French President Macron Raises Retirement Age by Decree

[masterhorus8]

Yes, you always say that people should be "optimistic about humanity and progress". It's a great way to kick the can down the road.

"Someone else with surely figure it out. We'll just make it harder for them and not let anyone try to do it now!"

[CostinR]

So it sounds like France has an unsustainable pension system, and will have to pay for it in the form of heavy tax hikes or cost reductions like raising the retirement age.

But it still looks like Macron went about reconciling it in a politically foolish manner. Top-down rammed-through edicts serve to inflame the opposition.

I'll be fair to Macron: It had to be done.

I don't think many countries have a sustainable pension system at the moment. The retirement ages were based on lower life expectancies, but it's over 80 for France at the moment.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No they don't.

Yes they do. Tax increases in the highest brackets and of corporations in other countries has not reduced competitiveness. And as we've seen, lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporate elite doesn't make them more competitive, the money saved just goes into stock buybacks. We've lowered taxes how many times on corporations in the US, and not a single job (that wasn't deleted within 6 months) was ever created.

You conservatives seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy and corporate interests and stocks even work.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll be fair to Macron: It had to be done.

I don't think many countries have a sustainable pension system at the moment. The retirement ages were based on lower life expectancies, but it's over 80 for France at the moment.

It's largely because the population graph looks more like a pesudo hourglass than the pyramid it's supposed to look. After the baby boomers, subsequent generations just didn't have nearly as many children. As the west entered the post war age of prosperity, every generation got smaller and smaller.

Top it off with the fact that more money is concentrated at the top, we're taxing corporations less and the common man more, and you have a situation that either requires you to tax the ultra mega wealthy corporations more, or fuck over the common man. And of course conservative parties choose the latter.

[tehdang]

I'll be fair to Macron: It had to be done.

I don't think many countries have a sustainable pension system at the moment. The retirement ages were based on lower life expectancies, but it's over 80 for France at the moment.

Could it have been done through the legislature without this decree (or whatever you want to call it)?

Basically, if it had to be done and this was understood by the average French citizen, was there a chance of political buy-in from the National Assembly and Senate etc?

[jonnysensible]

Could it have been done through the legislature without this decree (or whatever you want to call it)?

Basically, if it had to be done and this was understood by the average French citizen, was there a chance of political buy-in from the National Assembly and Senate etc?

unlikely. It is rejected by the public 70% to 30%. It can go through the senate (it has already?) but will struggle in the NA which is why he is using the decree.

forcing through something that has such a low rate of favorability with the public is bad and not particularly democratic. What should happen is he should reconsider the bill and negotiate compromises to pass it.

[Mazza]

Just a note that the NA can still vote it down indirectly. They just risk their own seat when doing so, as it would allow Macron to disband the parliament and announce elections.

[Mayhem]

Sure enough. The current french gov spends a total of 340 billion euros in pensions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_net_worth

Take a gander of the wealthiest people in this list. The wealthiest one doesnt have enough wealth to cover a year of pension spending (Assuming you sell all of it to get money). The rest have significantly less wealth

The only solution is to get more contributions from everyone or raise the retirement age so people can contribute for a longer time and take less

Thanks for showing that you are really really impressively bad at math.

the top 4 combined net-worth = 346.1bn euros

So the wealth of 4 people is enough to finance France's entire pension system for a year.

[Forogil]

the top 4 combined net-worth = 346.1bn eurosdollars about 324.3 bn euros

So the wealth of 4 people is enough to finance France's entire pension system for a year.

Except that that the legality would be questionable, they would emigrate first so it wouldn't work, and it would stop working after less than a year.

But some might ask, what happens if you continue down the list to last billionaire in France - wouldn't that make it work longer? And the answer is that it would still only last 18 months in total.

Thanks for showing that you are really really impressively bad at math.

I guess that is talking about yourself. Note that "the wealthiest one" means the person at the top of the list, and, clearly he doesn't have enough to pay for one year.

[Nymrohd]

Thanks for showing that you are really really impressively bad at math.

the top 4 combined net-worth = 346.1bn euros

So the wealth of 4 people is enough to finance France's entire pension system for a year.

And after that year?

[Endus]

And after that year?

You realize billionaires keep making money, right? And that any solution isn't going to just involve the 4 richest?

The GDP of France is nearly 3 trillion. There's nearly 68 million people. If it were spread evenly, it would work out to everyone earning about $44k annually (all figures in USD, for comparison's sake). The problem isn't a lack of wealth, it's the inequitable distribution of that wealth.

Edit: Also, the pension bubble is down to the Baby Boomers. Stretching to cover it is a temporary blip, not a permanently required change.

Also also, that pension's already being covered by taxes, so we're really just talking about any increase to that pension, and that figure's a lot more achievable than the rough math above.

[Nymrohd]

You realize billionaires keep making money, right? And that any solution isn't going to just involve the 4 richest?

The GDP of France is nearly 3 trillion. There's nearly 68 million people. If it were spread evenly, it would work out to everyone earning about $44k annually (all figures in USD, for comparison's sake). The problem isn't a lack of wealth, it's the inequitable distribution of that wealth.

Edit: Also, the pension bubble is down to the Baby Boomers. Stretching to cover it is a temporary blip, not a permanently required change.

Also also, that pension's already being covered by taxes, so we're really just talking about any increase to that pension, and that figure's a lot more achievable than the rough math above.

It's a "blip" that will last 20-25 years given life expectancy, especially in Europe.

[Endus]

It's a "blip" that will last 20-25 years given life expectancy, especially in Europe.

I wasn't saying it was short, though with how demographics work, it's one that tapers off towards the end as the generation dies off. I was saying it needs a temporary fix, not a permanent one. Strategies like "take on more short-term debt to carry you over the hump and pay it back down later" are entirely legitimate options that countries use all the time.

[Forogil]

You realize billionaires keep making money, right?

Not if you take all their money.

That's why instead of these insane solutions, there is a somewhat sensible tax on some wealth in France - but it doesn't suffice by a long shot.

And that any solution isn't going to just involve the 4 richest?

Using all billionaries in France, instead of the 4 richest extends it from below 12 months to 18 months.

The GDP of France is nearly 3 trillion. There's nearly 68 million people. If it were spread evenly, it would work out to everyone earning about $44k annually (all figures in USD, for comparison's sake). The problem isn't a lack of wealth, it's the inequitable distribution of that wealth.

Agreed, and in particular it is a generational issue where people above 62 years don't work - and thus don't pay their fair share.

That's what is being corrected.

[Endus]

Not if you take all their money.

That's why instead of these insane solutions, there is a somewhat sensible tax on some wealth in France - but it doesn't suffice by a long shot.

Which wasn't proposed by anyone. You're attacking a straw man.

Agreed, and in particular it is a generational issue where people above 62 years don't work - and thus don't pay their fair share.

That's what is being corrected.

Except it was established with 62 being the retirement age, so they literally did pay their "fair share". What amounts to a "fair share" is now being changed by decree, and that's why people are protesting.

[Forogil]

Which wasn't proposed by anyone. You're attacking a straw man.

You haven't been reading this thread either? That was original idea to show that their wealth isn't enough.

You are trying to argue that taxing them less will in total generate a lot more than their current wealth - during a few years; that's plain ridiculous.

Except it was established with 62 being the retirement age, so they literally did pay their "fair share". What amounts to a "fair share" is now being changed by decree, and that's why people are protesting.

Except it isn't that simple. When people closing in on 62 years were born (in 1962) the retirement age was 65, it was then lowered to 60 in 1981 (when they were 19), and then increased to 62 in 2010 (when they turned 48, after a failed attempt to raise it in 1995).

People protest because they want their cake and don't pay for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Also, the pension bubble is down to the Baby Boomers. Stretching to cover it is a temporary blip, not a permanently required change.

It's not a "pension bubble", it's basic demographics in France that there are fewer children and people longer lives (mostly healthy otherwise it would be even worse - but still).

[jonnysensible]

it's basic demographics in France that there are fewer children and people longer lives (mostly healthy otherwise it would be even worse - but still).

is this actually a fact? i thought france didnt have bad demographics (+migration?)

[Endus]

You haven't been reading this thread either? That was original idea to show that their wealth isn't enough.

You are trying to argue that taxing them less will in total generate a lot more than their current wealth - during a few years; that's plain ridiculous.

I saw someone point to how much wealth the top 4 billionaires in France own. Not that it was a plausible avenue for paying for the pensions, especially since it was A> looking at their net worth not income, and B> looking at the total cost of pensions, not the increase in expenditures that's leading to this change.

