The executive has been repeating it over and over for weeks: its pension reform is a "social justice reform".
Everything is done to try to demonstrate that the decline in the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 will benefit the French.
In its impact study, where the words "justice, balance, progress" are written on the cover page, it is thus explained, with supporting demonstration, that the amount of retirement pensions will be higher thanks to the reform.
The Minister of Labour, Olivier Dussopt, assured for his part, in Le Journal du dimanche of January 22, that "it is the poorest pensioners who will see their pension on liquidation increase the most".
"There is no loser," he even dared.
“A marketing presentation” of the reform, according to Patrick Aubert, economist and statistician at the Institute of Public Policy (IPP), for whom the vast majority of the population will actually be negatively affected by the government bill.
"While there are indeed a few winners with this reform, the announced goal being a return to balance thanks to savings linked to the raising of the legal retirement age, we can safely say that there will be a majority losers," he said.
>> To read also: "Is the pension reform 'indispensable', as the government claims?"
Patrick Aubert also criticizes the comparisons proposed in the impact study.
"These compare the amount of a pension between a person who would leave at 62 in the current system and at 64 in the system proposed by the reform. But, in fact, by working two more years, you contribute two more years, which automatically increases the level of the pension. To really become aware of the implications of the reform, you have to compare an equivalent situation", he explains.
Moreover, if the winners do exist, they represent only a small part of the active population.
Thus, among future retirees, only 54,000 people should be affected in 2023 by the revaluation of the minimum pension to 1,200 euros gross, according to the government's impact study - a figure which will however gradually increase to 200,000 in 2030.
So who are the winners and losers of this pension reform?
To see more clearly, France 24 has imagined seven active profiles and a retired profile.
Céline, born in 1978, employed since she was 23, mother of two children: LOST
Currently, Céline must contribute 43 years to obtain a full-rate retirement pension (i.e. without the discount of 1.25% per missing quarter that applies to the basic pension and the supplementary pension) and without proration (reduction only of the amount of the basic retirement pension according to the number of missing quarters), which would bring her retirement age to 66 if she had had no children.
But the births of her two children before 2010 entitle her to four years of validated insurance (four quarters per child as compensation for maternity leave during which mothers do not contribute and four quarters per child in return for their education – since 2010, the four trimesters related to education can be divided between the father and the mother),
The postponement of the legal retirement age to 64, as envisaged by the reform desired by the government, would therefore force Céline to work two more years.
An "injustice" targeting women, according to opponents of the reform, who argue that this same reform does not affect men in the same way.
Example with Paul: also born in 1978, also an employee since he was 23 years old and also the father of two children born before 2010, he must already work until he is 66 to have a full pension.
The reform of the government will therefore not oblige him to work longer.
>> To see, our Debate: "Retirements: showdown between unions and government. Towards a black Tuesday?"
Christophe, born in 1973, independent since he was 19: LOSER
Under the current system, Christophe must contribute 43 years to leave with full retirement and could therefore stop working at 62.
Considering that his future pension will not be high enough and that he will be able to continue his professional activity, Christophe plans to work until the age of 64, i.e. two more years of contributions, to benefit from a 10% bonus and thereby inflating his retirement pension a little.
The pension reform does not change the legal age of departure for Christophe, who will enter the long career system and will therefore still be able to claim a departure at 62 years old.
On the other hand, he will lose the benefit of the premium he was considering thanks to a departure at 64 years old.
He will now have to work until the age of 66 to benefit from a 10% bonus, or 47 years of contribution.
Nathalie, born in 1965, employed since she was 21, childless: LOSER
Currently, Nathalie, who has worked all her life as an accountant without the slightest interruption, can consider leaving with full retirement at 63, after 42 years and one quarter of contributions.
The gradual decline in the legal retirement age required by the reform does not change anything for her, people born in 1965 having to wait 63 years and three months.
