IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: Deadly_king on September 23, 2010, 05:04:47 pm
-
In France, the states have increased the retirement age from 60 to 62. Moreover in order to obtain the full pension one needs to work for at least 41.5 years.
What is your opinion about that ???
Does it seem fair???
-
Can I have a first say?
Thank you. :P
Could you please change the title of this thread... It's too vague. I mean, current issues could be implying anything contemporary. While you're talking about retirement ages.
You know, in Australia, people work up till death. 100 years olds are still healthy. No wonder.
-
Can I have a first say?
Thank you. :P
Could you please change the title of this thread... It's too vague. I mean, current issues could be implying anything contemporary. While you're talking about retirement ages.
You know, in Australia, people work up till death. 100 years olds are still healthy. No wonder.
Sure....hihihi :)
Its done :)
Hmm............yeah sure they are. Am not against that decision but still not everyone is still fit till then. The states could have implemented an optional agreement, i.e only those who want to pursue their career in the active labour force of the government can do so. Others must have the right to either opt for private work or consider retirement with full pension.
41.5 years at the service of the states is quite long before obtaining full pension...........i mean one will have to start working at the age of 20 which is not very likely!
-
The french are lazy. Whenever the germans invade all the french are out at lunch.
-
The french are lazy. Whenever the germans invade all the french are out at lunch.
lol
-
41.5 years at the service of the states is quite long before obtaining full pension...........i mean one will have to start working at the age of 20 which is not very likely!
Strange. Some children here start working even before they are 9 :-\
-
The french are lazy. Whenever the germans invade all the french are out at lunch.
Hahaha...........lazy or not........that does not mean they are forced to work for so long :P
-
Strange. Some children here start working even before they are 9 :-\
Yeah.......indeed they start working very very early.........but not for the government!
I don't think children at this age should be allowed to work.........they have a right for education!
Moreover only through education will the country produce professionals in various fields in order to develop itself!
-
The French dont work long. The French have a 35 hour working week.
In England I work a 100 hour week.
-
The French dont work long. The French have a 35 hour working week.
In England I work a 100 hour week.
Yeah........you have a point there.
But the best solution would have been to increase their working hours per week rather than the current measures taken. Don't you think so??
-
Cos it is impossible to sack a french worker they can behave like bigots. No rights for workers
-
Cos it is impossible to sack a french worker they can behave like bigots. No rights for workers
That's another plausible reason for the laziness of the French. No doubt they are behaving likewise of such a petty change in their working conditions.
I believe necessary measures should be taken to 'break their bones' and make them work harder for the betterment of the country.
Yet it will surely be more beneficial to the states to take out the most of youngsters rather than old persons. Their freshness, energy and strength must be at the disposal of the government although I must admit that they lack experience. This is why I propose an optional additive for workers who are willing to stay in the labour force after retirement age are free to do so. But no one should be forced to do so.
-
The french are lazy. Whenever the germans invade all the french are out at lunch.
+1
And that's why the German Blitzkrieg worked so well. The French were busy eating their creme brulees and truffle.
-
+1
And that's why the German Blitzkrieg worked so well. The French were busy eating their creme brulees and truffle.
A sadly ignorant comment. More than a quarter of a million people died in the Battle of France.
The French died to protect their homeland. The soldiers of that era deserve praise and not ridicule for their commitment to liberty and the cause.
-
41.5 is too long.
-
41.5 is too long.
It is indeed way too long :-[
Let's take the case of a medical practitioner for example. In order to become a professional he needs to study for at least 6 years after college whereby he'll already be 25 years old.
So how can he reach 41.5 years at the service of the states since he still has to specify himself which will require another 4-5 years ???
-
In Australia, retirement age is death, as my teacher says. ::)
-
In Australia, retirement age is death, as my teacher says. ::)
Is it mandatory or optional?
-
Mandatory cause no pension is given by the government.
And optional, you can insure your own pension scheme as from an early age.
-
The goal of life should be development and ensuring a better future by earning more money. Not to rely on pensions.
As for those who are concerned about the 'security', the power of compound interest can make anyone rich, by the time they get on their retirement age.
-
And what about taxation? Isn't it a form of 'investment' too?
-
And what about taxation? Isn't it a form of 'investment' too?
Tax is (in a transparent govt.) used mainly to finance public goods and combat externalities. Its not an investment (well, not directly!).
Imo, its the responsibility of the individual to ensure their pension rather than making a fuss over the retirement age. Again, the power of compound interest is there for the lazy people. $100 saved over 40 years can be a lot of money in a compound rate of 8-10% (more than he would, in a normal circumstance, require in his old age)
-
and hence the french workers should, instead of organising strikes, propose these to the government:
1. Ban all pensions from government.
2. Half all taxes.
-
Tax saving, which is investment in loans and smth else may be useful in future but not the tax directly.
-
Tax is (in a transparent govt.) used mainly to finance public goods and combat externalities. Its not an investment (well, not directly!).
Imo, its the responsibility of the individual to ensure their pension rather than making a fuss over the retirement age. Again, the power of compound interest is there for the lazy people. $100 saved over 40 years can be a lot of money in a compound rate of 8-10% (more than he would, in a normal circumstance, require in his old age)
To finance public goods and combat externalities, welfare maximisation, that is the aim. And retired people who do not have a pension schemes are an externality for the society. They shoot up poverty rates, decrease consumption, and hence investment, economic growth... the usual trend.
We shouldn't, however, forget the political and social aspect of not providing pension schemes to people. Like you made it clear above, there will no incentive to pay tax if people know it will not come to use in their old days. Any government has to be highly vigilant of his opposition party. They will strike where it is going to bang more. A 'wise' government that wishes to remain in power knows how to play with the psychology of its people.
It is the responsibility of people as much as that of the government, I don't deny. But it's also their responsibility as 'responsible' citizens not to commit crimes, frauds, corrupt, kill, etc. Bottom line: it is their responsibility, but who cares?
-
To finance public goods and combat externalities, welfare maximisation, that is the aim. And retired people who do not have a pension schemes are an externality for the society. They shoot up poverty rates, decrease consumption, and hence investment, economic growth... the usual trend.
This would not be the case if they self-financed their pensions. ;)