Except it isn't that simple. When people closing in on 62 years were born (in 1962) the retirement age was 65, it was then lowered to 60 in 1981 (when they were 19), and then increased to 62 in 2010 (when they turned 48, after a failed attempt to raise it in 1995).

People protest because they want their cake and don't pay for it.

Yep. And?

Representative governments don't exist to support wealth inequality. They exist to serve the interests of their people. Do you think the protests indicate the people are satisfied with Macron's unilateral actions?

It's not a "pension bubble", it's basic demographics in France that there are fewer children and people longer lives (mostly healthy otherwise it would be even worse - but still).

There's a demographic bubble with the baby boom. Which, as that generation is now aging out, creates a pension bubble, combined with fewer people paying in because later generations weren't as big (hence "boom"). You're just describing what I was saying as if that's somehow a contradiction.

[Mayhem]

Except that that the legality would be questionable, they would emigrate first so it wouldn't work, and it would stop working after less than a year.

But some might ask, what happens if you continue down the list to last billionaire in France - wouldn't that make it work longer? And the answer is that it would still only last 18 months in total.


I guess that is talking about yourself. Note that "the wealthiest one" means the person at the top of the list, and, clearly he doesn't have enough to pay for one year.

that was the original quote:

You could take all of the wealth from rich people and it still wouldnt be enough to finance pensions. People are wilding about this

then after being asked to show evidence he changed it to "the wealthiest one" as if anyone ever asked that just one guy should finance everything

so maybe take a bit more time and start at the beginning of a conversation not just in between to score internet points

Good catch though with the dollars vs euros so it's the top 5 richest in France that have the wealth equivalent to 13% of France's GDP.

Somehow people aren't in the slightest irritated that 5 people have so much wealth.

[Forogil]

is this actually a fact? i thought france didnt have bad demographics (+migration?)

Yes.

For children: France doesn't have as bad demographics as Italy or Japan, but there are still fewer children than middle-aged people and the total fertility rate is below 2.

And I wouldn't describe people living longer lives as "bad demographics"; but just one of the many good consequences of the ongoing green/industrial revolution that started a few centuries ago.

- - - Updated - - -

that was the original quote:


then after being asked to show evidence he changed it to "the wealthiest one" as if anyone ever asked that just one guy should finance everything

Even ignoring reality: all French billionaires could only finance pensions for 18 months - which you ignored. That's the important fact.

Good catch though with the dollars vs euros so it's the top 5 richest in France that have the wealth equivalent to 13% of France's GDP.

That is a common meaningless comparison that only fool the gullibe.

It is GDP per year - compared to lifetime accumulated wealth. If we take a longer view - it is only about 1.3% of France's GDP per decade, or less than 1% of GDP per "generation". The latter is a more meaningful comparison if we actually wanted to compare it to pensions. Or if you go the other way it is more than 4700% of France's GDP per day.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. And?

People know that the retirement age has changed before - due to unsustainable political promises, and corrections to that.

People just have a tendency to fall for populist making unrealistic underfounded promises.

There's a demographic bubble with the baby boom. Which, as that generation is now aging out, creates a pension bubble, combined with fewer people paying in because later generations weren't as big (hence "boom"). You're just describing what I was saying as if that's somehow a contradiction.

You are ignoring what you stated, as I'm stating that declining fertility rates and longer (somewhat healty) lives aren't a temporary bubble but a long-term effect (the former depending on country - just a bit in France, more pronounced in other countries; the latter in almost all countries).

[Mayhem]

Even ignoring reality: all French billionaires could only finance pensions for 18 months - which you ignored. That's the important fact.

He wrote one guy couldn't finance France's pension system for a year.

You know, try reading, just for the fun of it, or keep doubling down on being a fool, your choice.

That is a common meaningless comparison that only fool the gullible.

talks about meaningless comparison

It is GDP per year - compared to lifetime accumulated wealth. If we take a longer view - it is only about 1.3% of France's GDP per decade, or less than 1% of GDP per "generation". The latter is a more meaningful comparison if we actually wanted to compare it to pensions. Or if you go the other way it is more than 4700% of France's GDP per day.

goes to make really meaningless comparisons

what's your point, that you can't use a number that people understand to show how stupidly rich some people are? Why?