The Unconditional Basic Income quite simply proposes the following: living with dignity has no price. There can be no financial excuse at all for a fifth of the population living on the brink of poverty, of whom many hundreds of thousands are genuinely poor, or for many people watching their circumstances change without warning. Without essential goods and services and without a shred of power. There can be no excuse, be it financial, political or any other. Quite simply, it is necessary to divide everything more equitably, or as equitably as necessary, and it is incomprehensible that a country cannot succeed in doing this.
For this reason, I cannot believe in the love for this idea declared by any citizen who invariably says to me “yes, the idea is good but…, if it was possible… and so on, … it used to be better…”. And I invariably ask myself what place this person has in the world, not to judge them, but to understand what they have to gain, or to lose.
We citizens who are concerned about ourselves and our neighbours, only have to want it, and want it to the extent of demanding it. We don’t have to do the sums. Has the reader ever presented a State budget when he or she doesn’t like the one the government presents? And, in reality, when you simplify this question and do the calculations on a paper towel, this can only be demagoguery, be it in favour or against.
The Basic Income has the necessary attributes to make it worth fighting for, unconditionally. Its four pillars are crystal clear: universal and unconditional in order to avoid facilitating the prejudice of distinction and paternalism, despite the necessity to redistribute wealth and income; and, going beyond statistics, individual and sufficient in order to be able to cater for each human being. What other reasons could be needed?