3 ms·

The system ISN'T sustained, not even the most optimistic scenario supports your argument. And funneling even more money into it like you want to isn't an optio

The system ISN'T sustained, not even the most optimistic scenario supports your argument. And funneling even more money into it like you want to isn't an option, the GDP proportion dedicated to retirement increased a lot already. You've seen the low salary but you didn't understand the cause of that, the cause of that is the money is being funneled to the retirement system.

p4bl0 4y ago
Literally everything you said is false. 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.
- realusername 4y ago
  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.
  - p4bl0 4y ago
    The president of the COR itself disagrees with you: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-retraites/les-depenses-de-retraites-sont-relativement-maitrisees-affirme-le-president-du-conseil-d-orientation-des-retraites_5614301.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re... > 14% of GDP is massive 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.
    - realusername 4y ago
      > The president of the COR itself disagrees with you: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re... 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.
      - 4y ago
retinaros 4y ago
why not? we have 98% of GDP debt and we kept funneling money into this debt. why suddenly the pension funds are the problem? it states that in 10 years there will be 20 billion deficit , that doesn’t include the raise of salaries to match inflation (it was removed in france in 1983) I ll wonder what would be the numbers if we do this simulation but pretty sure it will be positive. Finally, 20 billions is nothing for france, we spend 40 billions on immigration so by your logic we should just stop pouring money and lock our country?
- realusername 4y ago
  Isn't there other priorities in France than funneling more and more money in the retirement system so that wealthy old people can enjoy their boat cruise? Is that really the top priority right now? You have to realize that debt and GDP spending are competing with each other.

p4bl0 4y ago

Literally everything you said is false. 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.

realusername 4y ago
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.
- p4bl0 4y ago
  The president of the COR itself disagrees with you: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-retraites/les-depenses-de-retraites-sont-relativement-maitrisees-affirme-le-president-du-conseil-d-orientation-des-retraites_5614301.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re... > 14% of GDP is massive 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.
  - realusername 4y ago
    > The president of the COR itself disagrees with you: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/retraite/reforme-des-re... 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.
    - 4y ago

retinaros 4y ago

why not? we have 98% of GDP debt and we kept funneling money into this debt. why suddenly the pension funds are the problem? it states that in 10 years there will be 20 billion deficit , that doesn’t include the raise of salaries to match inflation (it was removed in france in 1983) I ll wonder what would be the numbers if we do this simulation but pretty sure it will be positive. Finally, 20 billions is nothing for france, we spend 40 billions on immigration so by your logic we should just stop pouring money and lock our country?

realusername 4y ago
Isn't there other priorities in France than funneling more and more money in the retirement system so that wealthy old people can enjoy their boat cruise? Is that really the top priority right now? You have to realize that debt and GDP spending are competing with each other.