A three-month conclave between the social partners to give birth to proposals that will amend the pension reform voted in Forceps in 2023. What will it really be out? Measures on long careers and arduousness, no doubt, some cosmetic grooming, too. But those who dream of a big night on pensions – a rocking towards a point diet or the injection of a dose of capitalization – will probably remain hungry. The economist Bertrand Martinot, former social advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy and author of a study for the Fondapol on the subject, however defends the creation of a large French pension fund in the name of social justice. A pitfall, however: the duration that the rocking would take in such a regime … Not certain that the project is resistant to political alternations.
L’Express: In terms of retirement by capitalization, France is almost exceptional. How do you explain this almost systematic and epidermal rejection of pension funds. The word has even become taboo …
Bertrand Martinot I see two reasons for it. The first is ideological. To the left of the political spectrum, and I would even say to the far left, the idea that employees would be linked to capital and not only to the fruits of their work, that is to say wages, poses a Doctrinal problem. There are even fierce debates on the subject at the beginning of the 20th century, at the time of the parliamentary discussion on the establishment of a system by capitalization for the working and peasant retirement. The proponents of a Marxist approach has completely refuted the idea of capitalization even though Jean Jaurès, who reasoned as an economist, defended the opposite. He had perfectly understood the subject.
He thus explained that from a pragmatic point of view, employees had to benefit from the fruits of capital, which was favorable to the most modest. He thus opposed the far left of the time and the CGT. Alas, the most radical voice won. The second reason is more cultural, it is linked to the very particular report that the French have with the concept of risk. Hence the massive orientation of household savings to products such as booklet A.
In their defense, the stock market investment is more risky …
HAS short term. But this is not true in the long term. All studies show that over a long period, the rate of return on the capital invested in the financial markets is 2 to 2.5 points higher than the growth rate of the economy. Even Thomas Piketty, which can hardly be accused of being an ultra -lock, says it in his book Capital in the 21st century. He deplores it, which is not my case. On the contrary, I think that it is an opportunity and that employees must be able to benefit from it!
Is this opposition not a little hypocritical insofar as a dose of capitalization already exists for civil servants?
Yes, it’s the erafp [NDLR : l’Etablissement de retraite additionnelle de la fonction publique] : This is a public pension fund powered by a small subscription on the premiums of civil servants. It is on the basis of this model that a national fund should be built for all employees.
You even say that the distribution system has become unfair in France …
In pure theory, there is no better system than another. It all depends on the demographic context. Today, in France, the aging of the population means that from an intergenerational point of view, the distribution system is unfair. Mathematically, it leads to that, from generation to generation, pensions are less generous. At the same time, an increasingly important weight weighs on assets, either by contributions of contributions, or by the extension of the duration worked. In any event, you will work more and more, gain less and less, to have an increasingly weak retirement. Therefore, this mechanism leads to massive transfers of young people to the oldest. It is normal for these transfers to exist but, there, they are inequitable because today’s young people will never benefit from what current retirees enjoy.
The French system is really more generous than that of our European neighbors ?
Yes, and there are several ways to measure it. First, we can compare the replacement rate, that is to say the level of pensions on wages. France is in the top 3 of the OECD countries. But you have to add another variable. France is the country with the highest rate of life expectancy in the OECD. If you have these two indicators, you can say that the French system is the most generous of the major developed countries, with the Italian regime. The back of the medal, of course, is that we also have the highest rates of samples. Magic does not exist. Everything is paid.
You say that the current system even leads to perpetuate, or even increase inequalities between households …
France is obsessed with the issue of inequalities. In reality, income inequalities after redistribution are quite weak. The problem, it is heritage inequalities, which have actually tended to increase, under the effect of the increase in real estate prices which means that the heritage already concentrated within a relatively limited part of The population is even more over time. In addition, the retirement contributions that ampute wages are so important that the most modest, whose savings capacity is already limited, cannot afford a small nest egg. In a way, capitalization would make it possible to remedy it, in a forced manner.
Concretely, how could we add a dose of capitalization to an already very complex system?
Let’s start from the objective: to constitute a fund on a number of years whose income would ultimately allow to pay part of the pensions. In the study that I carried out for Fondapol, I am leaving from the hypothesis that the capitalization pillar could represent, in several decades, a third of the total amount of retirement, which corresponds roughly to current additional pensions. This fund would generate recipes that would partially replace the current revenue of the distribution system, which would significantly lower contributions while consolidating the system. According to my simulations, a decrease of 6 to 7 points of the samage rate on wages is possible, which would obviously support purchasing power. We therefore have the opportunity to finance the same level of retirement with, overall, samples from lower work. Who can be against it?
There would still be a transition period during which the French should contribute twice: a first time to pay the pensions of current retirees and a second to constitute this famous forced savings. Their purchasing power is likely to suffer from it …
There are multiple ways of constituting this fund. And the solution is not necessarily to tax wages. One can imagine a contribution of the State.
Even if he is already very indebted?
If the State manages to make substantial savings on its expenses, it may be able to identify resources to abound this fund. But there is a third source which in my opinion is essential: current retirees. This is a total break compared to the reforms initiated since 1993. All these reforms have had two guidelines: to work the assets longer and increase the samples. I think we must have retirees contribute more. For example, by de -fencing pensions for several years. A year of freezing of pensions is between 4 and 4.5 billion euros in savings. This money could be used to abound the national pension fund. This pensioner effort would have a great political meaning, that of preparing the future.
You speak of a reform that would spread over several decades. Given the disturbing situation of our public finances, can we wait?
What matters to pensions is the trajectory, solidity and equity of the system. It is not the recovery at three years. In addition, let us be clear, capitalization does not make it possible to resolve the question of the public deficit: the State, the communities, but also the whole social sphere, must absolutely make an enormous effort on expenses. What I tried to show is that we can optimize the financing of the pension system.
One of the arguments in favor of a new pension reform is the effect on the employment rate of seniors. But is it really the right tool, if companies do not play the game?
The main factor behind the increase in the employment rate of seniors since the early 2000s is the decline in the legal retirement age. A dose of capitalization would allow flexibility in individual choices. You could leave earlier, but with less retirement. Conversely, working longer would be much more profitable in a system by capitalization. The distribution regime does not allow such flexibility.
You were talking about a retaining French company at risk. How to reassure the French on the governance of such a fund?
This subject is absolutely central. I propose that it is supervised by the social partners, as is today the Agirc-Arrco supplementary pension system. Above all, it must be ensured that the state will never be able to draw in this box. Clearly: prick the savings of the French. Political power always has good reasons to do so: helping a national flagship, funding a war or protecting the economy from a new pandemic. This is why I propose that this fund be included in the Constitution. A part could be invested in listed French companies, but also in unlisted titles, start-ups possibly. But not with an industrial policy perspective, simply in a logic of yield. In any case, it will be necessary to protect yourself from the voracity of a potentially predatory state!
.