And it clearly the question of tax justice

What will be your vote tomorrow, on the whole of the text of the pension reform

I would have voted in favour of a just reform. A pension reform is vital, and I consider as reasonable that it involves a shift in the age of 60 to 62. But the shift from 65 to 67 years of the threshold where you can get a proportional pension without penalty is a punishment for incomplete careers, particularly for women. This is an injustice and I will vote against this injustice.

The Government therefore has reason to raise the legal age to 62 years...

The current situation is untenable. Pensions paid to the French account this year 280 billion euros and there is, on this amount, over $ 30 billion deficit. These tens of billions are borrowed and returned on the future workload. The assets should therefore assume the burden of growing pensions and, increasingly, repay the borrowed amounts past! Snowball effect! Accounting solutions, such as the decline of pensions, are impossible to bear. Therefore, there is only a logical Trail: should remove deficits by increasing the number of assets to retirees. This implies a policy of reconquest of employment, and thus production in France - talking about and what is being done in concrete terms - and a movement of the cursor of the age of retirement.

Then, why refuse the text

Because it is absolutely unfair to take the opportunity to target the most vulnerable. Move from 65 to 67 years of age validation of rights, is double punishment: those who have had incomplete careers, who have had difficulties in working life, for example women who have raised their children, will have tiny pensions, and this is them on target for the whole. It is extremely shocking. Even more when exist protected situations, starting, say, by parliamentarians, with a very attractive special regime, without requirement of complete career! In addition, I rejects US figures. It is that 18 of people who leave after 65 and their pensions, especially those of women who raised children, significantly below the full pension. Arithmetically, it is impossible that there is a third of the financing of reform as the Government claims.

If you are elected in 2012, will return on the 67 years

I will not survive such an injustice. In a comprehensive reform, I would ask the Government and the Parliament to correct this aspect of the Act.

What do you think of the position advocated by the PS

In the analysis of the PS, all is not to criticize. The criticisms on the funding of the reform are absolutely based. But the Socialist position is very ambiguous, if not hypocritical. For the opinion, by defending the 60 years, the PS is against reform. But, in fact, the PS indeed supports the lengthening of the period of assessment and a large increase of the penalty in the case of incomplete! In a world where entry into working life, particularly for students, is more and more later, it is actually accept that people leave very late or with very low pensions. To fund pensions by tax, Michel Rocard referred to this position of "absurd", "dangerosissisme" and "imbecility". I am on the same line. The tax, it is for the budget. Pension benefits must be balanced by themselves and funded by contributions.

Eventually, that encourage you to make the system viable

If you want a balanced system, must be changed to architecture. You must use a retirement points, a universal regime, by distribution, balanced in the long term, managed by the social partners, allowing everyone to choose himself the balance between age and amount of the pension and whether, at any time of life, where it is the pension he may have. It was interesting that the Government agrees to consider such a system change, which has already convinced a part of trade unions, and even some in the UMP and PS. In refusing this reflection, he removed any credible reform horizon. It will be so rethink.

This reform would thus be a missed opportunity

It would have been much more courageous to go towards a truly sustainable reform. If I had the drive, I me there would have taken much differently. I have organized a long, public, negotiating television for several weeks, which would have allowed each of the stakeholders to defend its ideas and its principles. This would have destroyed the fantasies and leads each French to build a personal conviction. I am sure that it would have found areas of consensus. And I would at the same time dealt with the question of the progressive career purposes, of a new role for the seniors in the enterprise, tutoring, change of work according to the ages of life.

The Government makes enough to reduce deficits

For ten or fifteen years, the decisions taken are disproportionate with the threat to our country. This will eventually cause insoluble problems. To avoid the drama, it will be a new will, that begins with the expense, by the interventions of the State, for example the amounts expended on the 35-hour. At the same time be a pact with the local communities. And it clearly the question of tax justice. Bettencourt and Tapie Affairs come to show if it was still necessary: the wealthy in France are proportionately less than the middle classes. Must be a real tax reform, remove the tax shield and, at the same time, it must be a radical reform of the ISF which is a poorly thought out tax and Moreover, is bypassed by the largest taxpayers. And justice will require the introduction of a marginal slice of 45 income tax.

Christine Lagarde has recognized that the State was $ 210 million to Bernard Tapie intaglio, but rejects any privilege. This convince you it

It is a civic scandal added to a State lie. A decision with serious consequences for the taxpayer could be taken only by justice. There, he is a private arbitration decision, without legitimacy. and it has resulted in a staggering result: for example 45 million euros for "moral damage". It is 1,500 times more than what is given to parents in the misfortune when a child dies in an accident! 1,500 more than the worst times of dramas! And then there is the lie: the Government was led to believe in cost that some 30 million; This will be in the final seven times more. I ask the question: what in particular tax benefits have enabled to arrive at such a sum Has Bernard Tapie benefited from the tax shield 210 million euros, it is tax revenue more 100,000 tax homes or again, this is the whole of the annual salaries of the 15,000 positions of teachers deleted last year.