Philippe Juvin is LR deputy for Hauts-de-Seine and head of the emergency department at the Georges Pompidou European Hospital.
From an accounting point of view, the analysis is final.
According to the Pensions Orientation Council,
“after recording surpluses in 2021 and 2022, the pension system will be in deficit on average over the next 25 years”
.
Common sense is enough to understand that a pay-as-you-go system applied to an aging population can only be in deficit.
We have gone from 4 working to 1 retired in 1960 to 1.4 working to 1 retired in the private sector and 0.9 to 1 in the public sector in 2023. In other words, if we do not change anything, the young people of today will not have pensions tomorrow.
I will vote to push back the retirement age and increase the contribution period, provided that specific measures apply well to long or difficult careers.
But passing a law is one thing, applauding it is another.
It is for lack of anything better that I will vote for this law.
Because the text of the government is very disappointing.
It is first of all politically disappointing.
The very big mistake is to have presented it as an accounting formality, for the sole purpose of balancing the budget.
Many have therefore interpreted it as a technocratic approach, necessarily imagined by privileged people who ignore the difficulties of life.
The adversaries of the law have understood: they evoke work, life, the need to flourish, wear and tear, suffering and even death (of those who would die before reaching retirement).
They give meaning to their action.
Could we deal with the retirement age without addressing the issues of quality of life and health at work, insufficient net wages or the coexistence between work and personal life?
To confine oneself to accounting arguments was not only to give the
impression of ignoring the problems of our compatriots, but even more: it was to be certain of not being believed.
Because the French no longer believe in the seriousness of deficits.
How could they believe it when the authorities claim to write checks at all costs and to widen the deficits for the common good?
The rejection of politics by the French comes from this accumulation of laws and regulations, which affect their daily lives and which they do not understand.
How could they believe it when the authorities claim to write checks at all costs and to widen the deficits for the common good?
The rejection of politics by the French comes from this accumulation of laws and regulations, which affect their daily lives and which they do not understand.
How could they believe it when the authorities claim to write checks at all costs and to widen the deficits for the common good?
The rejection of politics by the French comes from this accumulation of laws and regulations, which affect their daily lives and which they do not understand.
Approaching financing only by age and the duration of contribution condemns us to redo a law every five to ten years, since the population will continue to age!
Philippe Juvin
But the bill is also disappointing in its accounting aspects.
The measures of age or duration of contribution will mechanically improve the financial balance.
But approaching financing only by age and the duration of contributions condemns us to redo a law every five to ten years, to always push them back until later, since the population will continue to age!
The reform is therefore very temporary, which is one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction.
Rather than muttering that the pay-as-you-go system must be saved without saying how, an intelligent decision would have been to supplement it with a mode of financing little influenced by the aging of the population.
The solution would be to draw inspiration from the additional civil service scheme (RAFP), a funded scheme which distributes to civil servants two billion euros per year, in addition to their pay-as-you-go pension.
At the Assembly, I propose extending the principle of RAFP to all private sector employees.
A fund would be created and supplemented by a levy of 0.1 to 2% of gross salary, equally divided between the employee and employer share and partially offset by a reduction in the general social contribution.
The income from this fund would be paid to pensioners in addition to their basic pension.
The fund would be guaranteed by the State and therefore protected from the vagaries of the market.
It would also be guaranteed against the State itself, to prevent it from drawing from it in order to pay its end of the month.
By not introducing capitalization, this pension bill misses another target, that of the enrichment of the country.
Philippe Juvin
By not introducing capitalization, this pension bill misses another target, that of the enrichment of the country.
Because when a country endowed with a sovereign fund such as I propose, wants to invest in the economy, it can count on the assets of this fund.
In the OECD countries that have capitalization funds, these represent on average 64% of their GDP.
Imagine the prosperity of our country if, equipped with a collective capitalization fund, it had 64% of its GDP to invest in start-ups, investments for the future, research, innovation, climate change or digital shift and artificial intelligence... By choosing not to complete the pay-as-you-go system with capitalization, we are missing the opportunity to acquire
The law on pensions misses a final target: that of guaranteeing the retirement of civil servants.
Their future pensions are pledged to nothing except future debt.
I would like the three public services to fund the pensions of their agents, reserving this obligation for future entrants for reasons of budgetary feasibility.
Such a measure would guarantee civil servants to receive, when the time comes, a real pension.
The law on pensions, by asking the French to work more, will mechanically improve the financial balance of the system.
It is necessary and I support the principle.
But this law is a small law, accounting, short-sighted.
Basic and long-term issues are ignored.
At this stage, the government's project shines with its missed opportunities.
Let us hope that the parliamentary discussion will improve it.
With my friends deputies and senators, we are going to work on it.
