French President Macron Raises Retirement Age by Decree

[Milchshake]

Some serious politics knowers always claimed the "biDEN iS TO tHe rIGHT OF EUroPe." Taking a big L today....
Having, Social Welfare as your sole political axis seems a bbit niave.
Are right wing parties more willing to mess with the Deere of Social Welfare they inherited than before?

French President Emmanuel Macron imposed a highly unpopular bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 on Thursday by shunning parliament and invoking a special constitutional power.

Lawmakers were shouting, their voices shaking with emotion as Macron made the risky move, which is expected to trigger quick motions of no-confidence in his government. Riot police vans zoomed by outside the National Assembly, their sirens wailing.

READ MORE: Strikes and protests continue in France’s pension battle

The proposed pension changes have prompted major strikes and protests across the country since January. Macron, who made it the flagship of his second term, argued the reform is needed to keep the pension system from diving into deficit as France’s population ages and life expectancy lengthens.

The decision to invoke the special power was made during a Cabinet meeting at the Elysee presidential palace, just a few minutes before the scheduled vote, because Macron had no guarantee of a majority in France’s lower house of parliament.

Then, as Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne tried to formally announce the decision at the National Assembly, leftist members broke into the Marseillaise, the French national anthem, delaying her speech. The speaker had to briefly suspend the session to restore order.

“Today, there’s uncertainty” about whether a majority would have voted for the bill “by just a few votes,” Borne explained. “We cannot take the risk to see 175 hours of parliamentary debate collapse … We cannot gamble on the future of our pensions. That reform is necessary,” she said.

Borne said her government is accountable to the parliament, prompting boos from the ranks of the opposition.

“In a few days, I have no doubts … there will be one or several no-confidence motions. There will actually be a proper vote and therefore the parliamentary democracy will have the last say,” she added.

Lawmakers on the left and far right quickly confirmed their next moves.

Marine Le Pen said her National Rally party would file a no-confidence motion, and Communist lawmaker Fabien Roussel said a motion is “ready” on the left.

“The mobilization will continue,” Roussel said. “This reform must be suspended.”

To be adopted, a no-confidence motion needs to be approved by at least half the seats at the lower house — that is 287 now. In such case, which would be a first since 1962, the government would have to resign.

Macron’s alliance lost its parliamentary majority last year, forcing the government to count on conservative lawmakers to pass the bill. Leftists and far-right lawmakers are strongly opposed and conservatives are divided, which made the outcome unpredictable.

The French leader wants to raise the retirement age so workers put more money into the system, which the government says is on course to run a deficit.

Macron has promoted the pension changes as central to his vision for making the French economy more competitive. The reform would raise the minimum pension age and require 43 years of work to earn a full pension, amid other measures.


Rule by Decree
Also a 'beware what you wish for' moment for people that want Green Laternism in politics.

[callipygoustp]

I'm 54 and I think the minimum age for social security benefits should be 70.

[Gabriel]

Imagine actually thinking that you get to retire one day.

Lol. Lmao even.

[Jaransan]

Sorry, Green Lanternism?

[LeGin v3]

Imagine actually thinking that you get to retire one day.

Lol. Lmao even.

Nitschke's Sarco pod awaits. The Boomers clinging on to their lifestyle at the expense of subsequent generations. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see a world full of cryogenically resurrected Boomers still running things millennia from now.

[unfilteredJW]

Imagine actually thinking that you get to retire one day.

Lol. Lmao even.

This. Nailed it.

[CostinR]

Imagine actually thinking that you get to retire one day.

Lol. Lmao even.

Yeah pretty much this. My mom who "official retired" and has a government pension is still working. Part time, but she still puts in a decent number of hours every week because she needs the money and she actually has a pretty good pension. Honestly unless she gets physical or mentally incapacitate I don't expect her to quit working.

I personally don't expect to retire as long as I am fit to work, and if I do I don't expect a government pension: I am not contributing to it: I am not required due to what I work and even though I could pay I simply can't afford to right now. I know down the line it will hurt if I don't prepare but that's why private pension + some investments I am making will secure me when I am very old.

[arandomuser]

you can either have 1 . a large incoming supply of young workers
( France was about to go fascist over over that )
or you can have a slightly higher retirement age

but i dont think you can have both

[Corvus]

As life expectancy increases and a population ages, there is no choice but to increase retirement age.

[Logwyn]

you can either have 1 . a large incoming supply of young workers
( France was about to go fascist over over that )
or you can have a slightly higher retirement age

but i dont think you can have both

You probably could if you had good fiscal policy. You just have to have decision about where the money is spent. If you have large lobby groups that are able to divert funds from social security/retirement payments to things like figuring out how flies can walk on the ceiling you tend to have problems.

