The government has been slow to admit it, has employed all the tricks to mitigate this information, but now all the cards are slaughtered: The main measure of its bailout of pensions is the decline of the statutory retirement age from 60 to 62 years, coupled with the decline from 65 to 67 years of age required to automatically receive a full pension, regardless of the number of years we have contributed. We are told that it is both a fair and inevitable. What is it really?
The justice of this plan, it is still looking for, except to think it's fair to pay for the other French people who began work early, who are less skilled and more modest. Currently, the French can retire at age 60 while receiving a full pension because they have started to work and thus to contribute sooner than others. Those who were fortunate enough to study long and work later, are already obliged to contribute for longer and thus to work beyond age 60, to receive a full pension. These will not be affected by the measure. Only the former will suffer the consequences. Is this justice? If indeed this is sufficient only to save system, it means very clearly that the government chose to charge the workers and employees' pensions executives.
But even if he, for this to be meaningful, the French 60 years can actually work two more years. It is, in the current job market, completely illusory. In our country, the elderly, such as youth, are among the first victims of unemployment. When 7 Swedes aged 60 to 10 work, only 3 French in the same age are in this situation! We do not see why employers would suddenly employ more workers in this age category, and even older. What happens, then, between 60 and 62 years? Very simply, our fellow citizens who should have become younger retirees will become, in fact, older unemployed. And so far "fix" the problem of pensions, we simply transfer their deficit to Unedic or disability to credit, given the possible ill health at this age. Nice round of monte if any. The cost to society will be twofold: increase the number of people receiving unemployment benefits, disability, of early retirees; it still decrease the number of jobs for young people who find themselves in competition on the labor market with these new job seekers 60, 61, 62.
this must be added the effects, less often criticized, the postponement of the retirement age for full pension from 65 to 67 years. Currently, whatever your career, you can receive a full pension at 65. With the government's plan, it took two more years. The French have a career "Holey , Which have experienced periods of prolonged unemployment - a situation more and more common - will be directly penalized.
It is therefore absurd to justify this reform by its justness. But what is even more questionable is the argument-club that he would "necessarily" push back the age of retirement, "since the lifetime increases." Yes, life is increasing - but not necessarily life in good health, and especially not for all. At 35, an executive can expect to live 6 years older than a worker, but 10 years older in good health. Yet the government claims that it takes into account in its reform, the hardship, since a sick or disabled employee may leave earlier retirement. But this is actually quite the opposite of a serious consideration of the hardship which would be to decide in advance that the toughest jobs and making use most are eligible for a retirement earlier. With this measure, in fact, it was once sick - in other words, once the damage - that an employee may assert his rights
It's not all. There is a certain intellectual dishonesty to mechanically link in the absolute increase in life span and increase working time. Longer life does not begin yesterday when a French from 1810 could expect to live 37 years, 43 years in 1900, and 80 years ago today, the time duration of working time has not increased proportionately. Quite the contrary, during the twentieth century, even as life expectancy doubled, that the great social achievements in the reduction of weekly working time and throughout life, took place. If evidence is that the link is not mechanical, but political, and is in fact based on the draft of society we have.
Ultimately, the right is playing a final argument, that of comparison with other countries. Precisely compare. In Germany, normally a symbol of discipline and fiscal responsibility, we can go to the full pension at age 63, having only paid 35 years! The
display This reform, which is not fair - it focuses the efforts for 2 / 3 through work, for 1 / 3 of the capital - or effective - it does nothing beyond 2020 - in fact one goal: make a short term fix public accounts in the short term, to show their credentials to the financial markets, which, with the disastrous episode in Greek, proved that they intend to dictate their Peoples Act. We had promised to "restore the system": one does, ultimately, that handle a few settings to save the better off, and save face.
So what? The Socialist Party has a universal pension system and personalized to ensure the legal starting at age 60, taking into account all forms of hardship, encouraging individual choice to work longer, but as part of collective agreements. New resources will come from leveraging of capital income, a moderate increase and spread over time of employer and employee contributions, and improved employment of older workers (firms employing older workers will receive bonuses on their contributions, others with penalties). It should also build on the Pensions Reserve Fund, created by the left and the right wants to siphon off to hide deficits. The purpose of this fund is to perpetuate, by the interests of its investments, the funding of our pension system. It should itself be funded by income from privatization of public enterprises, but the right, even though it has many privatized since 2002, has never done. We propose to change policy, and to refinance the fund by a tax surcharge on banks. I personally think that we could also use to do this, the real estate of the state, currently poorly managed and left, worse than idle, in a state of constant deterioration. Poorly known, it could represent up to 60 million square meters, and tens of billions of euros. As the nation's heritage, it would be legitimate to draw upon to defend the future of our pensions.
Julien Dray
0 comments:
Post a Comment