The first two parameters are less useful in this way

The viability of the system of retirement for many years been a very heavy debate (report Charpin was already the balance sheet in 1999), but nevertheless a little frozen.

In backdrop, two phenomena dominate: the arrival at the age of retirement since 2006 of the first generations of the baby boom and the continuous extension of life expectancy, at height of a quarter of a year. With this increase in the burden of the pension, the debate focuses on the triangle: loading of contributions, period of assessment and amount paid pension.

If, in fact, these three parameters are essential, the discussion crashes because it is always as antisocial or reducing benefits for the population: loss of salary, loss of pension or lengthening of the duration of working life. It therefore enlarge the unblock, treat it differently.

The first two parameters are less useful in this way. Take more assets to give retirees Reduce the purchasing power of pensioners to alleviate the cost of the work These are questions which raise shields on one side and the other fundraisers, who believe in a theory of the clash of generations is counterproductive.

The most useful parameter, it is the assessment, is that most directly meets elongation of the life, once past the wave of the baby boom.

Is a prolongation of the duration of work possible Of course, this is the direction towards which all OECD countries are committed to the first pillar of the pension, the distribution.

A prolongation of the duration of contribution must be homogeneous, uniformly affect all employees You touch a key question here: why not approach a certain fairness between the various categories of population - according to the profession, heritage, income, health, career paths and their precarious - by comparing the sum of the amount of pension contributions, and therefore to differentiate the lengthening of the period of assessment according to the relevant categories The relevant categories would be those that modify both the duration of life, which generates pensions and income, which generate contributions.

In this sense can be highly redistributive: the first would be to make longer contribute higher revenues, which have the longest life expectancy and will receive higher pensions. Can also be based on socio-professional categories fairly broad: managers have at age 65 a life expectancy of 18.5 years, 13.0 years for unskilled workers. It may make the evolution of the period of assessment automatic, as is the case in Sweden, gradually adjusting with his birth cohort life expectancy.

Should retain the distinction by gender, on the grounds that female life expectancy is four years more than male life expectancy Of course not, since this distinction was not generated by the work. It will not longer contribute non-smokers longer than smokers or fans of vegetables longer than meat eaters. However, it is rational to consider, for example, exposure to the weather or chemicals which have amputated the life expectancy of because of the professional activity and periods of maternity, as is the case today, which have alleviated the professional progress.

The debates on the arduous nature showed how much it was difficult to establish classes fixed in the population with more or less difficult to exercise professions. The objective could be to build a bundle of variables différenciantes: working conditions, precariousness of careers, income and health at the time of the winding-up are a few examples of categories for a financially sound and redistributive differentiation. The public debate on this issue should be passionate and restore fairness and sustainability of our pension system.