The Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, says that the most modest will be the “less concerned” by the postponement to 64 years of the retirement age and that this reform is fair. Conversely, the secretary general of the CFDT, Laurent Berger, vigorously opposes the reform, because it would be unfair, weighing in priority on the most modest workers.
When changes are difficult, they ask for efforts, the question of justice is essential. The idea that one can have of what is right can of course vary from one person to another; But knowing who supports the burden of a reform, which benefits, and expect that this distribution is legitimate, balanced, is essential to make it accept. This is why the debate on the justice of the pension reform is fundamental, but where are the data to decide it?
To try to know who is the right of Elisabeth Borne or Laurent Berger, we must analyze the source of the economies of 17.7 billion euros announced for 2030, as produced by the two-shares of the reform: the ‘Acceleration of the Touraine reform (2014) and the transition to 64 years of the reference age to retire.
These two measures are based on very different logics and do not have the same consequences on the different population categories. 2> a lack of detail
The acceleration of the transition to forty-three years of subscription to benefit from a complete retirement affects everyone, but a little less those who started working early, since today they have already contributed forty-three years or more when they reach 62 years. Insofar as the level of retirement is largely linked to contributions paid, the duration of contribution is at the heart of the balance of the pension system. Consequently, it is not shocking that the contribution duration is evolved, given the evolution of life expectancy and the relationship between the numbers of assets and retirees, provided of course to take In account of specific situations, in particular the arduousness of certain trades. We can therefore consider that the acceleration of the transition to forty-three years of subscription to benefit from a complete retirement is a just measure.
Every other is the impact of the postponement to 64 years of the reference age for departure. This measure mainly affects those who started working early, who have fairly low -skilled jobs and less life expectancy. Conversely, those who started working after 22 years, who therefore, today, could not affect a complete retirement until 64, will be very little concerned by the reform. And the specific measures put forward by the government to take into account the arduousness, to alleviate the effect of the reform on those who have had long careers, can only have a limited impact. If not, how to understand that the transition to 64 years generates savings?
You have 41.79% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.