French pension reform censure rejected

[Economy 41,998]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

I mean people not working longer can be an economic loss but if the social cost is too heavy for 8 french person out of 10... I wish Macron would respect that.

Also it's true the demographic gonna go worst but unemployment could do better along the years as well. It's maybe not the best to take decisions for 2030 or something that are sacrifices cause so much can evolve till then...

 

As long as ppl understand the cost (not just the direct financial impact) and can weight the pros vs cons of a decision to work longer or not work longer. There isn't always a clear cut right or wrong answer. Different options bring their own pros and cons

 

If the French Nation were to reach the conclusion it's better to keep retirement age as is, find other ways to offset some of the pressures, and accept whatever losses still come, that's a perfectly valid option.

 

Just as those pro raising it also need to be aware of the human cost to quality of life in the later working years

 

As long as ppl truly know what's at stake and what th pros and cons are. I get the sense some ppl focus only on the aspects of what they don't like in a reform most of the time but don't always consider the negatives of not doing it (at least not seriously enough).

[Fuffy 807]

11 hours ago, Oriane said:

For those who say there's no solution, actually, taxing 2% of the wealth of the 42 richest people in France would be enough to solve the problem.

But let's protect these people who will be sooooo lost with 2% less of their huge wealth, and let's f*ck over all the people who struggle everyday to make a decent living and will be dead/unhealthy by the time they hit the retirement age.

Can you explain how that solution would work? IIRC, the top 10% were paying ~70% of total income tax in France and of that 10%, the top 1% was paying 20%.  

To my limited economic knowledge, substantially raising that to cover pensions would probably hurt the economy more, especially when you think about the Laffer Curve, lower reinvestments and the potential for an increase in tax evasion.

[Guillaume Hamon 4,746]

14 hours ago, Fuffy said:

Can you explain how that solution would work? IIRC, the top 10% were paying ~70% of total income tax in France and of that 10%, the top 1% was paying 20%.  

According to Gabriel Zucman ( french economist/ economy teacher at Berkeley and the Paris School of Economy/ Davos World economic summit participant ) who worked on this subject, the real taxation on the very richest french persons would be around 2%. It's currently way higher for french middle class.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/l-interview-eco/le-taux-d-imposition-reel-des-ultrariches-en-france-est-seulement-de-2-denonce-le-professeur-d-economie-gabriel-zucman_5583279.html

15 hours ago, Fuffy said:

To my limited economic knowledge, substantially raising that to cover pensions would probably hurt the economy more, especially when you think about the Laffer Curve, lower reinvestments and the potential for an increase in tax evasion.

I think that if they really have a 2% taxation they could already largely reinvest their money in France and would do it yet if they thought it was in their interest.

Concerning the last point about tax evasion, I remember President Sarkozy ( 2007-2012 ) lowering the richest ones taxation by a third ( pretty huge gift right? ) and the departures of these super wealthy folks to Switzerland remained stable.

At the time it was used as an indicator for tax evasion since it was the go-to place for rich french folks wanting to pay less since they still had the fiscal secrecy laws they ditched since.

[LadyLuca 2,231]

64 is still good right? when were people allowed to get their pension before that reform got passed

[Benji 19,716]

On 3/16/2023 at 11:59 PM, Economy said:

As someone who has worked blue collar jobs his entire life I think ppl dramatize this slightly.

 

It may not be comfortable per say for older ppl but not as impossible as ppl make it sound

 

Now a days theres all kinds of things we use machines and tools for that up until as early as the 1970s and 1980s these construction guys were killing their backs over. There's techniques to work to not totally kill urself. Workplace conditions even in blue-collar work is a lot more comfortable and duable than it used to be and not as hard as what I imagined it would be

 

Also nearly every workplace involved in physical work there's always positions that involve operating machines (pushing buttons), computer or management jobs (which older ppl are more likely to do anyway cuz they've had time to move up) or just lighter duties that also have to get done.

 

Every place I've ever worked in used common sense with this. Yes a few duties are tough even with modern technology available, but U don't put someone in their 60s doing the hardest stuff. You make them do what's realistic while giving the harder stuff to ppl more capable. Even if a company is trash and don't care about u they still have an incentive to do it this way because it's not efficient to have the weaker ppl do the hardest stuff

 

I think people who don't work in blue collar work and don't know what it's really like are imagining situations of how ppl in their 60s are working that isn't actually the general case like they are picking up bricks and stones all day or something 

Sorry missed this notification so it may have already been discussed.

So I come from blue collar work; my first couple of jobs had physically demanding aspects or working with people who had physically demanding jobs.  The issue the older generation were facing in these jobs was that the business was losing money because they couldn’t do certain tasks or were slower than others.  That meant the business gave them less hours/jobs so they weren’t making much money.  It’s all very well saying there are jobs older people can do, it’s correct; but you have to weigh in the fact we’re dealing with businesses that want to make money and employing someone who is slower or can’t do certain tasks of the job isn’t high up on their list.

