Age and contribution period, Éric Zemmour
Contribution period: Period could rise from 43 to 44, 45 or 46 years, supplemented by funded pensions
Direction of change: increase, compared with current law.
The lever. Number of years of contributions required to receive a full-rate pension, without reduction. Direction rule: ↑ longer required period.
« On fait un système avec la durée de travail. Aujourd'hui, on est à 43 ans de cotisation, on peut augmenter à 44, 45, 46 ans. Mais on ne tiendra pas comme ça. Il faut aussi injecter, dans notre système de répartition une partie de capitalisation. Les gens financent eux-mêmes leur retraite »1Translation by the editorsWe build a system around working time. Today, we are at 43 years of contributions, we can increase to 44, 45, 46 years. But we will not hold out like that. We also need to inject a share of funding into our pay-as-you-go system. People finance their own retirement themselves
Words of Éric Zemmour, Europe 1 et CNews, « La France en face », 19 May 2026. Position taken from public statements, not from a written programme.
No programme released. Positions taken from public statements, words of associates or documents of the candidate’s party, each dated and sourced; last recorded on 18 October 2026.
Encoding
| Parameter | Current law | Proposed | Effective date or horizon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Required contribution period for a full-rate pension | 172 quarters | 176 quarters (assumption by the editors, see the costing) | Full year 2032, €bn per year, balance of the pension system, static |
Costing
Announced by the candidate
not announced
The cited source does not cost this measure.
Published costings
none
No external costing of this position recorded to date.
Our calculation
+€3.6bn
per year for the public accounts, saving, range +€3.6bn to +€4.8bn. Amount counted; €0.4bn more, costed, is not added: common part with another position of the candidate (see the calculation).
The calculation
- Required contribution period for a full-rate pension: 176 − 172 = 4 times “1 quarter more of required contribution period (compared with 172)”, each a gain of €1.3bn (1 to 1.3). Coefficient specific to lengthening: the Cour des comptes costs four more quarters at €5.2bn for the pension system in 2035, i.e. €1.3bn per quarter (compared with €3.9bn for four fewer quarters), and one more quarter reaches €1bn of effect as early as 2030, compared with 2034 for one fewer quarter (lower bound: €1bn); editors' calculation, 2035 horizon. Central value brought down to the smallest amount (€1bn per step). Of which €0.4bn not added (common base with another position): amount counted €3.6bn.
Assumption by the editors. Partial costing. Period not settled (« on peut augmenter à 44, 45, 46 ans » [“we can increase to 44, 45, 46 years”]): costed at the most cautious value, 44 years (176 quarters), at the coefficient for the extension costed by the Cour des comptes (four more quarters: €5.2bn in 2035, a horizon that slightly overstates the 2032 gain). 45 or 46 years are not costed. This gain and that from the legal retirement age are added together, minus the share common to both increases (overlap declared in the cost schedule, measured from Cnav data). Of which €0.4bn not added, common base with “Legal retirement age”. For an increase in both age and contribution period, the Cnav (Prisme model) costs, for 2030, in current euros, the age raised by two years at 3 months per generation with the period accelerated by one quarter per generation (€17.7bn), the accelerated period alone (€4.7bn) and the age raised by three years at 4 months per generation (€18.8bn): report annexed to the amending social security financing bill for 2023, table 5, page 27. The age alone raised by two years at 3 months per generation is not costed there: in 2030, it has reached three-quarters of the increase at 4 months per generation, hence 18.8 × 3/4 = €14.1bn. Common part: 14.1 + 4.7 − 17.7 ≈ €1.1bn, i.e. 8% of the gain from age (1.1 / 14.1) and 23% of that from the period (1.1 / 4.7). Editors' calculations.
Coefficient calculated by the editors from Service-public.fr, fiche F35063 (durée d'assurance par génération): the position is marked as an assumption by the editors.
Central value brought down to the smallest amount: gain acknowledged as overestimated, since the coefficient for the extension is that of 2035 (Cour des comptes), which overstates the 2032 gain; lower bound of the coefficient: €1bn per quarter, an effect reached as early as 2030 according to the Court.
Current law, sources and limits of the cost schedule
Current law. Contribution period required for a full-rate pension (Touraine Act of 2014, accelerated in 2023, adjusted by the LFSS 2026): 170 quarters for 1964 and for those born from January to March 1965; 171 for those born from April to December 1965; 172 quarters (43 years) for 1966 and later. Age at which the reduction (décote) no longer applies: 67.
Horizon. Full year 2032, €bn per year, balance of the pension system, static. The effect keeps growing after 2032.
