Social Security budget: pensioners must not be the adjustment variable

While the country's eyes are on the streets, another text that is decisive for national cohesion is reaching the chamber. On Tuesday afternoon, the National Assembly begins its plenary examination of the 2027 Social Security financing bill, according to the institution's official website. The debate opens in conditions unfavourable to the government: the text was rejected in committee, and the vote on the revenue part of the State budget had to be postponed because the examination of amendments had not been completed.

The facts

The stated objective is ambitious. According to LCP, the government is aiming for a Social Security deficit of 12.7 billion euros in 2027, compared with 21.8 billion in 2026. L'Échiquier social, drawing notably on AFP, puts the effort at around ten billion euros, borne mainly by spending.

The most debated measure concerns pensions. The most modest basic pensions, below a threshold of around 1,260 to 1,280 euros a month depending on the source, would be raised in line with inflation in January. Above that, the increase would be reduced, or even frozen. The government expects to save around 4 billion euros, LCP reports. The text also provides for a freeze on family benefits at 2026 levels, an increase in health insurance spending limited to 2%, and price cuts demanded from drug manufacturers, according to L'Échiquier social. The RSA, the disabled adults' allowance and the minimum old-age pension would not be affected.

Part of the health savings is also beyond the deputies' vote. As the NosParlementaires website points out, the raising of the ceilings on medical deductibles was decided by decree in September, as were several cuts in reimbursements, for dental care or medical transport.

In committee, the removal of the pension freeze was voted for by groups ranging from La France insoumise to the Rassemblement national, including the Socialists, the Ecologists and the Droite républicaine, according to LCP. The rapporteur general, Thibault Bazin, considered that the committee had thus "fired blanks".

The positions at stake

The government defends an effort it considers fair. Before the Senate, the Minister for Public Accounts, David Amiel, explained that without braking measures, pension spending would increase by around 13 billion euros next year, according to Public Sénat. He argues that exempting one generation from the effort would create precisely the generational divide that one claims to avoid, and points out that pensioners make up around a quarter of the population.

A necessary effort so as not to create a generational divide — David Amiel, according to Public Sénat

This argument deserves to be heard. France must control its social accounts, and it would be unfair to place the whole burden on workers and young people.

The opposition responds on two levels. On substance, RN deputy Christophe Bentz speaks of a "scandalous cut", while LR deputy Corentin Le Fur believes the measure "pits the generations against each other", according to L'Échiquier social. On method, Socialist Sandrine Runel regrets, again according to this outlet, that the left's amendments were set aside without negotiation, unlike last year. The PS notably defended a progressive CSG reduced for low wages, which was rejected in committee.

The analysis

The question is not whether savings need to be made. It is who bears them, and how they are decided.

On the first point, protecting small pensions is a good thing. But a threshold of around 1,270 euros remains low: a pension of 1,400 euros is no privilege, especially for a person living alone facing rising prices. The government has said it is open, according to LCP, to a partial increase between this threshold and 2,000 euros. That is the path to explore further. A progressive mechanism, asking more of the highest pensions, would be fairer than a brutal step.

On the second point, the drift is worrying. When deductibles and reimbursements are decided by decree, and the text itself risks ending with a 49.3 or by ordinances, Parliament loses control over what most directly affects the lives of the insured. For a Gaullist attached to the State, this slope is not a mark of authority. On the contrary, it weakens consent to the effort, without which no reform holds.

Finally, the context matters. At a time when part of the youth is demonstrating to obtain resources for their high schools, pitting young against old would be the worst possible response. Solidarity between generations is the very heart of the Social Security system created in 1945.

Conclusion

The government has no majority, but it still has time to build a compromise. A simple path: raise the threshold for full indexation, introduce a sliding indexation up to 2,000 euros, and submit to a vote in Parliament the increases in out-of-pocket costs currently decided by decree. The question is now put to the deputies: will they agree to build this compromise, or will they let the executive decide alone?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.