1) The average age of retirement is 61.5 years, delay the age of retirement would change nothing.
The average age of "retirement" is that which is asserting its right to a pension. What is important is the age of retirement. The average age of cessation of employment is 58.8 years, and six out of ten employees are out (unemployment, disability, inactivity or exemption from seeking employment) at the time to liquidate their retirement. Very often, employees who have had a short career and / or struck, especially women, liquidate their retirement at age 65 to qualify for a full pension with no discount, even though they are already off the market work. Postpone the legal retirement age beyond 60 years would have two consequences: the systems of unemployment or early retirement will have to pay more that the pension fund systems and less, and in parallel, the time off work before the age of retirement will lengthen for many, with trivial or no resources. The age of the full rate (65 years) will be postponed accordingly, meaning that a growing proportion of employee-es will reduce its flights to reach the new terminal have a pension or amputated by the discount.
2) Life expectancy increases, it is normal to work longer.
Increasing life expectancy is not new, it has not prevented the time spent working in a parallel decrease in life. In addition, life expectancy in "good health", that is to say without disabilities is much lower than life expectancy. Any retirement late hampers so significant the time employees have to really enjoy their retirement. Finally, young people increasingly come later in life and many employees, mostly women, have careers and staple already unable to meet the number of years required, even though the companies rid of older employees. Increasing the contribution period or delaying the legal age of retirement would have a significant impact on the wind retirement and would in practice by a reduced pension for the greatest number.
3) Young could not fund the pensions of future retirees, it is necessary that they work longer.
For that young people can pay the pensions of retirees, they need not be unemployed and therefore older employees leave their place on the labor market to new generations. Postponing the age of retirement is to prefer maintaining youth unemployment rather than pay pensions. The PAYG is based on an implicit contract: the generation working has benefited from the work of the previous generation it supports pensions. The retirement comes, it will be supported in turn. Thus, each generation standing on the shoulders of the previous and the creation of wealth is shared between workers and retirees. Intergenerational contract is what the government and employers are trying to destroy, in wishing to work longer, the younger generations.
4) The PAYG system will no longer be able to guarantee decent pensions for younger generations, they must already be guard by constituting an additional pension private savings.
If we find it possible to complete the assessments for the public distribution system by payments into a private savings, what then prevents an increase in contributions and ensure a better retirement system with the division?
5) Civil servants are privileged
The level of pensions is equivalent in the private and the public: on average 1625 euros per month in the private, 1593 euros in public service. The calculation of retirement is different in the private and the public, but this leads to a similar result. In the private sector, it is calculated on the best 25 years and premiums are taken into account. In the audience, it is the salary of the last 6 months, but the premiums are not taken into account and the supplementary pension is not the same level as in the private sector.
6) There will be too many retirees and not enough assets
Population projections are not scientific facts and are based on assumptions about several factors (fertility, unemployment, participation rates of men and women , etc..). Already, recent years, projections have varied widely. Thus, in the late 1990s, all official reports predicted a bust. It did not happen. Until recently, the same report provided a breakdown of the workforce in the future. The latest forecast by INSEE are now reflecting an increase in the labor force until 2015 and then stabilized thereafter. In addition, the assumptions on the workforce are very pessimistic, if not regressive: in fact there is no reason to project, in the range of 25 to 45 years, an employment rate of women less than 15 points to men except renounce any policy aimed at equality between women and men. Large leeway yet exist in this area, and an employment level equal between men and women means that we would find the same ratio of pensioners to active until 1970, so without any degradation.
7) We can not fund the pensions
Unless you order the impoverishment of retirees, it is normal to cover social needs related to the increase in their share of the population through increased levies on the wealth produced. The pension fund deficits are mainly due to the stubborn refusal to do so. Yet the need for additional funding for pensions is feasible since it was encrypted by the NRC in 2007 between 1 and 2 points of GDP by 2050, compared with the fall in the share of payroll by 8 points in recent decades and with the corresponding explosion of dividends, which increased from 3.2% of GDP in 1982 to 8.5% in 2007. It is therefore fair to increase the share of wages and pensions in the wealth produced by addressing the profits. Pension funding is possible as long as end the current division of shameless wealth for the benefit of financial returns. It is this sharing that is taboo to blow, not the retirement age. This is a political choice of justice and solidarity.
8) The solution to finance pensions of increasing employer contributions would be detrimental to business competitiveness.
Different scenarios were studied, with the assumption on which the NRC is working with a productivity gain of 1.5% per year. One scenario is that it establishes quite possible to guarantee both the maintenance of the replacement rate (average pension / average wage) and an increase identical purchasing power of pensioners and workers (1, 2% / year, up slightly less than that of productivity ) by a 6-point increase employer contributions between 2009 and 2050: the increase would not affect the sacrosanct business competitiveness, since this scenario is done by taking the assumption of maintaining its current level from payroll (salaries and fees) in value added and thus no impact on costs. This scenario, although not more favorable to the employee-es and retirees as it assumes that the share of the payroll remains at its current level which is historically low, making it totally inoperative the only argument against the MEDEF premium increases. A more favorable scenario for employees and retirees is one that allows the share of payroll increases by cutting taxes on dividends, which leaves unchanged the cost of labor.
9) To fund the pensions, it takes a productivist growth
Basing pension funding on the sharing of productivity gains do not mean that we put on a strong economic growth. Whatever the future productivity gains, they will be shared between the living standards of all actives and retirees, meeting new social needs and the reduction of working time.
10) family devices that benefit women are contrary to the equality between men and women.
These are overwhelmingly women who take care of children and household management. As a result, they are penalized in their careers, they are interrupted or working part time. Even incorporating these devices family, their retirement is on average 40% lower than men. They are still essential to reduce pension inequalities between women and men. However, European Community law shall promptly questioned the existence of such devices. This is an inconsistency, since also recognizes the concept of indirect discrimination, that is to say, the legitimacy to give a special advantage since it reduces social inequality or gender. It is impossible to claim the principle of equality to increase inequality.
ATTAC-Copernicus Foundation
http://www.fondation-copernic.org/spip.php?article314
0 comments:
Post a Comment