Editor’s note: The use of the term ‘basic income’ or ‘universal income’ here does not correspond to BIEN’s definition of basic income, since the payments each month will fluctuate with income. ‘Socle citoyen’ corresponds more closely to a Negative Income Tax, adjusted on a monthly basis.
Interview with Marc de Basquiat, originally appeared on Atlantico.fr
On November 26 2020, the National Assembly voted on the resolution tabled by the group Agir Ensemble launching a public debate on the creation of a universal income called “Socle citoyen.” Why do you welcome this vote?
Marc de Basquiat: This vote is historic for three reasons. First of all, it was very broad, bringing together the votes of deputies belonging to five political groups close to the centre of the political spectrum: LREM, Agir Ensemble, MoDem, Libertés et Territoires, Socialists and related parties. Credit for this result goes to Valérie Petit, a northern representative, who launched and led an informal working group on the Socle citoyen project based on the platform we published in the Observateur on May 4 with the support of 80 co-signatories, including 50 parliamentarians. In-depth work was carried out, with a series of remote (because of Covid) meetings. The 48 deputies who tabled the resolution voted on November 26th really know the stakes and the key principles of the technical solution that we propose to study.
The second reason to applaud is the strong support of the La République En Marche deputies. Seventy of them voted in favour of the Agir Ensemble group’s resolution. At a time when many people have doubts about representative democracy, we can salute here the joint search for consensual solutions for our country by representatives from diverse groups, including the governing party. Let us recall that at its creation in 1988 the Revenu Minimum d’Insertion in 1988 received the deputies almost unanimous support. Yes, a reform as ambitious as the one proposed by this resolution aims to achieve consensus from all parties of the National Assembly. This is the process that Brigitte Bourguignon, Minister Delegate for Autonomy, supported with her speech.
The third reason to celebrate this advance is the fiscal nature of the Socle citoyen proposal that it is to be studied. Let us quote from the enacted text:
“The Socle citoyen is unprecedented in that it combines tax reform and improvements in social benefits. First of all, we propose to establish the universality of income tax: every French person, from the first euro of income, is taxed proportionally. This very fact constitutes being a part of and being responsible to the national community. It links one to the collective destiny and at the same time ensures assistance and solidarity.
With the mechanism of the Socle citoyen, the universal income becomes an individual tax credit, negative or positive. Thanks to tax withholding at the source, calculation and payment are now possible in almost real time. This is one of the great social benefits of this major tax reform: it makes it possible to calculate and automatically pay out the Socle citoyen, based on the universal tax, at the same time the reform achieves universality.
The fact that universal income is approached from a tax perspective revolutionizes the question of its economic feasibility. It is not a question of creating an nth social benefit that is painfully financed, but, first of all, of ensuring that all citizens are involved, in their own way, in the financing of public services. The same “right for all” is possible because, beforehand, we ensure the same “fiscal duty for all.”
Is this a sign that something is changing, at the parliamentary level and elsewhere, with regard to universal basic income?
Despite the trauma of the 2017 presidential campaign and the failure of Benoît Hamon’s project for a Universal Existence Income, many—of all political stripes, I can attest to that—grasped the importance of a transfer mechanism that would automatically guarantee a minimum of resources to everyone, regardless of the vagaries of life. But until recently, we hesitated to talk about it for fear of being suspected of providing a caution for the Hamonist party, Generation-S.
I believe that with the Covid-19 crisis, we all understand that the issues we are facing go far beyond political posturing and partisan arrangements. I am happy that the only Hamonist deputy in the Assembly, Régis Juanico, has lent his voice to the resolution drafted by Liberal deputy Valérie Petit. It is by working together that our elected officials will be able to re-inspire politics!
On the other hand, I am disappointed that no Les Républicains representatives dared to break with a conservative voting directive. The speech of LR deputy Stéphane Viry started well, but its conclusion is saddening:
“The group Les Républicains salutes the willingness of the National Assembly, the most essential forum for public debate, to address this major issue, since it touches on the fight against poverty, for work, and social cohesion. These are all foundations on which to build a social project, national cohesion, dynamism for our country. As part of our efforts, we must constantly, all together, open up new horizons. (…) You are right to put this debate on the table, and our group is very much in favour of a frank reflection on work, on activity for all, on social protection, on the fight against poverty. However, as it stands, as formulated, we will not follow your proposal.”