The state pension isn’t exactly a lot of money.  I think just having it available to people to fall back on is good because I know a lot of older people do struggle to make ends meet if they’re not already in a job they can easily continue to do.

[Guillaume Hamon 4,746]

4 hours ago, LadyLuca said:

64 is still good right?

Well it hardly depends of the jobs you did imo.

Also there's this age + the number of years to do in order to get a full pension. For ex if you did a master/doctorate degree before to work you'll actually need to work till 66/ 69 yo. And that's if you got zero breaks in this career due to unemployment, babies, diseases etc.

Be always employed ain't a given and will probably get even harder to get later since we're told " none of you will do a whole career in one company like your grandpa, y'all do many jobs in many companies etc. "

[Economy 41,998]

5 hours ago, Benji said:

Sorry missed this notification so it may have already been discussed.

So I come from blue collar work; my first couple of jobs had physically demanding aspects or working with people who had physically demanding jobs.  The issue the older generation were facing in these jobs was that the business was losing money because they couldn’t do certain tasks or were slower than others.  That meant the business gave them less hours/jobs so they weren’t making much money.  It’s all very well saying there are jobs older people can do, it’s correct; but you have to weigh in the fact we’re dealing with businesses that want to make money and employing someone who is slower or can’t do certain tasks of the job isn’t high up on their list.

The state pension isn’t exactly a lot of money.  I think just having it available to people to fall back on is good because I know a lot of older people do struggle to make ends meet if they’re not already in a job they can easily continue to do.

No it's true.

 

I think comment as usual as taken out of context to the point I was trying to make tho

 

It wasn't so much "it doesn't matter cuz older ppl can still do work" as if it's not an issue

 

My comment is more about condition relative to the past (and also relative to the severity that ppl comment on that I think is slightly dramatic, cuz they make it sound like the older ppl are generally always doing the same jobs or same pace. It doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't still lead to problems like what u suggested.

 

When deciding whether it's duable to raise retirement age, I merely meant a lot of physical jobs have become easier than in the past which can be factored in the decision (although like some pointed out here although we have tech and tools to reduce physical labor we are also expected to work faster)

 

It doesnt mean I'm saying it's "easy" for older people and it also doesn't mean I'm saying raising the retirement age is the only option or the one we should go with. Merely a consideration. There's a difference.

 

[Economy 41,998]

4 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Well it hardly depends of the jobs you did imo.

Also there's this age + the number of years to do in order to get a full pension. For ex if you did a master/doctorate degree before to work you'll actually need to work till 66/ 69 yo. And that's if you got zero breaks in this career due to unemployment, babies, diseases etc.

Be always employed ain't a given and will probably get even harder to get later since we're told " none of you will do a whole career in one company like your grandpa, y'all do many jobs in many companies etc. "

Is the trends different in France?

 

Cuz here in Canada I read statistics that years worked in the same place actually increased to 9 years vs 7 back in the 1990s or something like that

 

Though I'm sure post pandemic these trends maybe have shifted due to career changes

Edited Saturday at 08:55 PM by Economy
Typo

[Guillaume Hamon 4,746]

4 hours ago, Economy said:

Is the trends different in France?

 

Cuz here in Canada I read statistics that years worked in the same ace actually increased to 9 years vs 7 back in the 1990s or something like that

 

Though I'm sure post pandemic these trends maybe have shifted due to career changes

Years worked in the same ace? Sorry I don't understand.

[Economy 41,998]

1 minute ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Years worked in the same ace? Sorry I don't understand.

Place*

 

I make lots of typos

[Guillaume Hamon 4,746]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Place*

 

I make lots of typos

Oh don't worry haha!

Well I would have to go check to be sure tbh but here I often heard about careers getting more and more about switches...

[Economy 41,998]

51 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Oh don't worry haha!

Well I would have to go check to be sure tbh but here I often heard about careers getting more and more about switches...

I heard that too and then yet when actual statistics were reported on that it didn't support that rhetoric, at least not here in Canada

 

Again tho, I'm sure those numbers came back down since the pandemic cuz there was a lot of reshuffling in industries

[Morphine Prince 94,064]

Macron just guaranteed a right-wing fascist will sweep the next elections.

 

[BBhomemaker 5,291]

13 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Macron just guaranteed a right-wing fascist will sweep the next elections.

 

This might be happening, especially if they send Jordan Bardella as their candidate, something different than Lepen's name. I'm almost certain to see them in the final election for sure, but against who is the real question..

[StarstruckIllusion 38,701]

22 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Macron just guaranteed a right-wing fascist will sweep the next elections.

 

Centrist/Liberals/Democrats are the biggest enablers of fascism lmao 

And french media is not helping, misleading the public to think this is a right wing attack, when really, this bs is above politics and 2/3rds of French people don’t support this

Scary times for democracy…