addition leftists who resist on principle any progress, I saw with surprise that even liberals do not find the pension reform good! They do make a good point by noting that there might be a communist system division when we should move to a funded pension. That does not mean Nicolas Sarkozy a communist, because his vision is indeed to move us to a PAYG.
one hand, push the legal age of retirement to 67 years is totally beneficial to our country as it will encourage people to work longer. In a country where people prefer to take it easy, forcing lazy to move a bit instead of staying warm in the buttocks or retirement marching in the streets is good for the economy: more work means more wealth, more money.
Then we can notice that the age at which people stop working is less than 60 years. So they leave with a pension that is not complete. By pushing back the retirement age, they can certainly work a little longer, but their pensions will also be less important. This is particularly interesting, since that is what will be switching to a funded pension, people must then turn to a complementary retirement if they want to maintain a good standard of life after work. A boon for pension funds!
We're going really to a privatized system and so much more fair and efficient, in which the wealthiest would stop paying for the poorest. Leftists have good solutions all the more unrealistic than the others to keep their old communist system division, as taxing financial income, or increase wages, pensions revolution is inevitable yet!
A direct transition to a funded pension would have certainly been courageous but unfortunately, the unions, still powerful in France, could manipulate public opinion to block it. It is therefore important to make a smooth reform, explaining that the current system is problematic. We, however, could also put forward the idea of Ivan Rioufol, which proposed a referendum on capitalization, because it is true that the silent majority should be favorable. It should however be wary of the referendum, since the current voting system, everyone has the same weight, the poorest and leftists have their say so and because they are more numerous than the people responsible as contractors or annuitants, it is difficult to give them the future of our pensions.
must however be wary of amalgam unsafe, that some liberals are comparing the system of PAYG communist what could be Madoff. The PAYG is not a pyramid model because it is egalitarian and puts everyone on the same plane: the poor have the same rights as the rich. It is a communist model which we have seen the devastation in the USSR. The pyramidal system of Bernard Madoff, by contrast, is clearly liberal, since it establishes a hierarchy by placing the richest its summit, which will by their actions to share their wealth with everyone. I already explained in a previous post how such a system is perfectly viable, and why the arrest of an excellent manager as Madoff was a sad mistake.
0 comments:
Post a Comment