Reading time: 20 minutes (writing time: 15 minutes)

  Although France is the seventh economic power in the world, it counts 9 million poor people. In a Republic which constitutionally claims to be social, 15% of the population still lives without being able to find a proper housing, or even heat or eat properly.
  But despite the increasing of this figure, poverty may only last for a few years left... and to arrive at a better future, or at least to tomorrows when the financial causes of hunger and cold would have disappeared, the evocation of a solution takes more and more space in the debates about the social future of the State: the establishment of a universal basic income, ie the monthly and unconditional payment, to each adult, of an allowance allowing them to live a life of dignity... without any professional constraints.

1) Dolce far niente[, French future?] - Painting by John William Godward, 1904

  The idea is pleasant but divisive: if it immediately seduces the most idealistic and the most languid of us, nearly two thirds of the French population are already opposed to it, fearing that it will make work superfluous and, above all, that it would foster the laziness of a minority by to the labor of the majority.

  There's only one thing we love to see shared with oneself, although it is very dear to us: our opinion.

  The general opinion could begin to shake after noticing that since being universal and unconditional, the amount of the UBI would be cumulative with other sources of income, making it a financial contribution to invest, set aside or spend on leisure. But beyond the satisfaction of a reinforced budget or the hope of eternal vacations, and to overcome the fear of the advent of a dependency culture, the imperative need to fight poverty pushes to investigate the feasibility of this solution, which this article will do by answering four questions:

      I/ Is universal basic income a revolutionary concept?
      II/ What impact would it have on society, the world of work and individuals?
      III/ What amount will have to be paid and where to find the money - without taxing too much?
      IV/ If desirable and feasible, then when?

I/ Updating old ideas

  The figures of poverty remind us that in spite of the social advances and the technical progress of the last centuries, misery still exists, that it is common and that it strikes hard. Its causes are complex and its consequences are many, but to make it better the UBI follows a principle of Biblical simplicity: no poor, no poverty.

2) Manna, mythical precedent of the UBI. Woodcut, Anton Koberger's Bible (1483)

  It is said that 3200 years ago Hebrews fled from Egypt, and that during forty years of desert wanderings, their subsistence was ensured without their having to hunt, gather or plough; the prayers of their Guide were enough for their God to make water gush from the stones, and to rain nourishing meals from heaven. This pretty legend proves that the unconditional coverage of the essential needs of a population is an already very old idea, of which the UBI would therefore be a practical and secular version... a passage of the principle of unconditionality from the idea to the reality that follows the direction of history: if the legend of the manna has taught for millennia to those who believe it that Providence will respond to faith, for a few centuries mentalities have changed and, far from the necessities of deserts and Bronze Age, more or less freed from any clergy, the people of today place their faith in human effort rather than in the intervention of a putative divinity.

  Help thyself, Heaven will help thee too.
Conclusion of the fable of The waggoner stuck in the mud, la Fontaine, 17th century

  The logic carried by this old verse has become the most popular, from an individual but also collective point of view because the State - that is to say everyone because in a democracy, the State is Us - also gradually freed from the idea of Providence began to act and, among other activities, to improve the fate of Les Misérables. A section of the population which, freed from mere hope and noting that anchoring in reality help to more surely fulfill some divine promises, has attached itself to the principle of redistribution of the fruits of the community's labor.

3) Manna, secularized thanks to Photoshop, 2022

  Farewell to the biblical  tradition, so long to the hagiographers, and hello to the welfare. Once the idea of the unconditional distribution of necessities for survival was actualized, money took the place of manna, and Marianne took the place of YHWH.
  Thanks to this secularization of providence, the society of today already benefits from the generosity of the State, which acts against poverty on two levels: upstream, with education and training, and downstream, with the distribution social aid that is certainly beneficial, but still insufficient; a situation which has never been considered inevitable by the humanists:

  Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.
Nelson Mandela- Excerpt from a speech given in London, 2005

  Even if nothing is perfect and poverty continues to rage, state actions are numerous and while pensions, unemployment insurance, meal vouchers, housing or family allowances, tax credits or RSA are all measures subject to conditions, others are already universal and unconditional, and not the least: education, made free since 1881, and especially Social security which, since 1945, has provided rich and poor alike with most of the necessary care free of charge.
  Each year, the French State spends approximately approximately 470 billion euros for the health of its citizens. A fifth of the GDP, the common production of wealth, is therefore already allocated to the unconditional preservation of individual integrity; a reality which, after having placed the UBI in the continuity of an old ideal, also places right in course of our social model, making it the tool of an improvement rather than a revolution... in principle, and in practice :

