This will be a presidential campaign theme: the creation of a universal income, which would involve paying every French person, from birth to death, a monthly income of 600 to 800 euros, regardless of their situation (regardless of their social origin, whether they work or not, irrespective of their income level, etc.).
For the record, the DREES, the Directorate of Research, Studies, Evaluation, and Statistics of the social ministries, released its provisional account of social protection for 2015. It amounts to 747 billion euros spent, including 701 billion euros in benefits. A few months ago, INSEE released the nation’s accounts for 2015, indicating 800.6 billion euros for employee compensation in companies. Therefore, only 100 billion euros are needed for social benefits to reach the amount of salaries in the private sector.
This indicates that social expenditures should be subject to serious reform, which will never be possible without creating a basic floor.
55% of French people surveyed remain opposed to the creation of a universal income for every French person (65% in January 2016).
The idea of universal income from birth to death has very old origins; it was born in England in the 16th century. Since then, it has been taken up by various political figures, transcending ideological and economic currents.
The question arises as to why such a proposal is resurfacing today? The answer must be sought on the side of the “uberization of the economy.”
The National Digital Council, in a report submitted to the government last January, indeed considers that the digitization of the economy will lead to a paradigm shift in employment and profoundly disrupt the world of work by significantly reducing the number of available jobs.
One way to respond to this unprecedented situation would be to create a universal income in addition to salaries or income to limit the impoverishment induced by this digitization of the economy.
This idea is not confined to a particular school of economic thought or political thought.
However, the effective implementation of this idea is hampered by three short-term obstacles:
First, there is an absence of ideological clarity regarding the idea. Since Diderot and d’Alembert, the reflex in France is to categorize ideas and people. The inability to do so with this disruptive idea is a limiting factor for its acceptance.
Next, the question of how to finance such a scheme arises (who would pay for whom?).
The prospect of financing through taxation is frightening as it leads to rejection.
Finally, the consequences of the digitization of the economy and the transformation of the world of work are realities not yet shared by all French people.
We are still at the beginning of this process, which explains the reluctance of the French.
