Jump to content

Retirement age


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DaveLister said:

No real surprise and I suspect this is now the beginning of the end for the protestors. The turnout is smaller on each day of action and the media are becoming bored.

It'll end in a whimper.

A lot of incendiary whimpering going on in Rennes tonight.

https://www.letelegramme.fr/ille-et-vilaine/rennes/direct-suivez-la-manifestation-a-rennes-apres-la-decision-du-conseil-constitutionnel-14-04-2023-13318348.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I hope we see a return to bin collections soon, nothing since 7 April.  The estimate here is 5 weeks before things are cleared up.  I have read that the bin men (rippers) are not allowed to pick up the bags to put them in the lorries (I have some sympathy, tried to push a bag down on the recycling bin and cut my hand), so they have to find vans with grabs.  The incinerators cannot burn it fast enough and there is no room to store it.

We have bags on the shady balcony so the bins will fill up again as soon as they are, eventually, emptied.

At least it is still cold, so the maggots are slow in appearing.

3500 out in Nantes last night (protestors not maggots!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macron's decision was always going to be declared legal.  What do people expect?  That's how the 5th republic was set up.  De Gaulle also had trouble getting bills passed so it's the Pres who gets the last say eventually.

Bins are a sore point here, Lehaut.  We have these municipal bins now where you need a card to open them and put your rubbish in. For our household of 2, our rubbish "allowance" is 2 bags of 100 litres per fortnight.  If that allowance is exceeded it is 5 euros a bag.

Déchetterie is another matter.  All your rubbish including your dechets verts are measured by the cubic metre and you pay 10 euros per cubic metre.  When we had our hedge cut, all 150 m of mixed pines, laurels and ivy, I worried more about the déchetterie costs than the cost of having it cut.

We are lucky in that we live on the border with Charente so we can always nip over and pop the odd bag or two there where they have sensible and normal bin policies.  I can't see how charging people will encourage them to dispose of stuff carefully and not simply fly-tip them.

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked by Lehaut's bins!  Does anyone think there is a way of sorting out the retirement age by people's jobs?  For example, I think bin collectors should be able to retire earlier than say the dragon lady who is the receptionist at the tax office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menthe,

I agree about paying for waste etc, but there are limits.  Here, like you, we have a card and are charged over a standard amount for a ordinary household waste, and since we now don't fill that many bins, we can hardly have managed to fill our quota, but it is cheap enough.  However, unlike your dept, here our recycling and the dechetterie use is free .. to encourage recycling.  In fact from January they included a very long list of extra things we could now recycle, and will use what they cannot yet recycle to work out  how much of it there is and then find ways of recycling it too .. so we now fill only one standard small bin a week, if that! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, menthe said:

Does anyone think there is a way of sorting out the retirement age by people's jobs? 

Not that people will like!  Encouraging more studies means that "youngsters" enter the work place later (both our sons are still in their studies and are heading towards late 20s).  Add 42 years to their ages and they are already nearly 70!  Our friend who is a pharmacist is already programmed to be beyond 65 for her retirement.  The alternative is that every one pays more for the social contributions to make up the shortfall. Cannot see that going down well either.

Tax the rich of course is always popular, but most of them do not earn a salary in the traditional sense, so there is nothing to tax within the current law.

Back to bins, I read Rennes is already banning people driving to the dump with grass cuttings as it is judged to be detrimental making all those car trips.  I too think that fly tipping will be peoples response to reduced services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the French Unions have got it right after all!!!!! Eurostat shows a declining life expectancy rate across the whole of Europe!

So if the retirement age continues to go up and  life expectancy continues to go down I wonder what will happen when the cross over point is reached? Perhaps the retirement age will have to go back down to 62 again!! Mind you the average age is still nearly 78 or so so it won't happen any time soon!

As for the bins, here in the pays Basque we don't appear to have any of the problems that I read about regarding cards, payments, eco bins  etc. The big bins at the end of the road into which we empty everything are emptied  regularly without a problem. There are 'eco bins' around somewhere, I think! The rubbish tip is aways open and accepts everything into separate large containers, wood, metal etc. It all runs very smoothly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other side of the problem Ken is that France as too many cushy pensions, mainly fonctionnaires’ which are not financed and which she cannot afford but cannot get rid of but cannot afford to maintain. Macron’s solution may stick in people’s throats but it may be the only way, despite what the Union’s statistics say. Of course it would make sense to rationalise the hundreds of pension funds which exist and would certainly save money but politically that is impossible too.

Whatever, France is between a rock and a hard place leaving Macron to bite the bullet and suck up the consequences, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the ‘pension reforms’, I’m totally with Macron over all this.   The sustainability of a retirement age at 62 makes no sense whatsoever.

But ........... if I was 61 now, with my birthday coming up next February and the new ‘64 thing’ kicking in from (say) Jan 2024, you can understand how many would feel very unhappy (to say the least !)  I would.

Some kind of phasing of the ‘hit’ would make this a bit more palatable. What I mean is (say) 50% of your pension for the first two years, then ..........  You get my drift?

If you’re 45, you have to rather shrug your shoulders.  If you’re 60 +, then it’s an understandable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, anotherbanana said:

The other side of the problem Ken is that France as too many cushy pensions, mainly fonctionnaires’ which are not financed and which she cannot afford but cannot get rid of but cannot afford to maintain. Macron’s solution may stick in people’s throats but it may be the only way, despite what the Union’s statistics say. Of course it would make sense to rationalise the hundreds of pension funds which exist and would certainly save money but politically that is impossible too.

Whatever, France is between a rock and a hard place leaving Macron to bite the bullet and suck up the consequences, so to speak.