  - Every individual is born with a physical constitution that will determine a large part of his health. Ill, whatever the cause, he will be helped by the social security. The UBI can act as a complement, guaranteeing a material and nutritional sufficiency which also conditions health.
  - Each person grows up in a family environment helping him more or less to develop his abilities. National Education levels differences as much as possible but, even if a disadvantaged economic background can be intellectually favoring, equal opportunities still only exist on theory. To improve this situation, the universal basic income will offer to parents more financial means for cultural development and educational support.
  - Many young people begin their student or professional life with the financial support of their family - a help whose absence holds back many destinies. It's like that, if some people come into the world with a silver spoon in their mouth, others are born with a wooden model stuck somewhere else. The UBI will be able to correct this cruel initial inequality because, much more complete than scholarships or housing allowances, it will allow young people to find accommodation and food without having to sacrifice time, sometimes their future, to a restrictive bulshit job - an argument that should convince in high places because on the side of the ENA, a center of excellence having seen four Presidents of the Republic and nine Prime Ministers, studies are already remunerated... 1682 € per month.

4) Future énarques confident and focused on their future - ENA Amphitheater, Sept. 2021.
Note the absence of dreadlocks and fleece sweaters.

   - If the culprits and the victims of sexual or family violence are found in all strata of society, precariousness, damage to property and urban violence are indeed linked. Existing welfare do somewhat mitigate this side effect of poverty, but by de facto removing it, the UBI will be much more effective in reducing crime...which, by the way, will give law enforcement a bit more time to investigate white collar crime.
  - Retired people inherit the monthly consequences of a professional past that does not always provide comfort suited to the requirements of old age. Here again, the universal income will be able to complete the current system by being spent on everyday life, leisure, family or support for dependencies.
  - Finally, if inheritance is still considered a matter of family transmission, the living are also the legatees of countless generations, within which a multitude of common ancestors have made their contribution, more or less great, to the contemporary world. .

  Everyone descends from both a king and a hanged man.

  It might therefore seem normal that all of their descendants and descendants reap an equal share of the fruits of their labor. And for this too, the UBI seems a suitable tool; a sufficient income, a legacy from the ancestors as well as assistance from a benevolent society.

  To conclude this chapter that, let us add that the UBI will have little chance to push crowds into indolence... the main fear of its detractors. All the polls and all the experiments reveal that around 90% of the beneficiaries would choose to keep their job. A proportion that seems logical because by not being satisfied with the minimum, the majority would also follow the continuity... and to cite just one example illustrating that unconditionality does not lead to inconsistency, the annual consumption of pure alcohol in France has decreased from 27 liters per adult and per year in 1945, when Social security was founded, to 11 liters in 2019.
  Certainly the UBI will allow the 10% who so wish - and to whom we will give the pleasant name of UBIsts - to go through life without being materially productive, as it is already possible to exist without sparing your health. But to live in luxury, you will always have to have done the right studies, have the right job or the right business, in short: to work hard. The only major change that the measure will bring, and this is its primary goal, is that the poor will no longer be poor: they will become frugal. They will no longer live poorly, but soberly:

  Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

  This right of individuals to a materially dignified life imposes a duty of action on society, because social reality is still disconnected from the text and a structural unemployment, added to the inadequacy of social minima, two factors beyond the individual control, remain the main causes of poverty. To achieve the noble goals of article 25.1, the universal basic income is therefore proposed as the measure which would put our great principles into practice and which, following the end of privileges or the appearance of pension schemes, would only be, for future generations, another obvious mesure...

5) Effects of good government on the cityAmbroggio Lorenzetti, 1338

  Seven centuries after the first paintings allegorizing the hope of a happy, well-managed society, and more than 70 years after the adoption of the UDHR and its assumed idealism, what looked like utopia turns out to be a possibility, achievable thanks to a balanced measure, inscribed in continuity.
   The UBI, without changing State or moral paradigm, but by marking the end of misery and its procession of secondary effects, would only make our society more secure and more equitable... a result which will first of all satisfy the poor, but which, also, will satisfy the believers of meritocracy: excellence will always depend on talent and personal will. Financial success will always depend as much on economic profitability and individual skills. In the world of salaried labor, on the other hand, the universal income could turn everything upside down.

