👵 Issue
Pensions: what each candidate thinks
By Fadrique Garcia Font · Reviewed on 19/10/2026
The legal retirement age (back to 62 or up to 65), a funded pillar alongside pay-as-you-go pensions and raising pensions in line with inflation.
4 questions, 44 candidate positions and 3 complete disagreements (how they are assigned).
What each candidate proposes on this issue
A summary of their positions on the questions in this issue, based on their programmes, statements and the votes of their party’s group. Details and sources, question by question, below.
Agrees: “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”
In between: “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”; “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
Agrees: “The legal retirement age should rise to 65”; “Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar)”
Disagrees: “The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower”
In between: “All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation”
The legal retirement age should go back to 62 or lower.
The 2023 reform raised the legal retirement age from 62 to 64. It is suspended until January 2028: the next president will decide what happens next.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 6 in favour, 0 in between and 5 against.
-
Attal Strongly againstDébat de la Rencontre des entrepreneurs de France (Medef), 27 août 2026, compte rendu de campagne Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In favourAmendement n° 17412 de M. Dupont-Aignan au PLFRSS 2023, Assemblée nationale, 2 février 2023 Why
-
Glucksmann In favour« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 43 Why
-
Le Pen Strongly in favourLCP, 16 septembre 2026 Why
-
Lisnard Strongly againstProgramme de Nouvelle Énergie, axe 2 « Réussir une nouvelle ambition française » (site du parti) Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly in favourComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 11 Why
-
Philippe Strongly againstPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau Strongly againstLCP, « Présidentielle : que proposent les candidats à l’Élysée sur les retraites ? », 16 septembre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Strongly in favour« Un communisme de conquêtes », base commune du 40e congrès du PCF, juillet 2026, § 2.3.3, p. 15 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly in favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 31, mesure 1, p. 116 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly againstBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
The legal retirement age should rise to 65.
The legal age was due to reach 64 under the 2023 reform, which is now suspended. Some propose going further to fund pensions.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 4 in favour, 0 in between and 7 against.
-
Attal AgainstEntretien sur franceinfo, 9 septembre 2026 (compte rendu de campagne) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan Strongly againstProjet de Debout la France « Retraites », version du 5 février 2024 Why
-
Glucksmann Strongly against« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 43 Why
-
Le Pen Strongly againstLCP, 16 septembre 2026 Why
-
Lisnard In favourProgramme de Nouvelle Énergie, axe 2 « Réussir une nouvelle ambition française » (site du parti) Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly againstComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 11 Why
-
Philippe Strongly in favourPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau In favourPublic Sénat, « Bruno Retailleau s’engage sur un plan d’économies de près de 200 milliards d’euros », 12 octobre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Strongly against« Un communisme de conquêtes », base commune du 40e congrès du PCF, juillet 2026, § 2.3.3, p. 15 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 31, mesure 1, p. 116 Why
-
Zemmour In favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
Part of pensions should be funded by invested savings (a funded pillar).
Today pensions are mainly pay-as-you-go: contributions from people in work pay current pensions. In a funded system, each person invests savings for their own retirement.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 7 in favour, 0 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal Strongly in favourDébat de la Rencontre des entrepreneurs de France (Medef), 27 août 2026, compte rendu de campagne Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In favourDiscours de rentrée « Libérons la France ! », 19 septembre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Le Pen In favourPublic Sénat, 6 octobre 2026 Why
-
Lisnard Strongly in favourProgramme de Nouvelle Énergie, axe 2 « Réussir une nouvelle ambition française » (site du parti) Why
-
Mélenchon Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Philippe Strongly in favourPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau Strongly in favourPublic Sénat, « Bruno Retailleau s’engage sur un plan d’économies de près de 200 milliards d’euros », 12 octobre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 31, mesure 2, p. 117 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly in favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
All pensions should rise at least in line with inflation.
Basic pensions are in principle increased each year in line with inflation. To reduce the deficit, a freeze or a smaller rise is regularly proposed.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 5 in favour, 2 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal AgainstEntretien au Parisien, 3 juillet 2026 (compte rendu de campagne) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan Strongly in favourDiscours de rentrée « Libérons la France ! », 19 septembre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann In favour
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Le Pen In favourContre-budget 2026 du groupe RN, octobre 2025, p. 7 Why
-
Lisnard AgainstNouvelle Énergie, fiche « Quel âge de départ à la retraite David Lisnard défend-il ? » (entretien vidéo, 29 novembre 2025) Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly in favourComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 8 et 12 Why
-
Philippe AgainstDiscours du grand meeting de l’Adidas Arena, Paris, 5 juillet 2026 Why
-
Retailleau In between« En 2027, je ferai tout pour faire gagner la droite », entretien repris sur republicains.fr, 18 juillet 2025 Why
-
Roussel In favourPCF, « 17 octobre et 5 novembre : ensemble, imposons de nouvelles conquêtes pour vivre mieux ! », 14 octobre 2026 Why
-
Tondelier AgainstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 17, mesure 9, p. 67, et chap. 31, mesure 4, p. 117 Why
-
Zemmour In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why
Explore other issues
Who do you agree with on this issue?
The questions in this issue are part of the full test. On 3 of them the candidates hold opposite positions, so your answer matters.
Take the political test