Mass protests continued to rock French cities on Thursday, with more than a million people speaking out against a new policy that raises the retirement age from 62 to 64 and requires workers to pay into the pension system for longer. The new law is a priority for President Emmanuel Macron, who used a constitutional loophole to enact the amendment after it became apparent Parliament would reject it.
The week-long French protests have been mostly peaceful and led by union leaders. Piles of rubbish left in the streets by striking rubbish collectors have become a symbol of opposition, and there have also been disruptions to transport, air travel, oil refineries and schools.
But violence erupted on Thursday when protesters set fire to the front door of Bordeaux City Hall and kiosks across Paris, hurled smoke bombs and damaged property. The police tried to suppress them with tear gas and water cannons until late at night. At least 149 police officers were injured and 172 people arrested. It’s not clear how many civilians were injured, and we don’t yet have estimates of the extent of the damage.
Macron, who narrowly escaped a no-confidence vote this week, has said he has no intention of reversing the law. He claimed in a television appearance on Wednesday that he needed to convince the public that the reforms were necessary to save what he saw as the country’s vulnerable pension system, especially given longer life expectancies. But it’s not at all clear that current pension spending is out of control, and his claims have only fueled protesters’ anger.
It’s hard to imagine the same kind of mass protests erupting in the US against raising the age at which people can start collecting Social Security, which is projected to potentially become insolvent by 2033, meaning beneficiary checks will change after that 25 percent could be cut. France’s size and strong unions help keep the protests cohesive, and the US has struggled to sustain intense public protests in recent decades. But they warn those Republicans who have been agitating for Social Security reforms, which they have also misrepresented as the only means of ensuring the program’s survival.
“It’s the same conversation in a sense because it’s a way to cut benefits,” said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Raising the retirement age is effectively a reduction in benefits
In its 2023 budget, the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservatives in the House of Representatives, proposed gradually raising the retirement age in the US from 67 to 70 in view of longer life expectancy. Republicans have attempted to frame such proposals as reforms that would keep the system solvent for future generations without affecting benefits for current retirees or those nearing retirement age.
Despite speculation that the idea would be a sticking point in talks on the debt ceiling, Majority Leader of the Republican House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy took the issue off the table last month after moderates in the party and relentless attacks from Democrats responded. However, the idea remains a topic of debate among some Republicans, including the party’s presidential nominees.
“It’s unrealistic to say you won’t touch on claims. Thing is, you don’t have to touch it for seniors and anyone nearing retirement. They talk about the new generation, like my growing up kids,” Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said earlier this month.
A common misconception in the US is the retirement age. Although an American can claim benefits as early as age 62, they will not start receiving their highest monthly benefits under the Delayed Retirement Credit, which was introduced in the early 1970s, until age 70. The average American currently retires at age 64, but that may be partly because they don’t know they’ll get a larger pension if they hold back.
Also, despite what Republicans may say, further raising the retirement age is a cut in benefits because a retiree receives less money over a shorter period of time.
According to an analysis by CBS’ Aimee Picchi, the average retiree would lose three to four years in benefits totaling at least $65,000 under the Republican plan. That’s critical, especially given that other sources of income for retirement like employer-provided pensions have dried up over the years, taxes on Social Security benefits have risen, and Medicare premiums have risen.
“When we’re talking about raising the retirement age, you have to put air quotes because that’s what most people hear and actually hear the wrong thing,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works. “What they’re actually saying is that we’re going to cut your benefits so rich people don’t pay more taxes.”
Although France’s pension system is more generous than the US’s, Lawson makes the same argument that French protesters have made during recent demonstrations against their government: raising the retirement age would impose an undue burden on low-income individuals and the working class, without others explore tax solutions or tap into other accounts.
However, there are some solutions being circulated in the US that would avert these strains and the widespread public outrage we saw in France.
There are many ideas for saving Social Security that don’t involve raising the retirement age
Right now, Republicans are mostly proposing ways to reduce the money that Social Security spends, but they’re not talking about ways to increase the amounts going into the program.
There are countless ways to do this, including collecting more Social Security taxes from payroll. The government could raise the Social Security tax ceiling, below which incomes above a certain amount — $160,200 in 2023 — are not subject to the 6.2 percent Social Security tax for either employees or their employers. About 6 percent of Americans earn more than that amount.
Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed making people with incomes over $250,000 pay Social Security taxes on their income and subjecting investment and business income to the Social Security tax. That would ensure Social Security’s survival through 2046, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.
Congress could allocate some general revenue to support the program in recognition that much of the Social Security trust fund was spent on the first generation of retirees after the Great Depression, Munnell said.
“To somehow recognize this ongoing burden because of the decision made decades ago, you could bring in some general revenue and I don’t think that would undermine the balance between contributions and benefits in terms of a deserved right,” she said.
we have a request
Vox journalism is free because we believe everyone deserves to understand the world they live in. This kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, consumers, and stewards of this planet. In short: understanding benefits everyone. You can join this mission by making a financial donation to Vox today. Reader support helps keep our work free for everyone. Will you join us?