Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Number Games: The Retirement Age in France is Already 65

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 12:54 PM
Original message
Number Games: The Retirement Age in France is Already 65
If you asked people what the retirement age is for Social Security most people would probably say 66, or perhaps age 65 if they missed the fact that the age for full benefits has been increased. However, workers can qualify for early benefits at age 62 and most workers do in fact start collecting benefits shortly after reaching this age.

This is why it is very disturbing to see the NYT and other reports on France routinely refer to President Sarkozy's plan to raise the retirement age in France from age 60 to 62. This refers to the early retirement age. The normal retirement age is already age 65 and would rise to age 67 under Sarkozy's proposal.

In the same vein, the article refers to a plan by Germany to raise its retirement age to 63 without noting that this refers to the early retirement age. The age for full benefits in Germany is currently 67.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/number-games-the-retirement-age-in-france-is-already-65


Really interesting how universal is the "raising the retirement age from 60 to 62" meme in the US msm. almost like it was coordinated to delude us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ginto Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. I never realized that the age for full benefits in Germany is 67?
When did they go so far off course?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. West Germany probably slipped it in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, that's OK. They live longer than Americans do. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. One report I heard said you can collect full benefits at 60 if
you have worked 42 years. So a person who started working at age 18 would be eligible at 60 for full benefits. Also, I haven't seen anything that explains just what the difference in benefits is if you retire at 60 vs 65. Maybe it's not as big a difference as it is here with Social Security &, of course, a French retiree, doesn't have to worry about "medigap" or prescription covreage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good find, I was not aware of this at all.
And the reason I wasn't is the corrupt media in the US and Europe. I can't wait until a teabagger tells me how appropriate it is to raise the retirement age in France and Germany to bring it more in line with ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. I would like to see a legitimate source for this statement:
"workers can qualify for early benefits at age 62 and most workers do in fact start collecting benefits shortly after reaching this age."

If this statement is about the U.S. I need to see a source. I don't believe it is an accurate statement. Even if it was true 10 years ago it is definitely not true now. People must keep working because their private retirement funds have been shredded and because of the 6% a year reduction in SS benefits for each year it is taken before 67.

BTW - Not a single baby boomer has reach full retirement age yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The majority of workers tap SS early. Been that way since the dirty 80s -- when the attacks on
labor ramped into high gear. Layoffs in your 40s & 50s = no stable employment thereafter unless you get lucky.

"In 2009, 72 percent of the 2.7 million new filers opted into Social Security early, according to the Social Security Administration. In 2007 and '08, 74 percent did, a record high. In 1980, just 57 percent collected early and in 1970, 47 percent."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/14/eveningnews/main6773438.shtml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Thanks for the info.
Those stats are sad and shocking.

When I enrolled in Medicare they did everything they could (I was transferred to 3 different reps) to try to get me to take my SS early. I declined. I mentioned it to my accountant and she said that all of her clients that enrolled in Medicare reported the same pitch. We just assumed that the government was trying to reduce the long term commitment by 6 or 12%, or more if you delay past full retirement age. Oh, they also wanted to tap those SS checks for the medicare contribution directly, instead of waiting for me to send in a quarterly payment.

From my personal experience, I don't know a single person who tapped SS before full retirement year. Guess it is because everyone had/has a job.

Thanks again for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. yep. i know a couple people who did, both because they didn't have jobs, 1 because he was
Edited on Mon Oct-25-10 05:32 PM by Hannah Bell
completely disabled, as in unable to walk or feed himself.

reading between the lines i think we can guess that the percentage started going up in the 80s as lifetime jobs & guaranteed wages/benefits came under attack, & it's gotten worse since.

a lot of "silent" people out there just hanging on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-25-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Funny, that. K&R. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC