French President Emmanuel Macron shunned parliament on Thursday and invoked a special constitutional power to force through a controversial pension reform that raises the retirement age by two years to 64. The risky move sparked protests outside the National Assembly and is expected to trigger motions of no-confidence in his government.

 

The decision was made just a few minutes before the vote was scheduled at the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.

 

The retirement age has now been raised by two years to 64 in a pension reform that is the flagship legislation of Macron's second term.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230316-????-french-government-to-invoke-article-49-3-executive-privilege-to-push-through-pension-reform-without-parliamentary-vote-govt-sources

 

Looking at developments in other countries, even 64 is not sustainable and will have to be raised further.

Considering the lefts push for UBI, this move by Macron seems hypocritical. If you can't afford it for seniors, how in the world do you dish 'free' money out to everyone. 

 

UBI, just another talking point to get the lazy, young voters to the polls. 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Looking at developments in other countries, even 64 is not sustainable and will have to be raised further.

IMO the whole system needs to be looked at, not just in France. People living longer, so the traditional 'work from 15-65 and build up a pension' is not sustainable anymore. The problem is that many of the people using a state pension have additional income and live long. The people doing the menial labour don't live that long so don't much enjoy their pension. They are also the ones who depend on the state pensions without additional sources of income.
The system is unsustainable at the moment and the unfairness is increasing.

44 minutes ago, stevenl said:

IMO the whole system needs to be looked at, not just in France. People living longer, so the traditional 'work from 15-65 and build up a pension' is not sustainable anymore. The problem is that many of the people using a state pension have additional income and live long. The people doing the menial labour don't live that long so don't much enjoy their pension. They are also the ones who depend on the state pensions without additional sources of income.
The system is unsustainable at the moment and the unfairness is increasing.

You're right, of course. The problem is that making reforms such as 'means testing' state pensions amounts to an electoral suicide note for a political party.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Looking at developments in other countries, even 64 is not sustainable and will have to be raised further.

I've got to wait until I'm 66, up one from 65.

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

You're right, of course. The problem is that making reforms such as 'means testing' state pensions amounts to an electoral suicide note for a political party.

These protests are a good example of that. But reform is inevitable, the sooner the better.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

Looking at developments in other countries, even 64 is not sustainable and will have to be raised further.

That's what governments keep telling us so it must be true.

I'm sure they could find funds from elsewhere if they really wanted to.

1 hour ago, frantick said:

Considering the lefts push for UBI, this move by Macron seems hypocritical. If you can't afford it for seniors, how in the world do you dish 'free' money out to everyone. 

 

UBI, just another talking point to get the lazy, young voters to the polls. 

Your views must be extremely right wing if you think Macron is a leftist.

 

And who says it can't be afforded for seniors? There are lots of ways it can be afforded. In the US, there are plenty of sound proposals that involve raising taxes to solve the problem. Of course, if you rule out tax increases, then the problem is not solvable.

1 hour ago, farmerjo said:

That's what governments keep telling us so it must be true.

I'm sure they could find funds from elsewhere if they really wanted to.

That's what common sense and the numbers tell us.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

IMO the whole system needs to be looked at, not just in France. People living longer, so the traditional 'work from 15-65 and build up a pension' is not sustainable anymore. The problem is that many of the people using a state pension have additional income and live long. The people doing the menial labour don't live that long so don't much enjoy their pension. They are also the ones who depend on the state pensions without additional sources of income.
The system is unsustainable at the moment and the unfairness is increasing.

True if you believe people are living longer, but is it actually true? When I was a kid (1960s) I knew loads of people in their 80s and 90s. But today everyone I know died age 70 at best. 

 

Where are all today's old people who lived longer? 

Edited March 17, 20233 yr by BritManToo

5 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

True if you believe people are living longer, but is it actually true? When I was a kid (1960s) I knew loads of people in their 80s and 90s. But today everyone I know died age 70 at best. 

 

Where are all today's old people who lived longer? 

When I was 19, I was a public servant in personnel and I read a report that clerical staff had a life expectancy of 65 years and 10 months. That was 1974. 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

That's what common sense and the numbers tell us.

Till now they have managed to keep it at the same age for nearly ninety years.