[Edge-]

So I've been following this for a bit now, it doesn't quite seem super straightforward. Like, a lot of the issues are just that the system isn't sustainable under current rules thanks to a reduction in the retirement age decades ago. A problem that's long been known to need addressing but, as always, nobody wants to be the one to actually propose and get through the unpopular changes that will be disastrous for them and likely their political party (and any coalition parties). So it basically waits until the crisis can no longer be delayed and action like this is needed.

I'd be curious if there are any actual ways to preserve the current system and retirement age, but from what I've seen/read/heard it doesn't really seem like it.

I need to do more digging on this to have a more informed opinion as this seems far from a clean/black and white situation.

[diller]

In my opinion it's a shitty move by him to bypass parliament HOWEVER the age you can retire in France is ridiculously low

[Mazza]

He isn't bypassing parliament exactly... he is putting it in a position to either approve this law or give him the option to disband the parliament and announce elections. It's "You vote for this law or your parliament seat is at risk", basically.

[tehdang]

Are right wing parties more willing to mess

Is this the kind of description where everything to the right of the Socialist party or The Greens is branded far-right? Or just a reaction to this decree business?

Did all France ultimately decide between two right-wing parties in the last election?

[Elder Millennial]

The life expectancy in France is 82 years. 82.

So, under the old law, the average person retiring now, could have realistically spent the next 20 years on a pension. 20 fucking years.

Most people simply do not pay enough into the system in 40 years to even remotely cover the cost of that. Add to that the fact that the young tax payers v. elderly retirees ratio has shifted heavily in favor of retirees, this is just not a sustainable system.

The long term solution here has to be somewhere between a higher retirement age combined with shifting more of the financial burden of the pension system onto other areas of taxation.

[jonnysensible]

The life expectancy in France is 82 years. 82.

So, under the old law, the average person retiring now, could have realistically spent the next 20 years on a pension. 20 fucking years.

Most people simply do not pay enough into the system in 40 years to even remotely cover the cost of that. Add to that the fact that the young tax payers v. elderly retirees ratio has shifted heavily in favor of retirees, this is just not a sustainable system.

The long term solution here has to be somewhere between a higher retirement age combined with shifting more of the financial burden of the pension system onto other areas of taxation.

healthy life expectancy is around 65 years. 15 more years with your life degrading so what?

people don't 'pay into the system'. Retirement is a benefit.

Long term solution is taxing wealth.

[enigma77]

I'm pretty leftist when it comes to economics and I say people need to understand that retirement as people know it will no longer be an option. People live too long to retire in their 60s and people do not have enough children like they used to. It's not reasonable, it's not fair.

You want to retire in your 60s? Have 3 children in your lifetime.

[unfilteredJW]

I'm pretty leftist when it comes to economics and I say people need to understand that retirement as people know it will no longer be an option. People live too long to retire in their 60s and people do not have enough children like they used to. It's not reasonable, it's not fair.

You want to retire in your 60s? Have 3 children in your lifetime.

Big fucking yikes.

[zealo]

The life expectancy in France is 82 years. 82.

So, under the old law, the average person retiring now, could have realistically spent the next 20 years on a pension. 20 fucking years.

Most people simply do not pay enough into the system in 40 years to even remotely cover the cost of that. Add to that the fact that the young tax payers v. elderly retirees ratio has shifted heavily in favor of retirees, this is just not a sustainable system.

The long term solution here has to be somewhere between a higher retirement age combined with shifting more of the financial burden of the pension system onto other areas of taxation.

It's a common misconception about retirement systems, but what people "pay into it" over the years isn't actually the same money they can expect to get out of it when they themselves retire, but money that goes straight to paying current pensioners so those people can sustain their livelihood and keep a roof over their heads.

How long a person retiring now could expect to spend on it doesn't have a whole lot to do with things so much as that many countries in the developed world have birth rates that ensures their age cohorts are much larger relative to the amount of working age people supporting it's existence.

[Kaleredar]

I'm pretty leftist when it comes to economics and I say people need to understand that retirement as people know it will no longer be an option. People live too long to retire in their 60s and people do not have enough children like they used to. It's not reasonable, it's not fair.

You want to retire in your 60s? Have 3 children in your lifetime.

Tax the rich and corporations more, and have that money go towards ensuring future pensions.


Far more people will be happy with that solution allowing them to retire comfortably than the scanty megawealthy/corporations 1% that thinks it's "unfair" that they have to be taxed more heavily while still remaining megawealthy. And how much those megawealthy and corporations are taxed should really not be an issue with anyone that isn't a megawealthy corporation, because said taxation will never affect them.

And if even that doesn't get it all the way across the finish line? It's a good start.