France in turmoil (again)
Discussion
Hugo Stiglitz said:
The issues isn't 62 to 64. It'll be 64 to 66 next. Just like here, 67 will become 70. Ian Duncan Smith chaired a group a few years ago saying basically we can all work longer?
Yep.And each change will be mathematically justified.
The public need to understand the maths. It’s not complicated. A very public and very serious debate has to happen. The only change that will be accepted, is one brought through democratic means. Macron F‘d up.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
The issues isn't 62 to 64. It'll be 64 to 66 next. Just like here, 67 will become 70. Ian Duncan Smith chaired a group a few years ago saying basically we can all work longer?
Well, in the UK we used to have people starting work at 14-16. Nowadays we seem to have a good number that spend years in Unis etc so may not start working until their late 20s. If people start working later in their life it's fairly logical that they should work until later in their life !
Vasco said:
Well, in the UK we used to have people starting work at 14-16. Nowadays we seem to have a good number that spend years in Unis etc so may not start working until their late 20s.
If people start working later in their life it's fairly logical that they should work until later in their life !
Maybe the answer is to base it on years worked and contributions If people start working later in their life it's fairly logical that they should work until later in their life !
Personally, my mediocre private pension (under constant attract by the likes of Truss and an American bank I've never heard of) and my paltry state pension means that I'll never be able to afford to retire in 7 years time.
I just hope my current employer will be happy to keep me on. Although I am already finding it a wee odd to be nearly twice as old as most of my workmates.
Many must be in the same position as myself.
Europe's problem is that their state pension is actually enough to enjoy life on, thus their populations get irked when it looks like it'll be taken away.
Solution for Macon: Drop state pension to £10k a year
I just hope my current employer will be happy to keep me on. Although I am already finding it a wee odd to be nearly twice as old as most of my workmates.
Many must be in the same position as myself.
Europe's problem is that their state pension is actually enough to enjoy life on, thus their populations get irked when it looks like it'll be taken away.
Solution for Macon: Drop state pension to £10k a year
The government will never allow you to flourish up a certain point. You earn more you pay more so you are not incentivised to work more and become under a certain threshold. There is a convergence of income up to a point where you can break that limit and then become wealthy paying in effect less tax than the lesser man.
Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
Ivan stewart said:
Vasco said:
Well, in the UK we used to have people starting work at 14-16. Nowadays we seem to have a good number that spend years in Unis etc so may not start working until their late 20s.
If people start working later in their life it's fairly logical that they should work until later in their life !
Maybe the answer is to base it on years worked and contributions If people start working later in their life it's fairly logical that they should work until later in their life !
nickfrog said:
Mr Whippy said:
I suppose there is more than one way to go about addressing this issue though.
Macron went the stupid route.
I assume you mean the 49.3. The bill was approved by the senate and then debated for 175 hours. Macron went the stupid route.
It wasn't ideal but what else would you have done?
Give up like past govts ?
The senate full of people who’ll be utterly unaffected by this change. With pension savings out the wazoo, and no conception of the real impact.
175 hours debate. 175 hours of talking. Was quantity of talking ever proportional to quality?
All I’m saying is, this was very well misjudged to have this effect.
If you can’t find consensus even in the talking shops of government, and have to try force such things through, you’ve failed.
You don’t destroy democracy to protect your society. What a slippery slope that is.
CrgT16 said:
The government will never allow you to flourish up a certain point. You earn more you pay more so you are not incentivised to work more and become under a certain threshold. There is a convergence of income up to a point where you can break that limit and then become wealthy paying in effect less tax than the lesser man.
Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
Nope, you are going to have to explain how someone paying 45% tax is paying proportionally less than someone in the 20% tax band.Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
(Not counting any tax avoidance schemes)
A few facts:
- the French state pension is based on direct and "live" redistribution of contributions, not on capitalisation. In other words the workers pay for the pensioners' lifestyle in real time. It's also ring fenced and the deficit has been growing for many years, it's there for all to see. So the problem is purely mathematical. The shortfall has been plugged by a public finance deficit, in other words a debt with interests. No one wants to contribute more and no pensioners want to receive less. Problem is, kicking the can down the road for 15 years has resulted in huge additional compound interest rather than what could have been a reasonable and progressive correction to both input and output 15 years ago without resorting to debt. Previous govts preferred to ignore the issue.
