Work until 67 in France? Not now, officials say

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - French officials sought on Friday to play down a remark by Prime Minister Francois Fillon suggesting France should align its pension policy with Germany, which has voted to raise its retirement age to 67, five years above the French age. President Nicolas Sarkozy weathered months of street protests last year over his decision to raise the French retirement age by two years to 62, leaving a dent in his poll ratings from which he has yet to recover entirely.

France's retirement age -- lower than in many other European states -- is one plank of a generous social welfare system that offers citizens a range of perks, from rent subsidies to free healthcare, which most French people view as sacrosanct and few politicians dare to criticize in public. Fillon touched on the sensitive retirement-age issue on Thursday at a speech to company heads in Paris, saying France needed to accelerate fiscal convergence with Germany in a range of areas, including retirement.

"We will have to move toward a common corporate tax policy between France and Germany, we will have to move toward a common work week, we will have to move toward a common retirement age," he said. Government officials moved quickly to temper the remark, saying there were no plans to revisit France's retirement system in the short term but rather Paris would proceed with a gradual process of harmonization with Germany, as foreseen by Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as happening by 2029.

"The prime minister said we were moving toward a global convergence with the Germans, he did not say 'I propose a reform for the upcoming months and weeks'," Energy Ministry Eric Besson told Canal+ television. "There is no reform in the works, the discussion could be opened in the years to come but in the next few months it is not on the table," he added.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/until-67-france-not-now-officials-104903271.html

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. "months of street protests "

See? That is what it takes to even get their attention!
Bear that in mind.

[onehandle]

3. Protests in the U.S. are short and held in official protest zones (NYC, DC).

And those 'protest zones' are scoffed at by 'real Americans.'

Until we show up at the homes and businesses of those who fuel inequity, no one day protest will make a difference over here.

Wisconsin was an aberration. And I hate to say it, but they lost. Walker got his way. Getting two seats in the election that followed was a good thing, but elections are a separate issue.

[No Elephants]

6. I'm not sure if elections were a separate issue. If there had been no demonstrations, there

would have been no recalls. Also, there is not reason to assume that the demonstration had no effect on getting out the vote for those special elections and no impact on how people voted.

We don't know because no polls were taken, but my guess is there were links between the demonstrations and the final outcome.

[No Elephants]

5. I agree, but dream on. In the U.S., that went out with powdered wigs for men.

[Mass]

2. Well, given that the elections are in about eight months,

obviously, Sarkozy will postpone his reform. But I dont trust him, He certainly would want this to happen after he is reelected.

[okieinpain]

4. what the heck is wrong with 67

people are living longer and there are more people.

[No Elephants]

7. And fewer jobs. Besides, you don't change the rules in mid-stream.

If you want to tell people who have never worked before that the social contract for them is going to be different, fine--if they let you get away with that.

But you don't tell people who have operated under one social contract for 20, 40 and 50 years or more that the old rules by which they've lived and guides their lives don't apply anymore.

That would be like a movie theater charging you $8 at the door, then having you arrested if you don't pay another $1 once you get inside.

Well, no. More like someone promising to pay you $300 for working 8 hours, then refusing to pay until you work another hour.

And, even that is not an apt analogy because, with *Social Security, you not only have to work two more years that you were promised you would have to, but you also have to pay into the fund for two more years.

*To save the nitpickers trouble, yes, I realize France does not have Social Security per se.

[okieinpain]

8. that is not the same thing and anyone that wants to be honest

knows something like social security can't work as setup if the conditions change. it's really shocking to me that people find raising the age requirement is a big deal, there are more people and we are all living longer that's a fact. the program can't keep providing the same benefits if it's inputs are changing.

I'm not trying to be an ass but it's just plain facts.

[Kat45]

9. Not everyone is healthy enough to continue working to 67.

This is especially true for people who work physical jobs; a body can only take so much. And for anyone, the brain and memory may not have optimum functionality. Not to mention the fact that there aren't enough jobs for everyone, at least in the US in our current economy. Lots of folks getting laid off in their fifties can't find a company wanting to hire them.

[okieinpain]

10. but that still does not belie the fact that the current setup of s.s

did not factor in the current number of people eligible for s.s. your scenario means that there would be more people on it sooner, which of course means s.s would be even more out of whack.

[Kat45]

11. If they'd lift the cap on income on which one has to pay the payroll tax,

that would go a long way toward social security's solvency. It might even take care of that issue.

[Selatius]

12. Raising the SS cap to 150,000 would solve the solvency issue for our lifetime.

Others have said simply to remove the cap entirely.

[okieinpain]

13. ok. but you do admit that some thing will have to be adjusted. n/t.

[RebelOne]

14. I was still working when I was 70.

I would still be working now if I had not been laid off in 2010. So now I am in forced retirement, and I am bored as hell.

[Honeycombe8]

15. I'm surprised they kept you until 70. The problem w/raising retirement age too high is...

a lot of companies don't WANT people to stay that long at their jobs. My dad was asked to retire early, although he was still in good health & a vibrant, active older guy. (He still is, at age 79.)

Medicare doesn't kick in until 65. So if you are forced into early retirement at 60 or 62, you have several years of quite a hell, trying to get health care.

[happyslug]

16. Krugman pointed this out months ago, that is NOT true of Working Class people

Basically Krugman stated, the Policy of increasing the age of Retirement of Plumbers is because Lawyers are living longer.

Overall age is increasing, overall people are living longer, but that is less true of people who do physical labor as part of their job AND such people tend to suffer long term disability more then people whose primary job is more intellectual in nature. Thus longer retirement ages are harmful to those people who actual do physical work (i.e. Manual Labor) as oppose to people whose job is to sit at a Desk and type into a Computer. Thus the problem has more to do with CLASS then anything else, and Class is a subject even people on this board do not like addressing.