On the other hand, the acceleration of the Touraine reform, which gradually increases the number of years of contribution required from 42 to 43, will force him to work three more quarters – with the reform, people born in 1965 will in fact become first to have to contribute 43 years, whereas currently, it is those born from 1973 who are concerned.
>> To read also: "Pension reform: 47.1, the government's weapon to avoid obstruction"
Laurent, born in 1968, employed since he was 20: LOSER
In the current system, Laurent, who has been working in IT since he was 20, can hope to leave at 62 and a half after 42 and a half years of contributions.
But being born in 1968, the reform envisaged by the government hit him hard.
He is indeed part of the first generation who will have to reach 64 to retire.
Laurent will therefore have to work a year and a half longer, i.e. a total of 44 years of contributions instead of the 43 normally required.
Philippe, born in 1958, retired having worked all his life at minimum wage: WINNER
Aged 64, Philippe retired two years ago after a full career as a maintenance worker.
Paid all his life at the minimum wage, his current pension represents around 75% of the net Smic, or around 1,000 euros per month.
The pension reform envisaged by the government will increase the minimum contributory amount to bring the minimum pension for a person who has completed a full career at the Smic to 1,200 euros gross per month.
>> To read also: "'Illegal' but 'moral' ... The 'Robins Hood' of the CGT draw the weapon of electricity"
Sylvie, born in 1962, employed at minimum wage since she was 20 with a 19-year career break, mother of three children: WINNER
Having interrupted her career for 19 years to follow her expatriate husband to Asia and raise her three children, Sylvie is currently 21 years old.
Even if her three children allow her to benefit from six years of insurance, she will have to wait until she is 67 to retire without a discount under the current system.
She will then have validated 136 quarters (28 years as an employee with the Smic and six years thanks to her three children), or 33 less than the number of quarters necessary to benefit from a full retirement.
Sylvie will therefore receive a small retirement pension because it will be calculated with a reference salary at the level of the minimum wage, to which a proration will also be applied.
The pension reform brought by the government will not change the retirement age of Sylvie, who will still have to work until the age of 67 if she wants to eliminate the discount from the calculation of her pension.
On the other hand, the amount of his pension will be higher thanks to the revaluation of the contributory minimum, without however reaching the 1,200 euros gross per month because of his 33 missing quarters.
Julie, born in 1987, civil servant since she was 23, disabled, mother of two children: WINNER
Currently, Julie could consider taking early retirement from the age of 55 due to her disability.
However, he must validate 33 years of insurance, including 28 years actually contributed (a quarter paid is a quarter worked while a quarter on sick leave or unemployment or maternity leave is taken into account, and therefore validated, for the number of quarters required without however being subject to contribution).
However, Julie is not sure of being able to work for at least 28 years because of the aggravation of her disability and a break from work of seven years when her two children arrived.
With the government reform, the quarters actually contributed will no longer be necessary for people with disabilities.
Julie will therefore have much less difficulty in validating the number of quarters necessary to take early retirement at age 55.
>> To see: "Denis Maillard, philosopher: 'The idea that we sacrifice everything to work is false and dated'"
Nicolas, born in 1982, executive who started working at the age of 25, father of one child: NEITHER WINNER, NOR LOSER
In the current system, Nicolas is one of those people who have studied for a long time and know that they will therefore necessarily have to work beyond the age of 64 to leave with full retirement.
The 43 years of contribution required in his case mean that he will have to wait until he is 67 to leave with a full pension (without discount) but with a proration (because Nicolas will miss four quarters) or 68 to leave with a pension. complete.
As his child was born after 2010, Nicolas may possibly benefit from four trimesters for education (these trimesters can be divided between the mother and the father) and thus leave at age 67 with full retirement.
The postponement of the legal retirement age to 64 and the acceleration of the Touraine reform concerning the years of contribution therefore do not change anything if Nicolas wishes to retire without a discount and without proration.
The summary of the
France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week
I subscribe
Take international news everywhere with you!
Download the France 24 app