like it's for short time either, the worst scenario has a negative forecast for the next 45 years. The figures are terrible, regardless of your opinion.
Secondly, 14% of GDP is massive, workers have been paying more and more towards the retirement system, salaries did increase a lot already, it's just that all of the increase went towards retirement
> The elderly have to be supported one way or another.
Nice way to avoid the fact that France spends a lot of money towards high retirement salaries which don't need it. Additionally low salaries live less longer, making the system even more injust.
The way to fix it and transform it into a social system is to tax the high retirements for the benefit of the workers. In a social system the money should go towards the people who need it the most and not the opposite, France's retirement system isn't a social system anymore.
That's very subjective, and even someone agreeing to call it "massive" could not necessarily see a problem with that, if we can afford it (which it seems, we can).
> Additionally low salaries live less longer, making the system even more injust.
That's a good point. And the reform Macron is trying to pass will make this even worse: low salaries live less longer and are already dead or in very bad health by the time they can retire (and a big part cannot even work up to that age). Making the minimum retirement age two years later will greatly increase this injustice: most low salaries will contribute their whole life to pay for the pensions of the richer who actually still have living time in good health after they retire.
Concerning the high retirement salaries and the necessity to tax them more, I mostly agree. But that's not at all what Macron's reform is about.
No, they do agree with me, read it yourself again, in the most optimistic scenario, France needs to wait until 2045 (!!) for the deficit to be reduced. That's terrible in itself, and that's the most optimistic scenario as well... What I would consider reasonable is a few years of deficit, not from 20 up to 50 years.
> That's very subjective, and even someone agreeing to call it "massive" could not necessarily see a problem with that, if we can afford it (which it seems, we can).
You can't complain of stagnating salaries if you are okay with increasing the share of workers salaries going towards retirement. "we can afford it" doesn't seem to be the opinion of the people concerned paying it.
> Concerning the high retirement salaries and the necessity to tax them more, I mostly agree. But that's not at all what Macron's reform is about.
Let's not pretend like anybody else is proposing this solution either.
> "we can afford it" doesn't seem to be the opinion of the people concerned paying it.
Then how do you explains the massive strikes and demonstration? Do you think these millions of people and the millions more that support them are all dumb?
> Let's not pretend like anybody else is proposing this solution either.
Politics don't for obvious electoralistic reasons, but the idea is at least discussed in some unions.
> Then how do you explains the massive strikes and demonstration? Do you think these millions of people and the millions more that support them are all dumb?
Not many people understand how the retirement system works in France and its direct impact on salaries. It's not the simplest retirement model either and people don't take the time understand it.
> Politics don't for obvious electoralistic reasons, but the idea is at least discussed in some unions.
Sure but then what's the point? There's much more people retired than people working, the democratic system is broken.
> Not many people understand how the retirement system works in France and its direct impact on salaries. It's not the simplest retirement model either and people don't take the time understand it.
Why would you bother to understand it? It will have changed, and be much worse, by the time you retire. The state is, of course, counting on people misunderstanding the fact that there is not a single guarantee you get paying into this system, as nothing stops politicians from changing it.
And, as you point out, plenty of factors force, to a lesser or greater extent politicians into making the system worse.
So why bother understanding it? France is like most European nations: either you own a comfortable home + some supplemental income by the time you retire or you're f*cked.
(source: my dad was a teacher (in a neighboring country with a very similar system), and is now on the pensioner side of this system. He is single-digit percentage points above the minimum, despite his ability to show a contract, with the government, stating explicitly, in 3 languages, that he's guaranteed at least 40% above minimum. But, you see, "a decree goes above contracts". The state cannot, and will not uphold it's promises made under this system, so it doesn't matter. They just want you to work your ass of, and pay taxes correctly to extract maximum work from you while not upholding their end)
The COR (Conseil d'orientation des retraites) has 4 working scenarios and only a single one of them has the retirement system going temporarily into the negatives. The situation is not alarming at all. In addition, there are a lot of solutions that have been on the table to help the retirement system do even better and allow people to retire earlier (for example paying women the same as men: the salary resulting increase will mechanically make more money go towards contributing to retirement funds).
If the GDP portion dedicated to the elderly is maintained at around 14% the system has nothing to worry about, the goal of Macron's reform is to lower this number because he prefers to use public money to fund private companies that are already making profits (through tax mechanism such as the CICE or the CIR for example).
Also, low salaries actually means less money "funneled to the retirement system", since this money is a percentage of salaries. Also, low retirements income means people still working have to financially support their parents. The elderly have to be supported one way or another. The question is whether you choose to do it collectively as a society, or go with the individualistic solution that won't work for everyone.