4 ms·

That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say. First, because the part of pensions in the GDP stays more or less the same across their

That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say. First, because the part of pensions in the GDP stays more or less the same across their projections, and they say (p.3 synthesis) « the results of this report do not validate the idea that pension spendings are growing uncontrolled ». Second, because as they say, the government is supposed to bring the pension funds to balance... The same austerity government, who by destroying public service is defunding the pension system (p.5 synthesis): « It is a paradox that the austerity measures on public servants will negatively affect the balance of the pension system ». > Regarding blue collar manual labour, that's why there's adjustments for such work (it counts more enabling faster retirement) This is close to non-existent lately. Macron in his working law reform (2016) and pension reform (2023) made it much harder for work hardship to be recognized. > unions and populist political parties flat out rejecting a reform and calling for bringing down the age of retirement. It made compromise impossible. Well of course they did just that. We need to work less, not more. The government makes compromise impossible by repeatedly fucking over the poor and giving to the rich (taking from housing aids APL the same month they remove ISF tax on the rich). Then they send riot cops, imprison many and maim countless others. In the early 20th century it was common for workers to be killed by the boss or the government during a strike, so the workers gathered guns and dynamite... we are slowly moving back to this era. > The amount and quality of labour that goes into providing all needs and amenities of modern life is much higher than before. This is a non-argument. The "amenities of modern life" are provided by slave labor, mostly from Africa and Asia. Half of people who work in Europe are producing nothing of value to anyone. And those who try to find meaning in their work are prevented by the bureaucrats. I recommend reading David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and watching his talk from CCC called Managerial feudalism and the revolt of the caring classes. > Where am I doing that, and what does a pension reform have to do with that? France is already one of the countries with the highest tax burdens for the well-off. Well you're doing it right here in the next sentence. The rich have it super easy around here. To quote a friend of mine, who's only middle class, « we should pay more taxes ». And she's not even super rich! There's so many ways for the super rich and the powerful to escape any justice in France... Most multinationals do not pay any taxes, while well-known fortunes pay a very small amount due to various montages (see LuxLeaks/BahamasLeaks & others). And that has to do with poor people breaking their backs producing the wealth of this country, making food and cleaning spaces and working the factories and building infrastructure... and the rich doing absolutely nothing but enjoying life. We french people have a tradition of chopping heads, the rich better start sharing soon or the guillotine will be put back up. Pensions are historically one part of the social contract that convinced people after WWII to stop hanging and chopping heads. EDIT: Sorry my message was very impersonal. You should ask yourself: are you a billionaire with dozens of empty villas? If not, why defend a fascist government who's only concerned about the rich? There's good chances you are on the side of those who have everything to win and little to lose, but have been convinced otherwise by school and the media.

sofixa 3y ago
> « the results of this report do not validate the idea that pension spendings are growing uncontrolled » It's an organisation which contains unions, and it's not their place to discuss the public budget. > That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say Which is asinine. Their "pessimistic" vision is for 2% year on year growth, which is wildly optimistic in my view; their "it's not too bad, only 15% of GDP" is among the worst in the OECD (along other countries with budget issues like Spain and Italy); their "for pensioners to have 75% of the median quality of life of working people" sounds far from great, and a massive downgrade from today. So they're saying it's going to cost a crapton of money which the country doesn't have, for worse quality of life, but that's fine? > Well of course they did just that. We need to work less, not more We need to, and should, ideally. But who will pay for it? > (taking from housing aids APL the same month they remove ISF tax on the rich) As I said elsewhere, removing the ISF resulted in a net tax benefit (https://www.selexium.com/actualites/bilan-suppression-isf-grosses-fortunes-retour/ https://www.selexium.com/actualites/bilan-suppression-isf-gr... as a source that highly wealthy people are coming back to France, Insee have the stats on tax income per wealth). > This is a non-argument. The "amenities of modern life" are provided by slave labor, mostly from Africa and Asia. Half of people who work in Europe are producing nothing of value to anyone. And those who try to find meaning in their work are prevented by the bureaucrats. I recommend reading David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and watching his talk from CCC called Managerial feudalism and the revolt of the caring classes. Amenities of modern life is electronics (most of which comes from Asia indeed) but also cars, entertainment (movies, books, series, food, music, amusement parks), everything digital, etc. Not saying all of it has value in itself, but modern people consume a lot of things that didn't even exist a century ago. A lot of the surplus productivity has went there. > To quote a friend of mine, who's only middle class, « we should pay more taxes ». That's commendable attitude, but the problem is, many people don't see it like this. And when you raise taxes too much for those, they'll simply move to Belgium or Switzerland or Luxembourg, and then you lose. > Most multinationals do not pay any taxes, while well-known fortunes pay a very small amount due to various montages (see LuxLeaks/BahamasLeaks & others). Yes, and this is things France is actively working on fixing. They require multinational cooperation so it's not easy, but France is one of the most active countries on that front, consistently pushing the OECD and the EU. > If not, why defend a fascist government who's only concerned about the rich Oh please, there's nothing fascist about that government. Even the pretty far to the right Darmanin isn't fascist, let alone them as a whole. And I'm going to disagree they're only concerned about the rich; their focus is on the economy and budget as a whole, which translates into serious focus on the wealthy capitalist class, yes; but I've also seen big improvements making it easier for people to start their own business or get to work. Some of them are highly misguided like reducing unemployment benefits to push people to get back earlier, but still. To make it more personal: it stings a bit when I see how much of my salary goes to taxes, but I'm well off and I could be taxed a bit more without it impacting my life in the slightest; but I'm not one of those people who see money earned as the ultimate objective in life, so I'm not going to run away if my taxes get too high. That being said, my partner worked in the public sector for a few years, and it really pained me to hear the amount of incompetent fools stealing a living and the amount of layers of waste; that hasn't changed my view on taxes though, and I still happily pay them because I know the majority of it goes to good places for good reasons, and I can stomach some waste.

