IThere is a consensus on the lack of macroeconomic need for a structural reform of pensions: today they represent 13.8% of GDP, i.e. one point of GDP less than in 2015 (14.7%) and will , according to the most pessimistic scenarios, gradually rise to close to this threshold by 2035… then stabilize at this level (14.7%) until 2070. No shock or structural problem, therefore, nothing that does not require changing the rules of the game.
The consensus also agrees on the fact, logical, that it is however necessary to provide (in the medium term) for an adjustment of resources taking into account the gradual increase in the share that the community will have to allocate to retirees by 2030 (from order of 0.5 point of GDP – this is the thickness of the line).
This question of accounting adjustment is minor, for example, in relation to the question of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the reductions in contributions (which are evaluated at 90 billion euros in the 2019 report of the Court of Auditors on the accounts social security), the recent costing of the government’s supply policy (160 billion according to the recent note from the Institute for Economic and Social Research), the French budget deficit (160 billion forecast for 2023), or well even to the additional cost of the Flamanville EPR (around 15.8 billion according to the world) which are however very little debated…
Play on the contribution rate
It is indeed a question of finding on average by 2030, according to the agreements adopted, three to nine billion euros per year. The adjustment of resources in a pay-as-you-go system is simple: it is logically necessary to play on what is the responsibility of the social partners, ie the contribution rate.
Assuming an increase in this rate borne entirely by employees without affecting the gross salary, and therefore not increasing the cost of labour, and according to the government’s projections, which are counting on an increase in salaries identical to productivity of the order of 1% per year, the amount would rise on arrival, with a gradual increase, to 33 euros per month in 2027 for the average salary or even 46 euros in 2032, this simply gives an order of magnitude.
This is not a reduction in net salary, but a lesser increase: a share of productivity gains would, in this case, be primarily allocated to contributions, and, as a result, the net salary would increase at a lower rate than the gross salary in 2027, for example and to fix ideas, the increase in net salary would thus be 95 euros, instead of an increase of 128 euros if there were no increase in contributions, with therefore a difference of 33 euros.
You have 64.5% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.