II/ A new relationship to labor

  If the UBI thrills most of the homeless and precarious workers, it also repels the majority of productivists, of the liberal right and of employers, who fear its influence on the salary acceptability threshold: because with this new income, a materially dignified life would no longer be conditional on the occupation of a salaried position.

6) Particular illustration of a rebellion that promises to be as spontaneous as it is global - Anonymous fast food restaurant in the English speaking part world.

  The addition of the UBI and a salary will most likely suffice to maintain the attractiveness of salaried employment, part-time jobs included. But it makes sense to think that the most dangerous, arduous or boring jobs will soon be passed over by the masses, and that very few people will continue to risk their physical - and mental - health just to add a little financial comfort to their lives. It will then be necessary to find new arguments to convince the first on low classes to continue working for the profits of the elites.

  If you put a spade in their hand first, this exercise would discourage them, tire them, would even despair most of them; you have to prepare them for it and even make them want it. The Dutch have invented an excellent method; it is to attach to the pump those whom they want to exercise at work, (...)
  We lock up alone the character who has to be accustomed to work, in a recess that canals flood in such a way as to drown him, unless he constantly turn the crank of his pump (...)

  This Dutch idea was defended by Father Nicolas Baudeau, a man of the church converted to the spirit of enterprise. If it has fortunately become inapplicable, its logic can be found in the principles of its ideological descendants, the neo-liberals, for whom, always, misery encourages work... and thus makes it possible to increase its profits while retaining its workforce. But if the UBI is adopted the fear of sleeping under bridges will no longer chain anyone to the production chains, and the hierarchies will have to spare their subordinates who, freed from the threat of poverty, will have to be convinced instead of obliged. It will then be necessary to improve working conditions, reduce its duration, increase security and wages and, ultimately, readapt the world of work to the deep nature of humanity.

7) Britney Spears, singer of "[You better] work Bitch", an ant and a naked mole-rats.
The scale is not respected.

  Tasks-sharing is necessary for the proper functioning of any society: ants and naked mole-rats, for example, live in groups where each individual - or almost - fulfills a role that benefits the whole, while this whole ensures abundance and a security unattainable to solo sailors. In these animal societies the social mission is physically determined, and the sharing of tasks follows an instinctive and natural imperative. But it is not the same for humans, other social animals for whom it is the evolution of societies that assigns roles and imposes ways of life... in short, as the superego dominates the Id, the socio-civilizational frameworks preempt individual natures.
  Initially human beings, like monkeys, dolphins or wolves, are only adapted to the herd stage, that is to say independent and autonomous groups of about thirty individuals; while many city dwellers would come into bloom in a hunter-gatherer career, our ultra-specialized societies offer almost only repetitive jobs, disconnected from our daily needs and therefore depressing... although ultra-minority these days, the way of life most suited to our species is actually closer to the everuday of hunter-gatherers than to the life that Amazon imposes on its employee-consumers.

8) Humans working only for themselves, Botswana.

  In primal micro-societies, about thirty hours of effort per week is enough to cover food and material needs. The modern part of the world, on the other hand, sees its crowds spending an average of 40 hours a week at work, a time to which must be added the one devoted to domestic tasks: 14 for men... and 23 for women.
  Contemporary humans therefore work 50% more than what nature imposed on them and, this truth being established, the demand for better work conditions appears less like a fad of the time than like an echo of the origins, a speciefically legitimate demand to live in a society which certainly cares, protects and raises more effectively, but which it is time to readapt to our natures for too long forced to respect a social contract that appeared under the reigns of the Neolithic despots, who were the first to compelled the members of their small communities to work for their private profits. Little by little, our herds were transformed into hierarchical societies where more and more prosperous authorities ensured the carrying out of painful tasks by slavery, tithe or serfdom... until wage labor.

  The wage is nothing but prolonged slavery.

