“What are the circumstances for creating and implementing the common exercise revenue that residents will contemplate as honest and acceptable?” That is the query citizen jury will work on for 2 weekends, on February 1 and a pair of , and subsequent February 22-23. The long run common working revenue will merge the present social advantages right into a single support. It have to be the topic of a invoice in 2021, for implementation in 2023.
Interview with the sociologist Nicolas Duvoux, professor of sociology on the College of Paris eight Vincennes-Saint-Denis, specialist in questions of poverty, social inequalities and public insurance policies. He is without doubt one of the researchers who will come to dialogue with residents and inform their work.
The sub-question put to this citizen jury considerations the circumstances for opening the RUA to 18-24 yr olds. Is that this an vital problem on this future service?
In any case, it is without doubt one of the large holes within the racket of the system of social minima, for the reason that below 25s are right now the one a part of the inhabitants which doesn’t have entry to a advantage of frequent regulation. There may be, on this topic, an associative mobilization and past. And this is a matter all of the extra vital because it brings out the query of the individualization or the familyization of social advantages. In different phrases, what revenue is taken into consideration for the calculation of the help. Right now, younger folks would not have entry to it and it’s justified by the concept they profit from derived solidarity from their dad and mom. The query of younger folks due to this fact raises the query of the standards on which these advantages are granted.
Why is the selection of sources taken into consideration vital? What may it change?
There are benefits and drawbacks to every of the choices. Individualization means that we’ll retain the revenue of the individual as such. Whereas with familyization, we’ll combine both these of the couple, or probably these of the ascendants. This has vital penalties for sure populations. Take the case of ladies who’re eligible for these advantages, however whose spouses have important revenue. If the revenue on which the advantages are calculated is that of the family, then they’re excluded. If we individualize, we carry them in.
From the perspective of feminine emancipation, individualizing is an excellent factor as a result of it disconnects social rights from marital or marital standing. On the identical time, it implies that folks with a center class way of life may obtain advantages. The truth is, there aren’t any standards for easy or single justice. You may't do every thing on the identical time. We should due to this fact bear in mind that the technical parameters carry political points to bear on our conception of one another's place in society. The instructions chosen may have far-reaching results on the inhabitants.
Among the many causes put ahead for this reform, there’s extra readability, much less non-appeal. However will there be different results, and probably losers, winners?
There are all the time – particularly once we purpose with fixed means and once we reform a set of parts of social safety – winners and losers. Behind the technical problems with readability, simplification or the battle in opposition to non-recourse, that are very consensual issues, there are political questions: how can we orient the companies? Is it extra in direction of those that work, by the exercise bonus? Is it in direction of populations that don’t work, however which have particular traits – such because the disabled or the aged? In brief, a complete vary of decisions on the general public who can or should profit from these companies.
One of many topics debated is the query of potential counterparts. Ought to rights and duties be related to this future allowance?
This query of counterparties is actually the ocean serpent of debates on social advantages, since there’s all the time the concept we should put responsibility in entrance of the regulation and that we’ll search to reform advantages on this route the. Furthermore, the very title of “common exercise revenue” by some means consists of this query of consideration. Since sure advantages, comparable to housing help, aren’t primarily based on exercise standards, and we’ll search to probably affiliate them with work-related behaviors.
The citizen session that passed off nonetheless exhibits that there was a dialogue on this problem. There may be not essentially a consensus to use counterparties. On the very least, there’s a level of settlement that it shouldn’t be punitive.
Supportive kinds are fascinating, but when they lead to stress or guilt for individuals who can not discover a job, this may be problematic. Particularly if the profit not targets solely employees, but additionally the aged and a complete group of populations for whom the query of salaried exercise particularly just isn’t related.
A invoice is deliberate for 2021 for the introduction of common exercise revenue by 2023. How does this already relate to different reforms at present underway?
This five-year interval is marked by a really sturdy reform of social safety. To start out with that of unemployment compensation which can find yourself in power on April 1, 2020. The interplay with the long run RUA is clear: the hardening of the circumstances of compensation will undoubtedly carry a part of the unemployed into the social minimal system. There may be clearly a logic of financial savings as a result of financing unemployment compensation prices greater than social advantages that are decrease. It’s completely apparent. However, in a extra underground however for my part, simply as vital, there’s a state of social safety.