4 ms·

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

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.
  - p4bl0 4y ago
    > "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.
    - realusername 4y ago
      > 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.

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.
- p4bl0 4y ago
  > "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.
  - realusername 4y ago
    > 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.