" Is it not necessary to give the citizen the freedom to focus on things of the city, as jurors today or yesterday Athenian citizens? N 'Is not it useful to take advantage of the free development of each donation? True, yesterday it was neither possible nor necessarily desirable. In France, it became possible and desirable - because of mass unemployment, education, democratic, empowerment of women - and throughout the XXI th century, developed countries will turn to these solutions simple, modern, fair. I propose the creation of a citizen's income. It would be a guaranteed income for all, about 850 euros. Suffice to say the bare minimum. No luxury, all who live will tell you. But a base to build a dignified life and free: that income would be declining to a Median income levels around 1500 euros. Finally, the income would create a moral commitment to pursue an activity - work, training, volunteer associations, trade union or political commitment, artistic creativity. Coupled with a thorough reform of the income tax, merged with the CSG, made more progressive and deducted at source, this income can be paid in real time in case of loss of income, without the delays that are disastrous rule of our social benefits. It will be financed largely by a reallocation of existing aid, for savings of administrative costs of aid increases and targeted tax, VAT and top slices of income tax . "
Dominique de Vilepin
http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012322806-pour-la-dignite-je-propose-la- creation-of-a-citizen-income
The proposal is surprising coming from a former minister who in his time had tried unsuccessfully to impose his first job contract (CPE) which promised to Youth integration at a discount. His proposal is yet seductive (rationalization and simplification of redistribution, inclusion of activities beyond the mere salaried productive) but come to look at several points deserve Reflection:
-
in terms of social justice: the approach of the former minister based on the overall wealth redistribution established to consider the collective perspective of an excess of the wage, each citizen "secured" by assuring him that mattress office essentials (shelter, clothing, food) could, according to his inclinations supplement the basic income from paid employment, engage in other activities of social utility or fully indulge his passions. This speech is intended to give up and recognition of activities previously held in the margins of a society based on economic reason. She also intends to meet the challenge of structural unemployment never stopped: full employment type "industrial" is over, we must change the paradigm and find alternative models to a declining wage. In times of shortage, why "lose his life and times" in precarious jobs, part time for a pittance? Is not it more beneficial to the individual and society (social cohesion, adhesion of the individual to the activity that prevents the deleterious effects anomic unemployment and insecurity when the work is the norm) that focuses on areas where there may indeed find personal fulfillment? The idea is indeed tempting and is not irrelevant. However, this equality guaranteed minimum removes the specific reality of inequality that fragment society: the winners of the school system can still access an optimal income by finding the best seats on the job market, "losers" who wish to access the space of wage without having the title will always be satisfied with the margins " cultural "or" social "(animator neighborhood?). Worse, there is a risk of social determinism and find justification and legitimacy, when the school system prohibits the acquisition by its selection of titles needed, when the labor market does not recognize that these titles, it's almost a hoax to speak of "freedom" of a social situation that is selected then suffered a disqualification, the product of a meritocracy that would benefit from school she also reformed. Moreover, this principle of equality must be questioned in light of equity and Justice: Is it fair to give everyone the same income when some people probably need more because of the difficulties they face and others by the income they receive from their economic activity does in will probably never need. Finally, wary of the deleterious effects of such an approach: access to wage labor has allowed women to win their emancipation, not a risk we not send them back to the domestic sphere (the famous current debates about the importance of motherhood are chilling ...) assuming a structural inability to make them their rightful place on the job market and thereby enhancing activities "Self-employed? Young people live without economic independence increasingly dependent on family with all the arbitrariness that implies (those who are "well-born," those who are "born evil "...), how to think his citizenship, full, real, effective, without such autonomy?
-
- in economic terms: the former minister left shares with the same Malthusian logic: the volume of available jobs continues to shrink as a trickle, it is an irreversible historical process and he must share the wealth produced and find alternatives to this depletion, reorganize the economy and society. But to create wealth, it is still necessary that goods and services can be valued on a market, to redistribute must still produce and want to produce (economic growth) and collect (tax policy). The state of poverty of many citizens in terms of wealth created globally is a legitimate scandal: no response to this scarcity of economically valued spaces, citizens are likely to be sentenced to not merely that of "minimum wage" and France to resemble the defunct Soviet Union (equality in misery). It this historical process and the responses that we must reject Malthusian: the only redistribution is in no way guarantees a real social justice. The most amazing thing in this forum is that the former minister seems to oppose these activities: environmental, social, culture and art are in her eyes disinterested activities, preserved in their "purity" of reason and its economic iron laws. And conversely if all his initiatives came from the "free" could find a market, be valued on a market, or even create new markets (new supply and new demand)? From this point of view, it there can be no distributive justice for all without satisfactory growth dynamics, multiplication of goods and services and it would be more appropriate to establish a credit toward the launch of dissatisfied young squares and proposed rents, which have so much talent just waiting to be exercised differently: a public center (as the private annuity is only focused on speculation) would advance funds to start a new economic activity, would discuss the relevance ( crowded market, enabling, innovative?) accompanying the beneficiary in its implementation, consolidation ... The realization of course, economic success and wealth creation in the interest of all (jobs, wages, redistribution) are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary! NO TO POVERTY AND THE SHORTAGE IN ABUNDANCE YES
To read the analysis by Denis Clerc: The idea of a basic income, an attractive idea ... and dangerous http://www.inegalites.fr/IMG/pdf/Clerc.pdf
0 comments:
Post a Comment