[ad_1]
A minimal reversionary reform would consist of determining single rules, but would be sensible. Sharing points seems to be more appropriate.
VWhat reversion device is going on? We should know more in the first half of 2019, when Jean-Paul Delevoye will formulate his global proposals for the future of the pension system. The reform will then be materialized by a law, which the Government says it wants to present in the middle of next year. The options available to him? The range of possibilities goes from the simple harmonization of the terms of reversion to their replacement by other logics.
A minimal reform would be to determine single rules, so that the widow's reversion no longer depends on the professional status of her spouse. Such a reform would already be sensitive, both technically and politically, and the executive could stop there. But it could also decide to go further and draw inspiration from the numerous reports of experts (think tanks, research centers, institutions, etc.) published over the last ten years on the subject and which propose, sometimes in the light of from foreign experiences, to replace our current reversion system with other mechanisms. Attention, the tracks presented here are not the options envisaged by the Government but the principal possibilities described by the specialists of the subject.
Sharing pension points at divorce
The idea most often emitted is that of "splitting", the sharing of rights in retirement within the couple. In practice, this can be done at three points: divorce, retirement or death. Transform the reversion into "splitting" for the divorced? The idea is tempting because for them, the reversion is poorly adapted. "A division of rights in the event of divorce would help to fight the poverty of divorced women living alone at the time of retirement and whose ex-spouse has not died", points out in a report Philippe Crevel. The device should then be articulated with the compensatory benefit. In concrete terms, we would add the retirement points (since the new system would work in points) acquired by the couple during the marriage, and the sharing would take place immediately after the divorce, as for that of the other commons.
Distribution patterns may vary by couple, location, marriage contract, etc. This mechanism, however, is very different from reversion: it implies a redistribution within the couple, which would occur most often from the man to the woman, while in the current system, the fact that the surviving spouse can touch a woman. reversion does not reduce the rights of the spouse who contributed, it is a "plus".
An addition of the pensions of each spouse at death
Another possibility for splitting is to share the pension rights for couples who are still married at the time of death. The idea here is to add, upon the death of one of the spouses, the direct pensions (those that each has their own, excluding child supplement) of the two members of the couple, to pay the survivor a fraction of this total.
According to the Institute of Public Policy, with this system, the maintenance of the standard of living of the survivor would be guaranteed with a rate of 66%. He would no longer touch, as is the case today, his pensions by direct entitlement (if any) and his survivors' pensions, but a single pension representing a fraction of the pensions formerly received by the couple. Jean-Paul Delevoye mentioned this track among others, during the social consultations he conducted before the summer break. He seemed to take her seriously, several unions told us. To follow, therefore.
The possibility of a life annuity on two heads
Another choice would be to model insurance on the reversion, by introducing an optional two-life annuity system, where the amount of the pension depends on the survivor's degree of reversion. "We would let the couple decide what the survivor would keep, explains the economist Jacques Bichot. If he wants the survivor to hit as much as the two living spouses, the rent would be lower. Couples would manage their rights as they wish. "Everyone should be offered the opportunity to obtain a non-reversible pension or a reversible retirement"advocates for the Social Protection Institute in a proposal made in 2017, as well as "The cost of reversibility would be charged to the amount of the pension of the person concerned and no longer via general pooling".
[ad_2]
Source link