9) The stone breakers, by Gustave Courbet, 1849

  If since the times of prehistory, Courbet and Chateaubriand, the oppressions of the possessing elites have been reduced, and if the current labor market is far from what the slave market was, it remains possible to improve the conditions of life of all the wage-earners, half-convicts of an environment most often as little motivating as non-fulfilling.
  As in the tale where the ancient Hebrews freed themselves from slavery and survived thanks to the good God, modern people will be able to free themselves from wage constraints and to survive financial deserts by counting this time on the help of the State. And here too the solution could be found on the side of the universal income which, by leaving the possibility of refusing a job, imposes itself as the ideal instrument for a new relationship to work, less restrictive and therefore more natural... and the advantages do not stop there because a sufficient monthly contribution would also make it possible to launch oneself more easily into the non-salaried fields of the peasantry or the crafts; profession-vocations that have become too unprofitable on an individual scale.
  Finally, since effort and the concept of work are not limited to the sole fields of wage labor, commerce or technology, it is time to realize that this new freedom of choice that the UBI will induce will also favor, above all, will say the most exalted, the most eminent of human specificities: creativity.

  The cities of Man need monuments; otherwise where would be the difference between the city and the anthill?

  Monuments of paintings, letters, sounds or stones... this is what differentiates us, among others things, from naked mole-rats and ants. Thanks to the UBI, artists, whose works are also works, will be able to devote themselves to their vocations with all the mental availability they require, and will no longer even have to worry - on the condition of accepting a materially sober life - about trading it. So, before wondering where to find the money needed to establish the universal income, we can imagine the inestimable cultural benefits it would bring. If each society has an incalculable number of potential geniuses, they have not always allowed them to develop their exceptional capacities, whether the reasons were practical or technical... at the same era, no Pascal among the Bantu, no Sappho among the Gauls and no Prokofiev among the Papuans. But if it is obvious that an environment without writing or without orchestras aborts the novels and the symphonies in the making in the best minds, one can also wonder how many Armstrong or Lully could not have composed masterpieces because they had to go to the factory...

10) The death of the purple, by Georges-Antoine Rochegrosse, 1914

  What only saddens me is to think, if I'm only destined to see a few years, how much time I waste in earning my living, and that so many hours, which I will no longer have, should be given to Art! Indeed, what poetic impressions I would have, if I were not obliged to cut all my days, chained without respite to the most stupid profession [At this time he was an English teacher] (...).
Letter from Mallarmé to Henri Cazalis, April 28, 1866

  By breaking the symbolic chains of wage labor, the establishment of the UBI would make the State a benefactor as much as a protector and a patron; by freeing citizens from precariousness and daily constraint, it would make it easier to adapt individual natures to society, thus inaugurating a new right to lead a life based on interests rather than on needs, and offering to everyone the choice, at some point or throughout their all lives, to devote a little or even all of their time to craftsmanship, hobbies, self-employment, voluntary work or the arts, leaving to waged work the proper role social emancipator - that of a work and an emancipation among others...
  All this seems very perfect but once all the advantages have been presented, you have to wonder who is going to pay.

III/ Old taxes and NoTraTaB*
  *For greater readability and given that this article is not a report by the Court of Auditors, the figures will be rounded (for example, 693 billions will become 690 million).
   As with polls, the margin of error will only be one or two percent. The figures used will be those of 2019 France, which will be, except if a big surprise, in the average of the decade 2015-2025.

  Gravedigger of poverty, replacement or complement of existing welfare, emancipator from wage constraint, cultural booster... after having found that the UBI is desirable, it remains to check if it is possible, starting by determining its amount; a question of principle because if it is fair to put an end to misery, luxury or comfort are not rights. And in order not to fall from one excess to another, from a society where poverty is endemic to a world where the effort would be useless, the monthly payments will have to be well calibrated.
  There is a liberal approach to universal income where 400, 500, 600 euros would be monthly distributed in exchange for a relaxation of the labor code and the abolition of other social aid, pensions and Social security included. Here the mask of generosity hides a desire to increase the profits of private companies: with this configuration, insurance and mutual insurance companies would take over from a disengaged State, to finally offer less advantageous social benefits - private companies being in essence made for generate private profits, while the State collects revenue to be reinvested for the common good. In addition, a low UNI would only be calibrated on the needs of big business and employers because if the wealthiest will always have a small monthly bonus, on the side of the poor, any bullshit job, however dangerous, unpleasant and badly paid should be accepted to make ends meet. The problem of forced labor would be reinforced, making this liberal version of the UBI the weapon of a great social step back rather than the tool of social progress.
  In its humanist version, on the other hand, the universal basic income must be high enough to eradicate poverty, but low enough to leave work attractive. A balance that could be achieved by indexing the new allowance to the poverty threshold: 60% of the median salary, or in France around €1,100 per adult per month.

1100€ x 12 months x 52.5 millions adults = approximately 690 billion euros per year.

The sum seems enormous, especially for a state whose population is at 15% poor... but this figure does not reflect the economic reality of France, a country where nearly two million millionaires also prosper.
  French GDP has increased by approximately 70% since the year 2000 and, apart from temporary crisis, it beats its own record every year. However, during the last two decades if the wealth of the rich and the comfort of the middle classes have increased, poverty has not declined.

  Why wouldn't some have everything? There are those who have nothing. It strikes a balance.

 It is a capitalist balance, where the wealth produced is not owned by the forces of production, and it is this model that dominates the current economic world where, to cite just one example, a woman like Françoise Bétencourt Meyers can, thanks to an inheritance, own a third of L'Oréal company - whose 80,000 employees, who do not own their work tools, only earn what management sees fit to give them.
   Faced with this model inherited from the industrial revolution, socialism is traditionally held, a political doctrine where the State manages the key sectors of the economy by giving priority to the general interest, to the detriment of particular interests.

11) British poster caricaturing socialism as the executioner of [individual] prosperity.

 To redistribute the wealth of the upper and middle classes to the working masses or worse, to the dilettantes... here is a hypothesis which has something to cool the ardor of many humanists, and remind the most anxious of the worst excesses in the history of social struggles .

  All resources less than surplus must be collectively owned.

  But as in all things there is a middle way, and it is precisely the one traditionally taken by France, a country where economic liberalism and state socialism balance each other more or less well; where welfare is among the most generous in the world, but where it remains perfectly possible to make a fortune... and to exploit the misery of poor people. To correct this last flaw and perfect the balance that keeps a social but economically open society, the cost of the UBI will have to be borne and accepted by all classes of society.

  To begin with, it should be noted that the measure is not as costly as it seems: public expenditure by the State and local authorities amounts to around 55% of GDP, i.e. between 1300 and 1500 billion euros per year, of which approximately 800 billion are devoted to pensions and social security, including allowance to disabled people - two items of expenditure which will remain unchanged in this simulation. But if the universal income is put in place, other aid will become useless, and by removing the State already pays, it will be 100 billion euros that can be directly reallocated. It therefore only remains to find 590 billion euros.
  Less in reality, because we must also take into account the fact that part of what this UBI will cost will quickly return to the state coffers, thanks to Value-added tax, a tax on consumer products which brings in around 130 billion per year.

130 billion ÷ 12 months ÷ 52.5 million = approximately €205 paid back via VAT, per adult and per month.

  The French are receiving on average 2400€ net monthly, so we can estimate the share of income directly reinjected into the State's budget at 8.5%. Assuming without taking too many risks that an equivalent share of the UBI would follow the same path, this would yield:

8.5% of €1,100 monthly = €93.5, x 12 months x 52.5 million beneficiaries = approximately €60 billion

  To establish a UBI at 1100€/month, it is therefore necessary to find 530 billion euros per year, roughly the cost of Social security, and a sum that would bring the state budget to 75% of GDP, against the 55 current %. A straw for some and a beam for others, but now that the needs are quantified, we need find where to collect them...