sofixa 3y ago

> « the results of this report do not validate the idea that pension spendings are growing uncontrolled » It's an organisation which contains unions, and it's not their place to discuss the public budget. > That's funny because the report is really not as pessimistic as you say Which is asinine. Their "pessimistic" vision is for 2% year on year growth, which is wildly optimistic in my view; their "it's not too bad, only 15% of GDP" is among the worst in the OECD (along other countries with budget issues like Spain and Italy); their "for pensioners to have 75% of the median quality of life of working people" sounds far from great, and a massive downgrade from today. So they're saying it's going to cost a crapton of money which the country doesn't have, for worse quality of life, but that's fine? > Well of course they did just that. We need to work less, not more We need to, and should, ideally. But who will pay for it? > (taking from housing aids APL the same month they remove ISF tax on the rich) As I said elsewhere, removing the ISF resulted in a net tax benefit (https://www.selexium.com/actualites/bilan-suppression-isf-grosses-fortunes-retour/ https://www.selexium.com/actualites/bilan-suppression-isf-gr... as a source that highly wealthy people are coming back to France, Insee have the stats on tax income per wealth). > This is a non-argument. The "amenities of modern life" are provided by slave labor, mostly from Africa and Asia. Half of people who work in Europe are producing nothing of value to anyone. And those who try to find meaning in their work are prevented by the bureaucrats. I recommend reading David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and watching his talk from CCC called Managerial feudalism and the revolt of the caring classes. Amenities of modern life is electronics (most of which comes from Asia indeed) but also cars, entertainment (movies, books, series, food, music, amusement parks), everything digital, etc. Not saying all of it has value in itself, but modern people consume a lot of things that didn't even exist a century ago. A lot of the surplus productivity has went there. > To quote a friend of mine, who's only middle class, « we should pay more taxes ». That's commendable attitude, but the problem is, many people don't see it like this. And when you raise taxes too much for those, they'll simply move to Belgium or Switzerland or Luxembourg, and then you lose. > Most multinationals do not pay any taxes, while well-known fortunes pay a very small amount due to various montages (see LuxLeaks/BahamasLeaks & others). Yes, and this is things France is actively working on fixing. They require multinational cooperation so it's not easy, but France is one of the most active countries on that front, consistently pushing the OECD and the EU. > If not, why defend a fascist government who's only concerned about the rich Oh please, there's nothing fascist about that government. Even the pretty far to the right Darmanin isn't fascist, let alone them as a whole. And I'm going to disagree they're only concerned about the rich; their focus is on the economy and budget as a whole, which translates into serious focus on the wealthy capitalist class, yes; but I've also seen big improvements making it easier for people to start their own business or get to work. Some of them are highly misguided like reducing unemployment benefits to push people to get back earlier, but still. To make it more personal: it stings a bit when I see how much of my salary goes to taxes, but I'm well off and I could be taxed a bit more without it impacting my life in the slightest; but I'm not one of those people who see money earned as the ultimate objective in life, so I'm not going to run away if my taxes get too high. That being said, my partner worked in the public sector for a few years, and it really pained me to hear the amount of incompetent fools stealing a living and the amount of layers of waste; that hasn't changed my view on taxes though, and I still happily pay them because I know the majority of it goes to good places for good reasons, and I can stomach some waste.