No wonder France has the lowest retirement age and one of the most generous state pensions. It's not sustainable demographically when life expectancy is increasing.
- the legal process. I don't want to go into too much French legal constitutional details as it gets boring quite quickly. Article 49.3 has been in the Constitution since its start in 1958. Nothing to do with COVID. It has been used 100 times so far by various gvts across the political spectrum. It is totally democratic by definition, as it is part of the foundation of French democracy. There are indeed checks and balances: the Assembly (of democratically elected MPs) was automatically given the right to veto the Gvt by simple majority. It didn't, albeit by a slim majority of 9. In addition, the bill will only be ratified if approved by the Constitutional Council, the highest Chamber in the land, whose job is to independently check the compliance of the process from a democratic stand point. They are not renowned for their lack of rigour.
Now my opinion: it was the worst possible outcome. But nowhere near as bad as kicking the can down the road yet again. Numerous attempts to negotiate were met by a point blank "non" from the Unions. They didn't want to engage.
The French just don't want to hear the bad news and want to keep their privileges despite them being abolished by the 1789 "Revolution". (which in reality just transferred them from the nobility/clergy to the Bourgeoisie, today's middle class), plus ça change...
- the French state pension is based on direct and "live" redistribution of contributions, not on capitalisation. In other words the workers pay for the pensioners' lifestyle in real time. It's also ring fenced and the deficit has been growing for many years, it's there for all to see. So the problem is purely mathematical. The shortfall has been plugged by a public finance deficit, in other words a debt with interests. No one wants to contribute more and no pensioners want to receive less. Problem is, kicking the can down the road for 15 years has resulted in huge additional compound interest rather than what could have been a reasonable and progressive correction to both input and output 15 years ago without resorting to debt. Previous govts preferred to ignore the issue.
No wonder France has the lowest retirement age and one of the most generous state pensions. It's not sustainable demographically when life expectancy is increasing.
- the legal process. I don't want to go into too much French legal constitutional details as it gets boring quite quickly. Article 49.3 has been in the Constitution since its start in 1958. Nothing to do with COVID. It has been used 100 times so far by various gvts across the political spectrum. It is totally democratic by definition, as it is part of the foundation of French democracy. There are indeed checks and balances: the Assembly (of democratically elected MPs) was automatically given the right to veto the Gvt by simple majority. It didn't, albeit by a slim majority of 9. In addition, the bill will only be ratified if approved by the Constitutional Council, the highest Chamber in the land, whose job is to independently check the compliance of the process from a democratic stand point. They are not renowned for their lack of rigour.
Now my opinion: it was the worst possible outcome. But nowhere near as bad as kicking the can down the road yet again. Numerous attempts to negotiate were met by a point blank "non" from the Unions. They didn't want to engage.
The French just don't want to hear the bad news and want to keep their privileges despite them being abolished by the 1789 "Revolution". (which in reality just transferred them from the nobility/clergy to the Bourgeoisie, today's middle class), plus ça change...
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 24th March 10:08
croyde said:
Out of interest, being that the UK state pension is £10k, what is the French one?
It depends but as a rule of thumb it is at least 50% of the average of your salary for your best 25 years, inflation corrected.Edit: but there is also a minimum of around £9,700 irrespective of whether you have worked or not if you're 65 or over.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 24th March 10:07
CrgT16 said:
The government will never allow you to flourish up a certain point. You earn more you pay more so you are not incentivised to work more and become under a certain threshold. There is a convergence of income up to a point where you can break that limit and then become wealthy paying in effect less tax than the lesser man.
Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
May need to check your maths chap.Sounds conspiracy theory but look carefully how the tax system works and the really wealthy pay less tax proportionally than everyone else and they will lobby to keep it that way.
nickfrog said:
croyde said:
Out of interest, being that the UK state pension is £10k, what is the French one?
It depends but as a rule of thumb it is at least 50% of the average of your salary for your best 25 years, inflation corrected.Edit: but there is also a minimum of around £9,700 irrespective of whether you have worked or not if you're 65 or over.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 24th March 10:07
(sorry again, Miles)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff