the question was next we are
in a country where there are 700 billion
social spending some say 15%
of the world pipe and yet report
after report poverty does not
that increase and we all meet
days more and more on the street in
the subway people who have a sign
with Marc and I’m hungry so my question
is very simple but where did
all this money you have if the curve
exponential expenditure of
social benefits and next
someone who has the good idea of not
we piss off with his accordion but
who needs money to survive
so where did the money go and well he
has gone through the workings of a
extremely bureaucratic machine
complex built with a lot of
good intentions decade after
decade and that overlays different
allocation device and like
always with his complex machines
you have insiders who know her
very well that they benefit from it largely
and you have d outsider who are
totally left out
to give you an idea to manage
today the 90 billion
basic benefits it takes 18000
rules of law is the minima
social in France today that’s it
and again it’s the small part
emerged from the iceberg
so the more fundamental question more
philosophical in a sense that’s why
we built that we built that
because this dead system is based
about the identity of people it takes
define who they are what are their
needs
what are their aspirations
what is their life as a couple and who says
identity says verification that says
verification says control that says
control 10 unfairness today for
collect the minimum of the minimum
the rsa which about for the rsa plinth
500 euros you have to go to spend
coffee talks
coffees are crates
Family Allowances
what does that tell you all about
the extent of paternalism that governs
our social system
today when you ask for the rsa
you have to fill out a form of ten
pages that makes that between a third and
two-thirds of his beneficiaries
potential does not demand it you have to
pass interviews that can be
particularly humiliating discriminant
you are labeled as poor then
then we can give you too much
arias lawsuits for a rsa like
sleeping pills if that’s if you’re
in family if the asahi familyize for
ask you to return some of it
can even go and check that you
are still even more of
expected trial for one of the rsa or on
will check whether or not there are two
toothbrushes in the same glass this
which is to say that people do not
are not only to the tenants but
truly in short couple this is a
intrusive system
do we all live we take
with the bureaucracy every day the
people in trouble live it
all the more is all the more badly
so as always when there is a
society problem the poets the
poets of the time seize it in
the recently virginie occurrence
despentes and ken loach in his last
novel vernon subutex first volume
virginia despentes describes the long
descent into hell of the victim
perfect of our time vernon subutex
vernon subutex record stores ruminate so
by the eruption of the digital
not entitled to a certain number
benefits because it’s a
independent an entrepreneur who stands
finally found at rsa and loses
one day the rsa because at random a
conversation with his coffee advisor
he let slip that yes he he
was going to see a concert with
this money and so they do they have they
were not necessarily in research
job
today to collect the rsa is a
number of conditionalities if
you do not fill in you can in
be excluded what happens to vernon
I add that if you resume a job
and that you are heated ruber during
two months you lose the benefit of the
it will be necessary to recommend them
the other ken loach just out on
French screens his movie me
daniel blake who in another context
and in another country described little
near the same thing was not the word
of gold in Cannes last year and I
offers you to see an excerpt ok
sorry when you play apart the fact
that they have the accent of newcastle it’s
a very talking movie and who you
shows how much people are
treated as children then the
solution that can be proposed for
to remedy these phenomena
it’s the universal income for the
define in an extremely simple way
it’s about each person’s data
18 years old at death
a sum of money that allow him to
survive unconditionally
without control and without any
counterpart this sum is determined
as the sum that allows you to
to survive with dignity in a society
given to each member
of society then we will ask
maybe she on what grounds
philosophical one can defend a
baroque idea there are many
I propose you two because this
are two characters of the same
era who both participated
to the French revolution the first
the disheveled left is gracchus
babeuf egalitarianism
whoever wanted not only a
minimum income is also an income
maximum and that preferably they
coincident
this is the version that still exists
today the collectivist version the
socialist version of the basic income
and then you have to right thomas spain
you see that he looks much more
nice
thomas spain and let’s say a liberal but
he has a very interesting course
it’s a British interested in the
declaration of human rights in
france having responded to burke who the
criticized emigrated to the united states
where he participated in the revolution
American which he is sometimes
considered one of the fathers
founders and then a refugee
France where this time he will participate
to the French Revolution
to the point of being the first foreigner
naturalized French elected to
the national assembly in 1792 and thomas
spain conceptualizing agrarian justice
the lineaments of a universal income
as we hear it today and what
is interesting is that his double
Anglo Saxon and French culture makes
that he seeks to reconcile rousseau
and Rousseau locke he retains the idea
that at the beginning in the state of nature and
there is some equality between
men equality vis-à-vis
natural resources and that we have
this shared legacy and that the
inequalities from this point of view there are
a form of injustice compared to
this primordial equality
but ocs he retains the idea that
enrichment the transformation the
transformation of nature into value
product valuation
the ability to create attach
property by the property is all to
commendable and allows the progress of
civilization and so it’s for
reconcile the two he proposes his
universal income saying we’re going
compensate you for the loss of your
natural heritage and like this legacy
is the same for all and well this
sum will be the same for all and he has
a sentence that I find sums up very
well his philosophy
I do not care if some become
very rich as long as no one
becomes poor as a result so
that this income will no longer be considered
as a charity but as a right
a right that says he will complete
the declaration of human rights and
of the citizen then you are entitled to
tell me today is a little
Utopian
first I would like to clarify that I
hate utopias I recommend you
to read moreover the first of its kind
the dead thomasz utopia which is a
real hell or the length of the streets
is determined by the state and where the
everyone’s activities are controlled
to their loan a utopia is always
the fantasy of someone imposing on
rest of society
the universal income is not a utopia
first because it does not solve it does not
offers no overall plans do not
offers no vision the society he does not
offers no common values that’s
just the opposite it gives everyone the
possibility by giving it its minimum
of autonomy to determine one’s own
life choices to determine one’s own
definition of good life
in a sense society with income
universal reaches such point of
sophistication that she gives the
opportunity for its members to in
subtract and secondly it’s not
a utopia
because today in France it is
very realistic and I will go back a
little in the details of the numbers it is
very realistic because we have
accumulated so many benefits we
have a system so much
redistributive than pass to income
universal that would change the pipes
but that would not change the mass of
financial transfers that will not provoke
no economic upheaval in the
country
it would only change marginally
money that people perceive or
they pay in the form of taxes that’s
very well explained by lionel stoléru
who is the advocate of universal income
since the 70’s that he had
imported from united states water friedman
had brought it up to date
and if you talk is the streets there you
will say that the long series of big
social reforms rmi ni bpe rsa prime
of activity goes in the direction of the income
universal which is the culmination
logic of this series so the
conditions are there what
would it look like we worked
with economists who modeled
all this is so I will spend very
quickly on the detail can you
give the conclusion the conclusion it’s
that you could have a cost
constant a universal income which is a
kind of super rsa
again it’s not the moon that does not
not solve all the problems but if
you make a universal income of 500
euros the equivalent of rsa today
putting aside so a housing
universal income that covers the needs
consumption current consumption
food housing energy
telecommunications transport you
evaluate it at 500 euros
you must for him funded by a
tax that substitute him for
income tax of 25 % on
the whole income not nothing anything from
even
and you have a diagram where in fact
it’s 500 euros allocated so to
each individual every month take the
form of a tax credit and then you
have to compensate to finance this
system for it to be balanced
this income tax at 25%
and everyone makes the difference at the end
of the month between the tax he owes on 25
% and the tax credit that is due to him
the 500 euros so that if you
hit 0 well you hit the 500
euros in cash
and there you are free to use them
in the way you want without
be accountable to anyone and without
have to ask them knowing that
it’s a right not everyone benefits so
you owe 1 million taxes you do not
will need more than 999 1500 and all cases
intermediaries are possible so if
you must if you touch for example
1000 euros well you have to pay 250
of taxes and you will have your credit
tax of 500 and so you will touch
in the end of 150 more so it’s a
system in which as always there
in who pays
there are some who receive but simply
was done on a much more
fair
hence the next question
legitimate why madam that everyone
can recognize should she touched
universal income
I would say first of all that’s what he
will survive when his daughter he
will be all pique but joke apart
you see that universal income
and in something you see
every month on your income sheet
or even besides on your taxes
even if you do not benefit
directly because the amount of
taxes and well beyond the amount of the
tax credit is something that
stay with you all your life
so that the anxiety of the great
poverty disappears and often when
I expose this system I have reactions
of people at rsa who tell me for
me your system would not change
great thing economically speaking
financially but that would change everything
in my life because I will stop
to be a professional supplicant
I will have stability and
visibility on the money I receive
and I could do something
more interesting of my life than to go
in the caf it’s no system extremely
virtuous because first it eliminates
automatically and radically
great poverty never again do you
will see someone a legal resident on
the territory
no sign I’m hungry impossible
secondly it simplifies so
extremely egalitarian and simple
transparent
the rental system on one side and
taxes the other third it
allows work to always pay
since in such a system
as soon as you earn more and well your
benefits decrease by 75% per euro
finally win it allows that all the
world pay taxes were
virtually
everyone gets but everyone contributes and
I would add that it is particularly
well adapted a post post world said
salary where people can exercise
a plurality of different activities
and so whose incomes are
discontinuous from month to month this is a
safety net that adjusts
immediate way in real time to the
disparity in the incomes of individuals
for despite that there are things that I
did not talk to you I did not talk to you
talked about the end of the work of the
collaborative robotization of the common and
so
some techies bottom of the argument
of universal income on the idea that we
let’s get an annuity on the robots
it’s all very nice but we did not
need this thinking to pass
to universal income because income
universal
it can be here and now in
France in 2017
Thank you
[Applause]
”
Be First to Comment