Limits. (1) The phase-in is slow. According to the Cour des comptes, one quarter less only reaches €1bn of impact on the balance in 2034. Four quarters less cost €3.9bn in 2035 and €7.7bn in 2045. Hence a value of €0.5bn to €1bn per quarter in 2032. (2) The figure of €9bn for 160 quarters is a simple linear extrapolation, to be handled with caution: the impact assessment of the 2014 law estimated at €10.4bn per year in 2040 (€5.4bn in 2030), in 2011 euros, the saving from moving from 166 to 172 quarters for all schemes, including supplementary schemes; for the general scheme and the non-balanced basic schemes, €5.6bn in 2040. (3) Macroeconomic effect, presented separately: the Cour des comptes counts €3.2bn of other lost revenue in 2035 for 4 quarters less. (4) Declared overlaps with the legal retirement age (the age coefficient partly includes the effect of the contribution period, through the COR costing; a joint increase of both partly delays the same retirements, common share measured according to the Cnav, report annexed to the PLFRSS 2023, table 5) and with long careers. (5) Long careers react asymmetrically: 80% postpone their retirement if the period increases, 40% bring it forward if it decreases (Prisme model). The figure of €9bn for 160 quarters is a linear extrapolation: it is not used as an option. (6) The « 168 trimestres, 3,9 Md€ » [“168 quarters, €3.9bn”] option is withdrawn: it is a 2035 figure, which gave the same proposal a different value from the parameter (€3bn in 2032). (7) Lengthening. The Cour des comptes costs a one-year lengthening (176 quarters for the 1969 cohort) at €5.2bn for the pension system in 2035, and €9.7bn for public finances as a whole. The increase is therefore costed at its own coefficient, €1.3bn per quarter (5.2 / 4), and not at the coefficient of the decrease: one more quarter reaches €1bn of effect as early as 2030, one quarter less only in 2034 (annex no. 3), hence the lower bound of €1bn. This coefficient is for 2035, not 2032: it slightly overstates the 2032 gain. No costing read beyond 176 quarters. No costing read either for the age at which the reduction (décote) is cancelled (67).
- Service-public.fr, fiche F35063 (durée d'assurance par génération), 2026-01-01: « 1965 : 170 (42 ans 6 mois) pour les naissances de janvier à mars ; 171 (42 ans 9 mois) pour celles d'avril à décembre ; 1966 à 1968 : 172 (43 ans) »
- Cour des comptes, Situation financière et perspectives du système de retraites, tableau n° 7, 2025-02-20: « Une diminution d’un an de la durée d’assurance requise aurait un coût complet de 7,1 Md€ pour les finances publiques sur l’exercice 2035. Il se composerait d’une dégradation du solde des retraites de 3,9 Md€ et d’une perte de recettes publiques, hors cotisations retraites, de 3,2 Md€. ; Sa diminution d’un an (42 ans au lieu de 43) coûterait 3,9 Md€ au système de retraite en 2035, alors que son allongement (44 ans au lieu de 43) rapporterait 5,2 Md€ en 2035. »
- Cour des comptes, même rapport, annexe n° 3 (variation d'un trimestre), 2025-02-20: « Les scénarios d’AOD dépassent le milliard d’euros d’impact sur le solde dès 2027 alors que […] pour la DAR : le milliard d’euros d’impact est atteint à la hausse en 2030 et à la baisse en 2034 seulement. »
- Cour des comptes, même rapport, 2045, 2025-02-20: « la dégradation du solde serait de 7,7 Md€ en cas de diminution d’un an de la durée d’assurance requise, au lieu de 3,9 Md€ en 2035 »
- Assemblée nationale, étude d'impact du projet de loi garantissant l'avenir et la justice du système de retraites (n° 1376), septembre 2013, § 3.3 et tableau du § 4.2.3 (M€ 2011), 2013-09-17: « L’économie générée par cette mesure pour le régime général et les régimes de base non équilibrés par subvention sera de 5,6 Md€ en 2040. Son impact sur l’ensemble des régimes de retraite, y compris les régimes équilibrés et les régimes de retraite complémentaires, s’élève quant à lui à 10,4 Md€ à horizon 2040. […] Tous régimes de base et complémentaires + 5 400 / + 10 400 [2030 / 2040] »
- Projet de loi de financement rectificative de la sécurité sociale pour 2023, rapport annexé (version du conseil des ministres du 23 janvier 2023), tableau 5, page 27 (copie du rapport gouvernemental publiée par la CFDT-UFETAM), 2023-01-23: « Tableau 5 - Rendement tous régimes d’options alternatives (hors mesures d’accompagnement, c’est-à-dire si les mesures paramétriques étaient appliquées à l’ensemble des assurés) En milliards d'euros courants 2025 2030 Hausse de l’âge légal de deux ans (3 mois/génération) + et accélération de la hausse de la durée d’assurance (1 trimestre par génération) 5,3 17,7 Accélération de la hausse de la durée d’assurance (1 trimestre par génération) 2,3 4,7 Hausse de l’âge légal de trois ans (4 mois par génération) 5,5 18,8 Source : CNAV, modèle Prisme »
How to read these amounts. These are static costs and revenues, with no feedback effect, over a full year: nothing on growth, employment or the revenue that economic activity would gain or lose. A higher net cost does not on its own make a worse policy, nor net savings a better one: each programme rests on an economic model (demand-led stimulus, lower compulsory levies, consolidation of the public accounts…) that the cost schedule does not settle. GDP itself measures a volume of activity, not well-being or the usefulness of what is produced. Economic models and feedback effects.
- Europe 1 et CNews, « La France en face », 19 May 2026. Words of Éric Zemmour. Position taken from public statements, not from a written programme. Read the source (Europe 1 et CNews, « La France en face »).
Contest this encoding (prefilled email; procedure and deadlines)