- It is possible to tax the capital, i.e. the assets of big companies, which increase year by year. But this already represents a ten percent drain on French GDP, and an increase sufficient to finance the UBI, too high, would slow down trade and innovation.
  - A Value-added Tax increase is possible, but it would disadvantage UBIsts by lowering their purchasing power.
  - The GSG is one of the most profitable tax contributions: thanks to it, the common funds receive approximately 125 billion euros each year. A doubling of this tax would bring the average annual contribution per adult at approximately €4760 - the loss of €2380 would be quite relative for the vast majority of taxable persons, since at the same time an individual would receive €13200 of UBI. The measure being of course deconjugated, €26,400 would fall each month on a household of two people. 39600 on the few happy ménages à trois. In the end, everyone would win, and such an increase in the GSG would bring in nearly 125 billion, or almost 25% of the amount sought.
  - Inspired by the Tobin tax, a tax on financial transactions already brings in almost 1.5 billion Euros to the State. Its effectiveness remains quite relative but, increased to a level more faithful to the original principle, it could bring in an additional 22 billion - or about 5% of the amount needed.
  - An indirect source of financing would be the elimination of tax exemptions (CICE included), which would bring in 100 billion per year. In this case, the V-AT being subject to tax exemptions, it is necessary to recalculate the directly returned part of the UBI by basing the calculation on the gross benefits of this tax (215 billion)... which brings what the UBI will bring in, via  the V-AT, to 98 billion (38 billion more than in the previous calculation).
  The reallocation to the universal income of these 138 billion is above all a question of political choice: rather than helping companies and to hope for an overall improvement, the State would choose to inject the money at the source of the real economy, on citizens' bank accounts.
  - Finally, a restoration of the Solidarity Tax on wealth would bring in 5 billion euros per year... to which it would be possible to add the benefits of a more effective fight against tax evasion, which amputates the State budget of 100 billion - against only 5 for undeclared work.

125+22+100+38+5+100+5 = 395 billion

  The gross price of UBI is 690 billion. The savings made thanks to the abolition of the obsolete measures and the new contributions via V-AT make it possible to subtract 160 billion. With an optimized economic policy, another 395 billion. Only 135 billion remains to be found and unfortunately, indeed, the first solution that comes to mind is the one feared by the wealthiest people of our society: the establishment of a Robin Hood-state, which wouldn't hesitate to lay bare its rich to dress up the victims of poverty...

12) Lady Godiva, par John Collier, 1897

  It is said that in 11th century England, the beautiful and proto-liberal Lady Godiva begged her earl husband to lower the taxes that crushed the merchants of his county. Facing her husband's refusal, she decided to make a proto-happening by crossing, naked on her horse, her good town of Coventry. Fortunately this story, which gave a very pretty picture, should remain an anecdote from the past which present tax payers will not have to draw inspiration from. No need to sacrifice their modesty to save their prosperity... to find the sum necessary for the establishment of the UBI, i.e. 135 billion euros, two solutions exist:

  1) To print money. During the 30 glorious years - and this is one of the reasons why they were economically glorious - the money supply was artificially increased each year. During the 2008 crisis, we witnessed a return to this technique, widely used to save banks. But the constant social crisis mobilizes politicians less than the temporary economic crises and moreover, if it is technically feasible, this solution has become legally impossible since the adoption of the euro: only the ECB controls the issue of money, and State funding is prohibited by Article 123 of the Treaty on European Union.
  2) Instead of trying to convince the 27, it is possible to draw inspiration from the value-aded tax, by mixing its principle with the one of the Tobin tax. In this new economic concept, each non-material transaction would be taxed at 0.4%. Paid by credit card, a kilo of chicken at €10 would cost four cents more. A €10,000 car, paid for by check, would cost €10,040. Four euros would be deducted for every €1,000 scripturally exchanged between individuals, companies or banks... and we spend a bunch of in France. Every year, 35,000 billion euros go through non-confidential money: taxing these exchanges at 0.4% would bring 140 billion euros to the State - 5 billion more than what was missing to finance the UBI.

  The financial solutions exists: increase in the GSG and the tax on financial transactions, elimination of tax exemptions, more sincere fight against financial crime and, as a finale, the NOn-confidential TRAnsaction TAx Bonanza; an administrative audacity that we will beautifully name NoTraTaB.
  Better: if this NoTraTaB were based on a 3% tax on non-fiduciary exchanges, we could forget all the measures mentioned above. It would then amount to a benefit of 1050 billion every year, leaving the possibility of financing the gross universal income (690 billion) while keeping the current social measures, and even allowing the elimination of the V-AT. (215 billion euros), the classic tax on income (77 billion), corporation tax (33 billion) and the TICPE (13 billion). Thus, everyone would participate in the financing of a better and more altruistic society, from the richest shareholders to the much talked about UBIsts... a change of paradigm and an administrative simplification which could offer many advantages. But that is another subject.

