Retirement: Do civil servants cost us too much?

The State contributes each year to more than 75% for the retirement of its civil servants, when in the private sector the employer part reaches barely 17%. Because civil servants have an overly generous pension plan? To have…

• 
  

  To safeguard
  

  
  
  

  Saved
  

Each year, the State is forced to put in the pot to balance the pensions of its officials and certain special regimes (RATP, SNCF, etc.). 45 billion euros were paid in this capacity in 2023. Why? Because state officials do not have a real pension plan, their employer pays them their pensions without trying to balance entries and exits, as may be the case in other pension plans.

In 2023, the State paid 59.5 billion euros in retirement pensions. They are financed up to 23% by the contributions of the agents themselves, on their treatment, and for the rest, by the State in the form of this balance of balance of 45.1 billion euros, that is No less than 7.6% of total state expenses.

The employer contributions of the employer State are fixed by decree and represent 126.07% for the military and 78.28% for civilian officials in 2025. Clearly, the State contributes to 78.28% of the treatment of civil servants for their only future retirement! This seems inconceivable, when at the same time private employers contribute to only 16.46% for pensions of their employees.

Some therefore consider that all that the State pays above this average of 16.46% is an additional cost, which should be counted in the deficit of the pension system (which is not currently the case). “This reasoning leads to isolate an amount of 42 billion euros in additional contract in 2023, including 35 billion for the State, which should appear in the need for funding from the pension system”explains the Court of Auditors.

But why do state officials “cost” so expensive? A shortcut can quickly be done by considering that they perceive a retirement too high or that they retire far too early. To avoid any misinterpretation, the Court of Auditors took the lead.

The retirement system of civil servants is “no more generous”

First, this balance subsidy includes the classic employer contributions of the State, which must be isolated. Then, civil servants only contribute to their index wages, their famous treatment, not on the premiums they receive every month and which represent on average 22% of their remuneration. If we report the employer state contributions to the whole of what they receive, bonuses included, the contribution rate increases to 58% for civilian officials and 80% for the military. Which is still very high in view of private contributions.

In addition, the demography of these regimes is not favorable and weighs heavily: at the end of 2023, the public service pension plan had 1.98 million contributors, for 2.53 million pensioners. Or a contributing/pensioner ratio (excluding survivor’s pension) of 1.02, when that of the general scheme is more favorable to 1.52.

It is true, however, that some officials take advantage of more attractive retirement conditions, but who are also linked to their working condition and the usefulness of these trades for the whole population. Some may indeed retire earlier, which has a cost for the State. 51% of state officials are in the active or super-active category. The first (nursing assistants, firefighters, etc.) can retire at 59, when the latter (national police, prisons, etc.) can bend luggage at 54, against 64 years for employees of the employees of private. The so -called “sedentary” civil servants, the 49% who are not part of these active categories, go to the retirement a little later than in the private sector: 63 years and 11 months, against 63 years and 5 months.

The court is still “That the employers’ contribution rate difference between the State and the private sector is not linked to greater financial generosity of the retirement system of civil servants”. According to a study by the Drees of 2022, “By applying them the rules of the private sector, the pensions of state officials, excluding active categories, born in 1958 would have been on average 1.5% higher”. Circulate, there’s nothing to do!