In 2016, the Senate had carried out a mission of information on basic income, in which all the political movements, from the right to the communists, took part, leading to the formulation of a consensual report that illuminated the way forward. Let us hope that the 11 deputies who voted against the resolution on November 26 will discover, moving forward, that the Socle citoyen has no other ambition than to strengthen cohesion, economic dynamism and fraternity in our country.
What are the liberal arguments to defend the proposal of a universal basic income and what form does it take in this framework?
What seems to me to be common to all liberals—whether one feels on the right or on the left for that matter—is the importance one places on individual choice. A Socle citoyen can be formulated as follows: everyone pools the same share of their income (around 30%) and benefits from the same individual transfer (around 500 euros per month). With this single rule, which is easy to implement using the mechanism of withholding tax, everyone is in the same boat and knows exactly how the income tax they pay or the assistance they receive will evolve according to the events in their lives: change of job or loss of work, marriage or divorce, etc. the impact is always easy to calculate.
Such a proposal is not really a revolution. In fact, for tax households that are subject to the 30% marginal rate, my proposal is just a reformulation of the current tax calculation, with an identical result. For 2020 income, taxpayers in this bracket pay a tax whose monthly calculation is 30% of the taxable income of the previous month, minus €498.52 per tax share (let’s say €500 for a single person and €1,000 for a couple). This would not change much.
The Socle citoyen amounts to applying the tax calculation formula for wealthy taxpayers to everyone! A single person without income who currently lives with an RSA of €497.01 plus a housing allowance would receive €500 and still receive the same housing allowance. No change in his or her case. On the other hand, all other cases of poor and low-income households would be winners, to what extent, depending on what they have today.
You have been defending universal basic income for several years, as president of the Association pour l’Instauration d’un Revenu d’Existence (AIRE) and as a Free Generation expert. Do you think that the coronavirus crisis can bring about a change in opinion?
In March, with the crisis, millions of people discovered unemployment. In restaurants, transport, household services, construction, shops… All these jobs where you work hard, where you get up early. The State has multiplied measures, first by taking over from employers to pay more than half of the wages! We can see that a hazard can bring the bravest of workers to their knees, making them dependent on the community to ensure their subsistence.
This invites everyone to question the solidity of their inclusion in society. Am I in this position only because I deserve it? Do I owe nothing to anyone? How could the country have endured a “laissez-faire” logic, where everyone was left to fend for themselves in order to make a living despite the fear of catching a virus—whose danger was not really understood at the time?
Today, everyone knows they are vulnerable. Everyone has also experienced their own docility! During the first confinement, we were happy to cheer from the windows, it gave us a recreation and a semblance of social interaction. But deep down, we really understood that we are vulnerable and that we have a vital need of others. This is why the ” Socle citoyen ” project speaks to everyone: we contribute as citizens—through taxes—to ensuring a vital base for everyone. In these circumstances, no one is spreading foolish rhetoric about handouts?
Is the Socle citoyen universel an effective response to the economic crisis that is looming with the coronavirus?
No one knows how the crisis will evolve. In the second quarter of 2020, China is the only G20 country whose GDP has grown. Germany posted -12%, France -18%, India -24%. The second wave caused us to fall back, less sharply, but global economic balances will take time to readjust. Public debt is exploding. Even if it is relatively painless in the short term, no one can predict what interest rates will be in 10 years. Our accumulated debts may weigh very heavily, preventing governments from playing their role as buffers against social shocks. At that time, we will be happy to have established a Socle citoyen, the universal distribution of part of the income among all, so that no one will be in total destitution.
We can also venture the hypothesis that our country will regain the growth necessary to adapt and face the planetary challenges. Here again, the egalitarian sharing of a portion of the fruits of growth will be a tremendous driving force for national unity, a multiplier of energies.
Translation from the original French: Pierre Madden
Reprinted with the kind permission of Atlantico.fr
More information on the Socle citoyen can be found here
2021-03-09
As a french basic income activist and life member of BIEN, I would like to respectfully protest to the editor’s note that was added to the top of this piece : the proposal of a Socle Citoyen IS a basic income proposal according to BIEN’s definition of a Basic Income, which it respects in full.
The editor’s note strikes me as being deeply mistaken on three counts, which are common misunderstandings of the concept of a Basic Income and of BIEN’s definition:
(1) The fact that the amount of money paid fluctuates according to the income of the recipient is NOT in contradiction with BIEN’s current definition of a Basic Income, as firstly the definition does not include a criteria of uniformity ; and secondly there is a difference between a MEANS Test (assessing a person’s total wealth, which BIEN’s definition of a Basic Income excludes) and an INCOME Test (assessing a person’s income, on which BIEN’s definition of a Basic Income says nothing — and with good reasons, otherwise the existence of an income tax system would make the implementation of a UBI impossible ..)
This point is of course up for debate, but as things currently stand and given that there is no criteria of uniformity of the payments in BIEN’s definition of a Basic Income, a differential payment system matching all five curently acknowledge criteria (individuality, regularity, liquidity [ie. in cash], universality [ie. to all … without MEANS test], unconditionality [ie. without activity test]) has a very solid case to qualify as a Basic Income according to BIEN’s current definition.
Furthermore however, regardless of the solution that could eventually be reached on that point, the french proposal for a “socle citoyen” would still have a very strong case to qualify as a Basic Income according to BIEN’s definition, as:
(2) In the precise case of the “socle citoyen”, the amount of money paid DOES NOT VARY according to the income of the recipients. Everybody would be entitled to the uniform amount of 500€ per month, with no variation.
Recipients would, however, as every resident, also be subjected to a progressive income tax with no tax exemption (ie. an income tax paid from the very first euro earned). As taxes in France are now collected “at the source”, with benefits and taxes calculated together each months, this would indeed mean that some people would receive a money transfer from the state ; while other people would see amount of the transfer of money they owe to the state (their taxes) be reduced — but this would not be a variation in the amount of their basic income, which would remain of the strictly uniform (or equal) amount of 500€ per person and per month.
Another way of expressing that second point is to consider the fact that a tax deduction, if the tax that was owed was supposed to be paid in cash (or in some other form corresponding to the “liquidity” criteria of BIEN’s definition), is a form of cash (or “liquid”) payment. In other words, everybody in France would receive the same amount of 500€, but many people would receive part of that amount in the form of a “direct” cash transfer and part of that as a tax deduction (which, as the tax is owed in cash, could be called an “indirect” cash transfer).
(3) Finally the editor’s note seem to take for granted a rigid distinction between Negative Income Tax proposals and Basic Income proposals. This is mistaken. Indeed, most forms of Negative Income Tax are not Basic Incomes ; however those Negative Income Taxes that meet all of BIEN’s 5 criteria for the definition of a Basic Income ARE Basic Incomes.
In other words: a Negative Income Tax need not be paid on an individual basis, without means test, without work requirement, with regularity or even in kind — but a Negative Income Tax that is paid on an individual basis, periodically, in cash, without means test or work requirement IS a Basic Income. There is nothing in BIEN’s current definition of a Basic Income that would allow such proposals to be excluded from the family of Basic Income proposals.
Now, regardless of what one may think of these reasonings, may I suggest that, in the spirit of conciliation and openness at the heart of BIEN’s identity, perhaps the editor’s note could at least be reformulated to take these reasoning into account by saying, instead of the very definitive “The use of the terms … does not correspond to BIEN’s definition”, something more like “There is some disagreement as to whether the terms … correspond to BIEN’s definition (…)” ?
This change, I may add, would also be in line with the fact that this debate on the difference and overlap between the concept of a Negative Income Tax and of a Basic Income will be organised in the next BIEN congress, to be held online from Glasgow in august of this year.
Looking forward to the further developments of this fundamental discussion,
TMR