Retirement ... at what age?

philosophical debates and companies.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 22/10/10, 15:27

Here is the official info about the rejection of the MP's pension reform:

They are careful not to talk about it! (we wonder why?)

By a vote of 3 September 2010, the deputies almost unanimously rejected amendment no. 249 Rect. proposing to align their specific pension scheme (which also benefits members of the government) with the general scheme for employees.

While they constantly explain the importance of rapidly reforming a deficit pension plan, parliamentarians therefore refuse to be subject to the pension plan of the majority of French people.

It is what they call a "fair" reform it seems!

To forward.

The French have the right to know ...

www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/amendemen ... 000249.asp


Text of the amendment rejected:

The Government presents to Parliament, before December 31, 2010, a report establishing the situation of specific pension plans for members of the Government and members of parliament and defining the conditions for a rapid and effective alignment of the situation of their specific plans with the plan general, aimed in particular at a strict framework for pensions repaid, both in terms of their accumulation and in their amounts.
0 x
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04

9 misconceptions about pension reform




View pb2488 » 22/10/10, 15:48

9 misconceptions about pension reform

1. "The old people will take the job of the young people"
To hear young people say, pension reform is the worst thing that can happen to them: the job market is already refusing them, but it will undoubtedly be worse if the active retire two years later. False! Economic policy in France has however demonstrated that work is not shared: for years, strong incentive policies have encouraged companies to use early retirement without any effect on the employment rate of young people. result: employment rate of seniors: 39% against 54% in OECD countries and youth unemployment: 22,4% compared to 16,4% for all OECD countries. Training, the rigidity of the job market, and now the crisis may explain the French backwardness, but we certainly cannot say that retirement at 60 is an encouragement to recruit young people!

2. "People over 60 are already unemployed"
Unlike the young, it is the seniors who oppose the reform but for the same reason: "what is the point of raising the retirement age as long as the 50-60 year olds cannot find a job". We have already explained several times the benefit that there would be in developing the employment of seniors to raise the retirement age. As with young people, France has already experimented with this type of dubious rule for sharing the labor market: by lowering the legal retirement age to 1982 in 60, we could see that the rate of employment of people aged 60 to 64 fell to 13% but also for 55-59 year olds where only 54% of French people have a job, a figure 9 points lower than the German rate, 15 points lower than that of the United Kingdom and 26 points in Swedish.

3. "We won't have time to enjoy retirement"
In addition, the demographic logic is relentless: in 1991, life expectancy was 72.9 years for men and 81.1 years for women. In 2008, it increased to 77.5 years for men and 84.3 for women respectively. On average, life expectancy increases between 2 and 3 months per year, men / women combined. We do not measure the demographic shock that awaits us. At this rate, the number of people over the age of 60 will almost double by 2050: going from 12,6 million in 2005 to 22,3 million in 2050 while the working-age population will remain stable around 32 to 33 million people. It is therefore an imperative for all: it is absolutely necessary to make work a maximum of people or our contributions will become unbearable!

4. "You must be able to choose the age of your retirement"
Confusion reigns over the new retirement age.
To recap: the legal age is raised to 62 by 2018 and the retirement age at full rate rises to 67 by 2023. At the same time, France has passed the contribution period to benefit from a full retirement (known as "full rate") at 41 years old in 2012. A discount will be applied in the event of departure before reaching the required number of quarters (0,625% per quarter). It is on this point that the unions are most relentless, relayed by the opposition. They hope that the starting age at full rate will not be touched for those who do not have all their quarters and who will be penalized. This vision is unfortunately not compatible with the balance of pay-as-you-go schemes. The very principle of deferring the age at full rate is precisely intended to encourage those who do not have all their quarters or those who want to access a better retirement to work longer. It is an incentive, not a punishment.

The argument of à la carte retirement, defended among others by the PS, is unfortunately not possible for those who will have a small retirement and who in any case have no other choice than to continue. And it is the surest way to finance the deficit of our pensions of more than 30 billion euros. The government has said it again: raising the two age limits is the best way to secure funding (19 billion in revenue expected from this).

5. "Retirement will penalize those who started working young"
As for the problem of those who have too many quarters given their career, these people are fewer and fewer (unfortunately because more and more people have holes in their careers or fortunately if we take into account the more and more people are entering higher education and entering the labor market later). The Fillon law had introduced the long career measure which is maintained. The only solution to get around this problem would be the establishment of a points system but which involves an overhaul of our entire pension system. The CFDT wishes it, the CGT opposes it because it knows that this development would put an end to the special regimes.

6. "We have to raise taxes"
Rather than massively increasing the share of assets, unions would prefer to raise taxes to finance deficits. But which ones? Taxes on capital income? They have already been increased by 4,1 points over the last 3 years, going from 27 to 31,3%. Without counting that the capital itself is also put to contribution and appears among the most taxed in Europe. Income tax cannot be enough for him given the low yield and it would be the middle classes who would be penalized. Tax companies with additional contributions? They are already crumbling under the burdens which penalize them largely in international competition, and any increase would be passed on to that side on wages and therefore purchasing power.

7. "Our system will become much more unfair compared to the Germans"
Many of our compatriots are now convinced that the pension reform will give our country the most restrictive system. And to quote Germany and its famous 35 annuities. Two important clarifications: the German system is a pay-as-you-go and point system which provides for retirement at age 65. It allows a departure at 63 with a minimum of 35 years of insurance but with a discount of 7% which will increase to 14% due to the increase in the legal age from 65 to 67 in 2029. We are therefore far from a full rate departure with 35 years of contributions! This does not prevent opponents of the French reform from asserting that the new system will result in a 25% discount for a departure at 60, a blow compared to 14% of the Germans.

But this comparison is not valid since it is anyway necessary to wait 65 years (or 63 years under condition). Germany is therefore not the country of cocagne: the logic that prevailed for the reform of the pension system in 2004-2006 is on the contrary much more restrictive than in France: contributions were capped at 22% by 2030 against 19% currently (25% in France).

As part of its reform, Germany did not hesitate to lower the pension replacement rate, an approach that has been ruled out in France. However, in return, capitalization plans have been put in place, tax-incentive by the government. A solution strongly opposed by the opposition in our country. Similarly, taxes have also been increased (on employees and retirees). All this with the idea of ​​limiting the burden on companies and supporting them in exports.

- Standard of living for people over 65:
France: 0,95
Germany: 0,91
Japan: 0,87
USA: 0,86
Italy: 0,83
Spain: 0,79
UK: 0,74
OECD: 0,82


8. "RATP and SNCF staff are concerned"
Special regimes: for many this reform is unfair but not everyone has the same perception of injustice. RATP and SNCF agents, among others, are getting away with it. Not without "humor" they are against the postponement of the legal retirement age to 62 and full-rate retirement at 67 when they are not about to be affected by the reform. Indeed, the reform only provides for the extension of 2 years of “their” legal retirement age and this spread over 6 years from 2017 only. This means that we will have to wait until 2023.

In the meantime, they benefit from a special regime of 50 or 5 per year, almost all of them retiring for 5 years. It should nevertheless be mentioned that the annual number of requests for the liquidation of pension rights decreases at the SNCF: it went from 7.000 in 2007 to 5.800 in 2008 and to 4.800 in 2009, which proves that work is not so painful and that we can work longer.

At RATP:
- the contributor / pensioner ratio (direct entitlement + reversion) is 1.08 (44.203 / 40.945 2008 figure)
- the average age of departure is 53,32 years.
- the average number of annuities is 32,55
- and the average pension is 1968 €
- life expectancy is over 77 years.
The balance subsidy payable by the taxpayer (us) is of the order of € 470 million in 2008 for 41.000 pensioners or more than € 11.400 per pensioner.

At the SNCF:
- the contributor / pensioner ratio (direct entitlement + reversion) is 0.54 (157.132 / 291.478 2009 figures)
- the average age of departure is 52,8 years
- the average number of annuities is 32,33
- and the average pension is 1.620 €
- life expectancy is over 81 years
The balance subsidy payable by the taxpayer (us) is of the order of € 2.900 million in 2008 for 291.500 pensioners, or nearly 10.000 € per pensioner.


