Broadly, Elisabeth Borne explained, at the beginning of January, that her pension reform was essential for more social justice and financial balance. Either. In small lines, the Prime Minister, engaged in a parliamentary marathon, had even more difficulty convincing. Especially since the subject here is very technical. To give headaches even to practitioners in social law. A complexity that rolls out the red carpet to controversy and misunderstanding.
Take, therefore, the part of the reform devoted to the so-called "minimum" pension at 1,200 euros. It gave rise to many invectives at the Assembly, and to multiple interpretations.
In mid-December 2022, the head of government declared: "When the reform comes into force, this will correspond to 1,200 euros at the time of retirement for a person who has all his quarters. A few days later, on the occasion of the official presentation of the revamp, she revealed details of this promise.
It would be 1,200 euros gross per month, or 85% of the net minimum wage (1,353 euros per month), for a full full-time career. With, as a consequence, an increase of 100 euros in the minimum contribution for employees retiring from September 1, 2023, and justifying a full career contributing full-time to the minimum wage. In hollow, this also means that active smicards, having worked part-time for part of their career, will not benefit from such an amount, but they will still be entitled to a small increase in their pension.
How many people would be affected by this measure? After much controversy, the Minister of Labor, Olivier Dussopt, put forward the figure of 200,000 people who, according to him, will receive "a larger pension due to the establishment of the minimum pension. For its part, the Institute of Public Policy estimates at 10% the share of new retirees who may be affected by the maximum revaluation of 100 euros.
But a collateral effect of such a provision has been brought to light by the economist Michaël Zemmour, a specialist in social protection. According to him, a pensioner affected by this adjustment would see the benefits and other social assistance to which he is entitled reduced, because the level of the latter often depends on the level of pension. The government promises to adjust the floodgates.
Another subject that punctuated the debates in Parliament, and gave the experts a headache: long careers. It is that without concession from the government on this point, the elected LR threatened to oppose the text. SO ? According to a government document made public in recent days, 44 years of contribution will be required for certain entry thresholds into working life. Thus, with this measure, employees who started at 14, 16 and 18 could respectively leave at 58, 60 and 62. Attention, subtlety: those who started their career at 15 can leave at 58, 17 at 60, 19 at 62, 20 at 63. They, therefore, will have to contribute 43 years, not 44 years. You must follow ! And the examination of the text is not over yet…
