Do not reduce the amount of pensions: the objective has been reaffirmed several times within Elisabeth Borne’s ministerial team. The head of government plans to present this afternoon the pension reform bill, one of the key points of Emmanuel Macron’s latest presidential campaign. “What we want is to maintain our pay-as-you-go pension system. The number of workers who finance pensions is constantly falling. If we do not want to lower pensions, then we must gradually work longer,” the Prime Minister herself stressed in Franceinfo on last Tuesday.
To gradually reduce the deficit of 12,000 million euros of the pension system, the formula that Matignon should opt for combines the acceleration of the Touraine reform with an increase in the contribution period, probably from one quarter per year to one every three years, and that progressive minimum legal age, which will probably be 64 years instead of 65 years. The combination of these two components should save up to 22,000 million euros in 2035. Would it be better to reduce retirement pensions? BFM Business provides you with some answers.
A politically complex path
It is true that this lever may seem exploitable at a time when the standard of living of French retirees continues to be slightly above the rest of the population, in addition to being one of the highest in the world according to OECD data. A situation that should not last according to the economist Antoine Bozio due to a greater acceleration of wages against prices while pensions are no longer indexed to the former but to inflation since 1987.
“Today, retirees have a standard of living well above the average standard of living. But in 20 or 30 years, this will no longer be the case,” he told Médiapart, who actively participated in the development of the first Emmanuel. Macron’s pension reform project during the first term, whose vision was more “systemic”.
In any case, it seems difficult for the French to adhere to a reduction in pensions, especially for the elderly, despite the fact that the simple pension reform project is especially favored by this age group of the population. Hence the decision to favor the extension of the working day, which has the joint effect of increasing the contributions collected and mechanically reducing retirement time.
An apartment for small retreats… but conditioned
It is not enough to avoid the political protest that remains strong on the left: “Executives are already leaving at 65 years of age, regrets the deputy for Paris of the EELV Sandrine Rousseau with 20 minutes. The reform will only make sure to reduce the pensions of the most precarious, which will no longer go out at full rate. Savings to finance the continued reduction of business taxes. It’s a second round upside down!” To these accusations, the executive tries to respond with the promise of an increase in small pensions to 85% of the minimum wage, or around 1,200 euros.
If she allows to distance the minimum age, aujourd’hui plafonné à 953 euros, this measure will not apply in revanche qu’aux Français ayant réalisé una carrière complète like the rappelait Le Point in advance of the initial presentation of the reform project. last month. The Government has thus announced that those who have a ruined career must retire at age 67 so as not to be subject to a reduction in their pensions.
Governments have already acted on the level of pensions
If, therefore, the executive rules out a direct reduction in pensions, it is always possible to act indirectly on it and some recent governments have already done so. I eat? By increasing these pensions at a lower rate than the prices. According to the government assumed by La Croix, “this under-indexation of pensions would allow saving 2,500 million euros per year but with the risk […] that the relative pension of retirees reaches the level of the 1980s by 2050”.
However, Antoine Bozio advocates this path: “We spend 300 billion each year to pay pensions. If we withdraw one percent, we earn a quarter of the 12 billion in expected deficit. This year, inflation is high and the wages are a strong argument.” for choosing this path: why should the negative purchasing power shock be based only on assets and not all?
“We could, for example, increase the amount of pensions by 5% instead of 6% [NDLR, le niveau de l’inflation sur un an en décembre]. But that does not mean that the level of pensions should be lowered every year for 15 years, because the pension system must be capable of guaranteeing a level of purchasing power for retirees”.
Source: BFM TV
