Page 1 on 38

Pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 18:33
by Exnihiloest
 
Without the power of nuisance of part of the most corporatist population, the universal pension system would have come into force on January 1, 1947!

Many who wallow in front of the cameras to defend "the current pension schemes", there are more than thirty of them, are careful not to remember that it was the will of the National Council of Resistance in 1945.
That of creating a single regime: "one regime for all"

Why this desire.
Because the CNR had concluded during its work that society could only progress and maintain social peace if fundamental rights were equal for all.

In fact, the principle of the Uniqueness of the system will be established as a fundamental right in the same way as those of the Universality of rights and the Uniformity of benefits. Easy to remember: the three "Us".

Yes, but that did not suit many corporations which, from 1947, refused to join the general system.

Among the corporations most opposed to the CNR project are:
Civil servants, railway workers, gas operators, RATP transport agents, but also deputies, senators, farmers, traders and a few other corporations attached to their system.

And it is because of their corporatist actions that the general universal regime will not be instituted, because "part of public opinion" did not want to integrate the universal regime promoted by the CNR.

And the worst is that today those who still defend these special schemes financed by the taxpayer and no longer by contributions, claim the principles of the CNR.

Obviously some will believe them, the most ignorant in general.


https://www.retraite-cfr.fr/wp-content/ ... traite.pdf

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 18:53
by gegyx
We immediately guess a person of integrity, who has worked hard all his life, for an unfortunate smig

you did not expressly mention the military, the police,

and the exorbitant salaries paid to the pillars and pimps of power

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 19:02
by Exnihiloest
gegyx wrote:We immediately guess a person of integrity, who has worked hard all his life, for an unfortunate smig

We immediately guess an embittered, frustrated to be paid the "unhappy smig" all his life because unable to do better, and who blames others for his own mediocrity.

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 19:05
by Remundo
for once I would rather agree with Nihilo, even if he shows bad faith elsewhere, to put it mildly.

if we go to hard jobs, well, a worker in a 3x8 in an industry in my opinion suffers as much as a worker who maintains the rails at the SNCF...

the problem of Universality, currently carried by Macronie, is that the end goal is to pull down pension benefits and offer the market for funded pensions to its big oligarco-plutocratic buddies like BlackRock.

And the corporatisms are of course bracing themselves on their little privileges by hiding behind the idea of ​​keeping high level services for all (knowing full well that this will not happen)

The retirement age as well as the number of years of contributions pose the debate very badly. These are setting parameters a posteriori, and in themselves they cannot guarantee pensions.

To relax these conditions for retirement, we must reindustrialize, produce, employ the French at home.

Pay-as-you-go pension schemes are an accounting balance between beneficiaries and contributors.

The only priority debate is to increase contributors.

A pro-natalist policy for the long term would not be stupid either...

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 19:15
by phil59
Well, my retirement, I'm going to take it very soon, a little forced, because staying off, it will be almost a year, and it's not constructive.

Normally, as I married a young girl, who already was not to retire for 4 years, I was planning to do 2 more years, if possible, just to finish paying for the house, and cool.

But fate would have it otherwise.

Afterwards, there are those WHO HAVE FIGHTED to get better, and "tanpir" for us who didn't know how to do it. You don't have to be jealous.

How many unemployed people already do not contribute?

Why don't we train people for the right job?

For me, but that's me, a lot of work could be learned in apprenticeship, school + work, with already a foot in society.

Even the doctors, in fact, after a few years, what do they do? indirectly...

My assistant (yes I am an assisted : Lol: : Arrow: ), I tutored her for 2 years, and it's been about 20 years. (this is the only time I had to present a "plôme" and since I had 2... : Lol:

I wonder why we wouldn't be able to start phased retirement at 60...

Yes, life is a little longer.
But many are also worn out.

Do you want a 70-year-old "instit"?

For a long time I said that I would retire at 120, so that I had 80 years of happiness left to live! : Lol: : Mrgreen: : Cheesy: : Arrow:

All that is "military" contributes to which fund?

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 19:56
by Exnihiloest
Remundo wrote:for once I would rather agree with Nihilo, even if he shows bad faith elsewhere, to put it mildly.


I have no bad faith. Your posture as a moral father is already painful, even in a role of composition I do not see you credible, and in addition you have to slander those who express themselves (unless they express their allegiance to Putin or to the theses of the RN, of course).

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 21:42
by phil59
Guys, both stopped, "I'm going to bray".

I like you quite well for your convictions, which are often very different, but it's YOUR CONVICTIONS.

You defend them, that's good.

Who is "too" wrong, and who is less wrong?

Based on what?

Well, I don't care, I'm going to retire, I barely escape this misery.

Re: pension reform

published: 11/01/23, 22:01
by Remundo
Exnihiloest wrote:
Remundo wrote:for once I would rather agree with Nihilo, even if he shows bad faith elsewhere, to put it mildly.


I have no bad faith. Your posture as a moral father is already painful, even in a role of composition I do not see you credible, and in addition you have to slander those who express themselves (unless they express their allegiance to Putin or to the theses of the RN, of course).

I slander? I am a father morality?

I'm just an apprentice, I take my lessons from you.

And on the contrary, I let everyone speak. Widely.

Re: pension reform

published: 12/01/23, 08:35
by Janic
dumb
I have no bad faith.
all faiths are good...for their authors! Elementary my dear Wat...nullard
Your posture as a moral father is already painful, even in a role of composition I do not see you credible, and in addition you have to slander those who express themselves
what is called morality is essentially of a religious nature, which implies that to be non-religious is to have no morality. So we understand that you hate all morality.
When to slander, it's your trademark, so it's hard to blame others for what you practice yourself...ad hominem!

Re: pension reform

published: 12/01/23, 12:02
by Christophe
FmOcZ2YWAAABwtn.jpg
FmOcZ2YWAAABwtn.jpg (75.17 KiB) Viewed 1712 times