Macron: 'I have no regrets pushing for this necessary reform'

[brooklynite]

Source: EuroNews

France's President Emmanuel Macron addressed his country on Wednesday after weeks of protests and strikes over a plan to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64. During the much-anticipated interview, televised on TF1 and France 2, Macron stood firmly behind his government and the very much controversial retirement plan.

Macron said his disputed pension overhaul was “necessary” to balance France’s pension system over the coming years amid shifting demographics.

“The longer we wait, the more it (the deficit) will deteriorate,” said the French president, whose government has failed to persuade the public – and indeed many economists – of the need for reform.

“This reform is necessary, it does not make me happy. I would have preferred not to do it,” he said, calling for the reform to come into force by the end of 2023.

Read more: https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/22/macron-i-have-no-regrets-pushing-for-this-necessary-reform

[quakerboy]

1. And why would he?

He got his policy passed
And he survived both no confidence votes.

Whats to regret?

[Delphinus]

8. I would imagine

it will make it harder to get reelected, if he chooses to run.

And I read somewhere yesterday that some think it is a gift to Marie Le Pen (think I got the name right).

[Old Crank]

2. Some reforms have to be made.

The trouble is the right who pushed for earlier later pensions refused to agree or work with anyone to propose other changes. The further left refused to do much either. The French have increased their life span almost 10 years since 1980. That puts a huge strain on the system. Was this the best he could have done? We won't know because no one seemed to want to make a serious discussion about alternatives.

To increase solvency, the current scheme will be runnign a 15 billion defficit by 2030, there are about 3 main choices.
1. Raise retirement age. unpopular
2. Increase payments into the system from payroll or some other tax. unpopular
3. Cut bennefits. unpopular.

Our SSAN has a similar problem. Here one party refuses to look at any alternatives other than 1 and 3 above.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. What party would that be?

?

[Marcus IM]

4. I seem to remember something called "the grand bargain" that were about 1 and 3 above.

Something called "the cat food commission" (the Simpson/Bowles commission) that recommended raising retirement age and cutting benefits.

Here ...

President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-establishes-bipartisan-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-an

Bowles-Simpson Social Security Proposal Not a Good Starting Point for Reforms
Relies Far Too Much on Benefit Cuts, Makes Other Problematic Changes

https://www.cbpp.org/research/bowles-simpson-social-security-proposal-not-a-good-starting-point-for-reforms

[Farmer-Rick]

5. With minor objection, Raygun and Greenspan moved our retirement to 67

Without a whimper they got it passed. It helps if you destroy the workers' unions before you do it though.

Notice Congressional pension retirement is still 62. Maybe their retirement should change to match what the rest of us have to deal with.

[oioioi]

6. "Congressional pension retirement is still 62"

How quaint

[Old Crank]

7. A way to fix that.

Forced retirement at 62 or raise the retirement age.
They pay into their system also.

Most Federal legislators can afford to retire at 62 and then get some other lucrative job.