I want my human right to retire at 65 or is that not a human right.

 

 

16 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Till now they have managed to keep it at the same age for nearly ninety years.

I want my human right to retire at 65 or is that not a human right.

 

 

Being cared for by the state, rather than the family, is a recent phenomenon. Imo society has an obligation to look after its' elderly but I wouldn't label retirement, "a human right".

39 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

True if you believe people are living longer, but is it actually true? When I was a kid (1960s) I knew loads of people in their 80s and 90s. But today everyone I know died age 70 at best. 

 

Where are all today's old people who lived longer? 

Life expectancy in the UK has been on an upward trajectory since records began

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

24 minutes ago, RayC said:

Life expectancy in the UK has been on an upward trajectory since records began

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

OK, so you believe everything your government tells you.

I'm not seeing all these old folk walking around so where are they hiding?

Remember it saves the government a lot of money to up the life expectancy numbers as it gives them an excuse to raise the state pension age.

 

Just taking the people I knew on this forum who've died .......

NancyL died mid 60s.

Dave2 died age 70.

 

These are more realistic examples of life expectancy from the people I've known.

But if they were the real ages we could expect to die, the government couldn't raise the state pension age, and their financial pals would need to offer better pension payouts.

Edited March 17, 20233 yr by BritManToo

11 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

OK, so you believe everything your government tells you.

I'm not seeing all these old folk walking around so where are they hiding?

I thought I'd heard it all regarding skepticism of what "the government" says but you're taking it to a whole new level!

7 hours ago, BritManToo said:

OK, so you believe everything your government tells you.

I'm not seeing all these old folk walking around so where are they hiding?

Remember it saves the government a lot of money to up the life expectancy numbers as it gives them an excuse to raise the state pension age.

 

Just taking the people I knew on this forum who've died .......

NancyL died mid 60s.

Dave2 died age 70.

 

These are more realistic examples of life expectancy from the people I've known.

But if they were the real ages we could expect to die, the government couldn't raise the state pension age, and their financial pals would need to offer better pension payouts.

I knew a bloke who smoked close to 40/day for most of his life and he lived to be 90. So obviously smoking is good for you!

 

So you don't believe that improvements in nutrition and hygiene; the introduction of the welfare state; the virtual elimination of certain diseases; a greater number of vaccines; improved treatment and cures for other diseases, etc has improved life expectancy?

 

Or are those of us who do believe this being duped?

Edited March 17, 20233 yr by RayC
Correction

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

I knew a bloke who smoked close to 40/day for most of his life and he lived to be 90. So obviously smoking is good for you!

 

So you don't believe that improvements in nutrition and hygiene; the introduction of the welfare state; the virtual elimination of certain diseases; a greater number of vaccines; improved treatment and cures for other diseases, etc has improved life expectancy?

 

Or are those of us who do believe this being duped?

I don't think you get it. BritManToo is the measurer of all things.

13 hours ago, BritManToo said:

OK, so you believe everything your government tells you.

I'm not seeing all these old folk walking around so where are they hiding?

Remember it saves the government a lot of money to up the life expectancy numbers as it gives them an excuse to raise the state pension age.

 

Just taking the people I knew on this forum who've died .......

NancyL died mid 60s.

Dave2 died age 70.

 

These are more realistic examples of life expectancy from the people I've known.

But if they were the real ages we could expect to die, the government couldn't raise the state pension age, and their financial pals would need to offer better pension payouts.

    I'll counter your two examples with two of mine.  My parents lived to 95 and 101.  It makes no sense to question government statistics simply because they don't fit your personal observations.  In 1995 Thailand's median population age was 26.6.  In 2020 it was 40.1.   Thailand is considered an Aging Society by population statistics.  By 2031 it's slated to join Japan as a Super-Aged Society. 

    When my partner and I are in Bangkok we ride the subway a lot.  I am usually the oldest person among those I observe; most of the Thai riders look to be in their 20s and 30s.  By my personal observation, Thailand would appear to still be back in 1995 with the median age 26.6.  Obviously, not the case.  By the way, do you spend much time in nursing homes, retirement communities, etc.?  That's likely where a lot are 'hiding'.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

I don't think you get it. BritManToo is the measurer of all things.

I thought Leaver was.