  After having seen that the UBI was desirable, noting that it is possible, we can conclude on the financial aspect by emphasizing a final advantage: the administrative simplification and the abolition of numerous measures in favor of a single one would make a lot of savings to various ministries, both in budget and in human resources. Gains deliberately ignored in the previous calculation because the good supporters of the State that we are will consider that the savings stop there, and that the money and skills freed up could be redirected to sectors lacking brains and budget:

- Security and justice.
- Health and medical research.
- International solidarity.
- Ecological transition.
- Education.
- Applied and basic research.
- Space exploration...

  Thus, in turn, the UBI would contribute not only to social justice and culture but also, ultimately, to our advancement on the path to progress.

IV/ The inevitable future

  In the end, the UBIappears as a Swiss army measure that would make it possible to repair the injustices of capitalism, while retaining its advantages. Because if it will prevent being poor, it will not impeach being rich... and this is probably the reason why the subject is more and more discussed:

  - Spain is approaching the principle, having established in 2020 a minimum living income.
  - Switzerland wondered if it was a good idea during a referendum, but voted a resounding no (the microtax solution had also been mentioned during the citizens' debate).
  - Countries like Germany, French departments like Haute-Garonne are experimenting.

  The idea of ​​the UBI is therefore gaining ground and its next application, in addition to being possible and desirable, could well be inevitable. To illustrate it this article, which began with a Hebrew legend, will conclude with the evocation of another myth, older and this time Akkadian... that of the creation of humanity by the great god Marduk:
  While the world barely existed and was populated only by gods, the divine society was already hierarchical and its population was divided into two classes: the Iggigi, and the anunnaki. The first worked on earth while the second were chilling in the clouds... everything was in order but after a while the primordial workers, tired, held the first strike and thus imposed on their Big Boss to have to find a solution.

  When Marduk heard the call of the gods, He decided on a skilful creation: (...)
  "I will agglomerate blood to form bones, And create a being whose name will be: Lullû, the Human. Yes I will create Lullû, the Human! And on him will rest the work of the Gods, so that they themselves may rest!"
Enūma eliš - text dating from the end of the 12th century BCE.

13) The myth of the robot-man, sung in 1978 by the merry Germans of Kraftwerk.

  In ancient Mesopotamia, men were therefore considered as machines created for the Gods to live in peace. And if the legends are often inspired by the past, here, it is as if the mythographers of Akkad had seen and plagiarized a future which seems very close to the contemporary world... indeed our societies are becoming richer, evolving more faster and, unless there is a sharp technological collapse, the automation of most jobs will leave many of us facing a planning gap. Machines will take over in most professions, the need for wages will drop and, inevitably, more and more useless hands will be left on the side of society; it will then be necessary to help with more efficiency than today those who have lost in the game of the world, as Andrić soberly defined them. For this, what could be better than a measure that would ensure the freedom of enterprise and to choose one's life, equal opportunities and economic fraternity between citizens who would receive, each month, an unconditional transfer with a wording like "thank you for existing."
  At the end of this article, it is possible to conclude that the universal basic income has everything to be a solution... even if, of course, some questions still arise:

  - If it is not granted to foreigners, indigence will always exist.
  - Family allowances abolished, certain large families with non-salaried or single parents may still be poor, a poverty suffered by children who are irresponsible for this situation.
  - Should its unconditionality, like civil rights, be waived in the face of the most serious crimes? After 10 years in prison, is it fair to come out with a jackpot of 138,000 euros in the pocket?
  - Too much automation of professions would ultimately favor a society where the majority of the population would be unemployed and confined to the minimum wage, without the middle classes. The solution to this possible problem of inequality, independent but complementary of the UBI, will be the subject of another article - this one is quite long enough.
  - Territorial economic inequalities will persist and, unless there is local rental assistance, it will be impossible to live in the largest cities with the national minimum. Tourism or economic dynamism, through the money they bring back to the local authorities, could finance a municipal or departmental supplement - which, in turn, would encourage companies wishing to make more profits to develop their activities in the small towns where they pay less tax.
  If this is not the case, our beautiful campaigns at low cost will risk seeing the arrival of a large number of artists and craftsmen freed from wage labor, certainly sometimes strong intellectual forces and cultural future of humanity, but also often, more simply, more or less discreet herds of new age bonesetters and didgeridoo enthusiasts... but even rid of the gods, each era has its demons, after all.

No comments:

Post a Comment