9. “Truckers or refinery workers don't have special plans”
Truckers and money carriers are in the same situation: they benefit from the end of activity leave (CFA) which allows drivers at least 55 years old to retire if they have more than 30 years of driving ( 20 for cash conveyors). A measure which costs according to Les Echos 110 million euros and benefits about 8.000 people and which is currently the subject of negotiations with employers in the profession who would like to move to 57 years. The refinery staff are also leaving at 55 and are demanding no less than a return to 37,5 years of contributions.

[edit] source: http://www.ifrap.org/9-idees-fausses-su ... 11804.html
Last edited by pb2488 the 22 / 10 / 10, 16: 12, 1 edited once.
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 22/10/10, 15:50

Well pb2488, I like it enough!
Last edited by Christophe the 23 / 10 / 10, 10: 29, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




View chatelot16 » 22/10/10, 19:06

I agree that the retirement age will not change much for the employment of young people! as long as there is too much unemployment changing the retirement age will make more unemployed and less retired it will not increase the number of useful workers!

young people are therefore right to protest not for a specific effect of this reform but for a mark of incompetence of the government which is lost in an absurd reform and does nothing for the main problem!

alas we cannot strike because the government does nothing to make the industry work ... too vague ... but to make a reform which proves incompetence it exasperates everyone, even those who do not understand it exactly
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 22/10/10, 19:11

I see 2 major problems in France with regard to its youth:

a) Poor elitism by the studies which takes from a bygone period dating from the colonial era and as outdated as it ... in the current world.

b) Systematic breaking down and demoralization of the entrepreneurial spirit, particularly among young people (would like one more point to add to the gaps in national education: an entrepreneurship course). When I say entrepreneurship, it is not only to set up your company, but to do "like no other", in short to innovate.

About b), I bet that the% of young entrepreneurs in France (under 30) is much lower than among our neighbors. I have never seen any figures on the matter but I fear I am not mistaken ...

You all know the:
"In France we have no oil, but we have ideas ..."

Well the last part is missing "... idiots that prevent you from achieving them".

Good weend anyway : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
jlt22
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 414
Registration: 04/04/09, 13:37
Location: Guingamp 69 years




View jlt22 » 22/10/10, 19:30

Hello,

I give you a link that I just discovered, I do not know if it corresponds to the subject, but it is very interesting.
The retirees of which I am a part, are wealthy compared to the active ones, in general.
However, I come from the private sector, retirement taken at 60 with 41,5 years of contributions.

http://www.salairemoyen.com/
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 22/10/10, 19:51

jlt22 wrote:The retirees of which I am a part, are wealthy compared to the active ones, in general.


I have not yet looked at the site that you recommend but I think that if more retirees (or pre-retirees) were aware of what you admit publicly (with courage and lucidity because few are those who do it and few are those who are even aware of it), hey ben the moral and social situation would undoubtedly be "less worse" ...
0 x
User avatar
jlt22
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 414
Registration: 04/04/09, 13:37
Location: Guingamp 69 years




View jlt22 » 22/10/10, 20:08

@ Christopher

However, this is the sad reality.
I did not realize that while consulting this site.
0 x
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65




View Gébé » 22/10/10, 20:18

The standard of living of retirees is equal to or even slightly higher than that of the working population

dixit: social security accounts committee (June 2010)
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79674
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11213




View Christophe » 22/10/10, 20:44

jlt22 wrote:@ Christopher

However, this is the sad reality.
I did not realize that while consulting this site.


Well I believe you ... and I knew it without consulting this site (which I still haven't clicked on)

Comparing wages and incomes is not an honest method because the standard of living of retirees with equal incomes is much higher because their expenses are often much lower than those of the active.

Paid housing credit, more dependent children, more car credit and daily travel expenses ... etc etc ...

Under these conditions, it can be said without being too much mistaken that:

- A retiree who receives 2000 € has at least 1500 € for his leisure ...
- An asset that touches 2000 € if he has 500 € for his leisure he can consider himself happy ...


When I say leisure it includes savings capacity ... in short everything that is not spent on living (basic needs) ...
0 x

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 140 guests