The Government would not consider this pace

It is a central scenario on which Board the Government, even if nothing is arrested and many cursors remain to be fixed. To roll back the effective age of retirement of the employees of the private and the public, the Executive account Act on both two parameters: the legal age and the length of contribution.

Duration of contribution is currently identified quarter per year, to reach 41 years in 2012 under the Fillon law. The noted reasoning in 2003 was as follows: until 2020, the duration of insurance needed to receive a pension at full rate increase of one third of the gain of life expectancy at age 60. This should lead to a period of assessment of 41.5 years in 2020 if demographic projections are correct.

The Government would not consider this pace. On the other hand, it should propose to extend the "two thirds-one third" rule beyond 2020. "This principle is fair," said a government source. The effect would be important in the long term, because the contribution could reach 43 to 44 years in 2050.

Savings quickly

But this will be of no use to restore the balance in the short term, while the need to finance plans exceeds EUR 25 billion. François Fillon admitted that the 2003 reform did not have sufficient effect on behaviour. The actual age in the private sector (61.5 years) has not budged. In the public, the rebound is faster, but the average age is less than 60 years.

Among the reasons that push the Government to raise the age legal departure without penalty, at 60 years since 1982 (read here). "No doubt need to touch this cursor, it is not a secret to tell," said Labour Minister Xavier Darcos. This will immediately report the effective age of the start - even if the movement can only be that gradually, for example, a quarter of a year. And this will allow savings fairly quickly: the orientation of the Pension Board had encrypted EUR 6.6 billion gain by 2020 of a passage in 62 (effective in 2016).

Longer studies

Question to what level back is the legal age. To do this, the Government could reason from the average age at which the insured begin to contribute for their retirement. It has significantly progressed, due to the lengthening of the duration of the studies and the high rate of youth unemployment. For those born in 1970, the average age is included between 22 and 22 and a half years. Specifically, this is the average age at which this generation has validated its first four quarters (see chart). If one adds the 41 years of contributions required, this means that these elderly today 40 years, could in any event not receive a pension at full rate before 63 or 63 years and a half years with the regulations in force. Raising the legal age at this level would therefore have a certain logic... "Those born in 1970 will require of 164 quarters (41 years) at least according to current legislation" to obtain a full pension, stressed the Drees in a recent study. With 30 quarters validated in 30 years, "may the best from average to 63 and a half years (without regularization, or redemption or increase)".

Another thorny question will arise: meet the "pillar" of 60 years should logically lead to another legal age of 65 years, from which an employee can leave without haircut even though he contributed enough. Otherwise, the risk would be focus departures between two bounds become too closely spaced. In addition, the rehabilitation of the pillar of 65 would generate more gains in the long term than that of 60 years. But it would mean for employees began to work late or having incomplete career (including women) that the retirement would not be possible before a very high age. What do hesitation the Government.