long ago that a reform as essential as that of pensions had not raised such passions, and as is the popular consensus against it. The French people have responded overwhelmingly against the project of Nicolas Sarkozy and his Government is mobilizing millions across the country.
Faced with these giant demonstrations, the Government, the Right as a whole, remained adamant, as deaf what the people responded.
The French have had the street as a means of expressing their disapproval of the reform, in a real concert information, misinformation, malinformations, truths, truths and cons of lies.
The pension issue does not suggest simplistic answers, such qu'apportées daily because it is complex and technical. If the answers to make were that simple to find than those imposed by our governments, ever, the mobilization would have been as important. This shows the épinosité the subject.
Les atermoiements de la Gauche sur le sujet ne font que renforcer la complexité du dossier, tant elle verse entre pragmatisme et démagogie ; "En 2012, lorsque nous reviendrons au pouvoir, nous reviendrons aux 60 ans !"
Pourtant, Martine Aubry, elle-même, première secrétaire du PS, expliquait que pour elle, pour avoir une retraite à taux plein, il fallait admettre que 41 annuités et demi, étaient nécessaires.
Quel décalage avec la mobilisation sociale et le discours des 60 ans !
Comment revenir aux 60 ans, en acceptant 41 annuités ? The Left does not show his unit over there, does not prove its credibility in a speech purely for electioneering:
After all, I'd love to come back 60 years ...
Here is the kind of rhetoric that we hear in the procession of protesters opposed to a reform imposed in defiance of popular consultation, and any social consensus.
For the question is this: what is at stake in this pension reform? Why is it so important?
Has taken the time to explain things before imposing, not to propose a reform project. Our fellow-citizens they have all the ins and outs of the subject?
The stakes are indeed numerous. But it is perhaps good to recall certain truths:
-our pension system is based on the noble principle of inter-generational solidarity, based on the funding allocation : are people in work (assets) which, through their contributions, fund pensions for retirees.
-balance our financial system is threatened because of one essential reason: the number of retirees is growing faster than the number of assets. In 50 years we have gone from a ratio of 4 assets for a retiree, a ratio of 1.8 active members per retiree. Eventually, there will be as assets than retired.
-the consequences for the viability of our pension system is terrible, since the year 2010, deficit amounted to 32 billion euros, which means that retirement is no longer out of 10 funded.
-specifically, these pensions are financed by debt , a debt that François Bayrou has continued to denounce the campaign since 2007 presidential election, and continues to grow, which will affect future generations.
We are therefore faced with a challenge to both social , economic and demographic , which could have been anticipated, and that should have been taken to grips years ago that.
The French therefore expect that this reform maintain the current level of pensions, but mostly it pérénise the PAYG system, so dear to their eyes.
And it is not called reform (who pretended to be a key measure of the quinquennium of Nicolas Sarkozy) that responds to the problem effectively.
several reasons: firstly, it is only temporary, since it will redébattre the issue in 2020, so it is only in its configuration, it does not address the issue.
Moreover, for a pension reform to be permanently effective, must necessarily to add to it a policy of full employment to balance the ratio of active / retired .
Moreover, the reform as proposed s'avère particulièrement injuste, notamment sur le domaine de la pénibilité, qui n 'est pas prise en compte. Celle-ci doit l'être par une caisse autonome alimentée par les entreprises au prorata des risques qu'elles font encourir à leurs salariés. Cette mesure entraînant une évolution vers des carrières professionnelles plus diversifiées .
Et que dire du déplacement de l'âge légal du départ à la retraite sans pénalisation à 67 ans ! C'est là une mesure absolument inacceptable, car pénalisant les salariés les plus fragiles et les femmes qui ont débuté ou stoppé leur carrière après avoir élevé des enfants.
Cette décision, particulièrement injuste repose sur un artifice comptable puisque lorsque ces personnes font valoir leurs droits à la retraite, un grand nombre d'entre eux ne travaillent plus, étant soit au chômage, soit en fins de droits, soit aux minima sociaux, ou sans ressources. Ces ressources doivent donc être assurées par les caisses chômages ou les budgets sociaux.
Quant au problème de la dette, qui va grandissante, on ne peut pas dire que le problème soit en instance d'être réglé, et ce ne sont pas les milliards d'euros de perte dues au bouclier fiscal, qui ne protègent que les très hauts revenus, that will make me think otherwise .
So yes, I demonstrated against the pension reform, because it seems neither fair nor appropriate to the issues it raises. But I expressed independently, with singularity, because it is necessary to understand that a pragmatic reform is inevitable to save our system, generous.
I finally expressed by opposition and because it is not mandatory to be left to think of a better, fairer, because it is not mandatory to be left to defend the rights for everyone and those most disadvantaged among us, because it is not mandatory to be left to think the prog office.
0 comments:
Post a Comment