I have spoken to several people who retired early in France and understanding the different formulas for retirement is bewildering. I can fully understand why the French don't want to change the arrangements they have, who would? The fact is though that the state, any state, having to support the population with a pension, regardless of the age of retirement is an absurdity. The answer, in my view is compulsory private pensions starting with payments into a fund the very first day a person starts work.

The state pension, as in the U.K. can only be assessed at retirement age. Should someone want to retire on their private pension then all power to their elbow but access to the state pension is only possible at whatever age retirement is, currently 66. Any state pension should be only sufficient to enable a basic lifestyle. 

There are countries that don't  pay a state pension if your personal income and wealth is beyond a certain level. That leaves finance available for those that really need it. Macron , I feel, is right to change the retirement age but that only pushes the problem further down the road. The answer, as I said, is to make people more self reliant and private pension plans the answer.  The state pension, if paid out for everyone, should only be a minimal amount. Socialism is fine, in principle!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the principle that the state pension should be means tested. Why should the rich be subsidised in their retirement? As to a compulsory private pension, how is that different from the state pension apart from the fact that private pension providers have to please shareholders. There would have to be some government oversight otherwise it would be open to mismanagement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between a state pension and a private pension is that the private investor can determine to what level he/she wants to invest thus acquiring a larger pension. It's simply not a question of 'shareholders'!  A state pension obviously not, it is fixed. As for the rich being 'subsidised' why should anyone be subsidised? In any event the 'rich' will continue paying into the state scheme regardless as they do in Australia without drawing a state pension. As for government oversight, there already is. Perhaps what you meant was that private pensions should be in some way be guaranteed by the state if the company went bust. That would help convince people that private pensions are then 'gold plated' and encourage them to invest. Of course for any of this to happen the socialist mentality would have to change!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DaveLister said:

I agree with the principle that the state pension should be means tested. Why should the rich be subsidised in their retirement? As to a compulsory private pension, how is that different from the state pension apart from the fact that private pension providers have to please shareholders. There would have to be some government oversight otherwise it would be open to mismanagement.

It's very simple, if you have paid in for it you are entitled to it. It doesn't matter what your assets are. If you pay your dues why should you be penalised because maybe you didn't spend your money on foreign holidays, big screen TVs or expensive phones etc but saved your money to make your future more secure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

It does seem unfair that someone who has paid NI contributions all their working life then has the state pension means tested and would the means testing be done purely on income or are assets also taken into account?

That's because there are still people that think their national insurance contributions are directly linked to their state pension. They are not, the money goes to pay the pensions of todays pensioners not saved for future pensions. IMHO it's time the government got rid of the whole NI scheme and integrated the state pension in with the rest of the benefits and made it means tested.

Regarding compulsory private pensions, what I said was, if you are going to force someone to pay in " from the very first day a person starts to work" you're going to need strong regulatory oversight. It would be cheaper just to set up a new government scheme. Perhaps like the old serps ?

Then those people who wanted to and could afford it could add additional private pensions/investments as required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NickP said:

It's very simple, if you have paid in for it you are entitled to it. It doesn't matter what your assets are. If you pay your dues why should you be penalised because maybe you didn't spend your money on foreign holidays, big screen TVs or expensive phones etc but saved your money to make your future more secure. 

Entitlement! Therein lies the problem with today's society. People today believe it's their right  to everything. How many times have I heard, "It's my right" or "I'm entitled to it" With regards pensions it's quite probable in many cases that the amount paid in contributions doesn't in anyway cover what the person will receive during their pension lifetime but do people consider that, Of course not, I'm entitled to it!!!!! It's why the retirement age is pushed further back! As for being penalised , no one is! Talking about spending on big T.V.s and holidays is nonsensical. Everyone does pay in and everyone its 'entitled' to a pension. We live in a world where socialism demands the 'rich' pay for the 'poor' the problem is no one, rich or poor;, want to give up anything 'I'm entitled to to' is the cry!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2023 at 09:53, DaveLister said:

That's because there are still people that think their national insurance contributions are directly linked to their state pension.

Call me Mr Thickie, doesn't 35 years of NI contributions guarantee you a state pension? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

Call me Mr Thickie, doesn't 35 years of NI contributions guarantee you a state pension? 

I think its 35 years at the moment but it doesn't mean it won't change again. Like the rates themselves it's a movable feast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DaveLister said:

I think its 35 years at the moment but it doesn't mean it won't change again. Like the rates themselves it's a movable feast.

 

Actually people qualify for a state pension having paid in for just ten years but it won't be the full pension. To get the full state pension it requires 35 years of payments. Should you retire before you have paid in the full 35 years I believe that you can pay a lump sum to qualify for the full 35 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2023 at 09:53, DaveLister said:

IMHO it's time the government got rid of the whole NI scheme and integrated the state pension in with the rest of the benefits and made it means tested.

So where would you draw the line, on income only or income and assets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

So where would you draw the line, on income only or income and assets?

I don't know, how are means tested benefits normally calculated?

I think the problem is, when the state pension was set up, a political decision was made to fund it independently by creating the national insurance fund. Pensions were paid for by the then employees who, in turn, expected future workers to pay for their pensions. Over the years public perception has shifted and now most people think they are paying in for their own future not paying for someone's present. People are living longer and the national insurance fund is going bust. Something need to be done.

In my opinion, national insurance should be scrapped. A properly set up employee/employer contribution scheme should be introduced and 'the state pension' should be a safety net paid for by general taxation.

As an aside, if you've not worked much in the UK it's worth checking whether or not you can pay voluntary contributions to get up to the ten year threshold. A UK pension ( even a tiny one ) gets you an S1 if you were here before Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DaveLister said:

I think its 35 years at the moment but it doesn't mean it won't change again. Like the rates themselves it's a movable feast.

 

A lot of us had to pay in for 44 years to be entitled to a full state pension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...