- On 31 March the Spanish Government adopted a series of measures, including a subsidy for temporary workers who have lost their jobs. When this measure was to be adopted, the president of the Spanish State of the Basic Income Network, Daniel Raventós, addressed a ferocious criticism, as this income will only apply to citizens who meet special conditions and in a very short period of time. In this interview, it is requested that this income guaranteed by the State be applied until at least December 31 and be handed over to all citizens who want it. This is an income of EUR 530, which the government has approved for EUR 430, and which is considered economically viable.
On March 27, Daniel Raventós, a Catalan economist and president of the Spanish State of the Basic Income Network, was interviewed in the public arena. In this summary interview we translated what was said about basic income:
How does the Government view the idea of introducing basic income for a period of time and of charging people without income or low-income citizens who are unable to access approved aid?
"If people who are already in need have to pass the paperwork to check that they qualify for income, the measure loses effectiveness."
It will be up to the government to determine who is going to receive it, so this is a conditional income, which in theory will fall on the people most in need. It is incredible to make such a proposal, because people will have to prove that they are in a very difficult situation. And the speed of the measure is also important. If people who are already in need have to go through more or less lengthy procedures to check that they meet these conditions, the measure loses all its effectiveness. That is why we propose that all the people who believe that they need it should ask for it, and that within a maximum of a week the government should carry out small checks, and that everyone should receive the rent in the current account. And if there are people who have asked for it and think they didn't deserve it, because it's taken away from it in the 2021 income statement and it's already there. This has no technical problem.
How much money should the income have?
In accordance with the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in the Spanish Word Association) criteria, we propose that it be EUR 530 for a single household and half of it for each of the other members residing in the home. Living five people in a home costs more than living one, but it's not five times more expensive, because there are fixed costs. The OECD has put this meter in place, and we're also doing it very much, and it's approaching the poverty rate in homes. Under such special conditions as the present, we have determined how much is approaching what people need, and that need is accelerating day by day.
While the Basic Income Network calls for a stable measure, at this time they call for it to be maintained at least until the end of the year.
"The less that basic income lasts, the worse it will be."
The less this basic income lasts, the worse it will be. That is why I am symbolically defending the date of 31 December, because, among other things, the year is being taxed out and those who claim this income and do not deserve it because they will return it with the declaration of income. If this measure is highly conditioned and is very short in time, we're placing a bandage when you've been cut off your aorta. We are in a very special situation. The European Central Bank has also realised, and although the measures it has announced are insignificant, compared to 2008, 2009 and 2010, they are of a different nature.
The economic impact of confinement is enormous. How should the exit be? Is it an opportunity to rethink the current model?
"An economic policy must be made at the service of the majority. For example, that the property is in the service of public use"
There may be a rethinking, but as long as they do not materialise, they are just words. Remember that when the 2008-2009 crisis came, characters like Sarkozy said capitalism had to be recast. This only lasted as long as the states had to help the bank, then changed the discourse and it was said that we had lived beyond our possibilities. An economic policy must be made at the service of the majority of citizens. Concrete things, for example, that ownership is at the service of public use, as many republican constitutions have said throughout the twentieth century. The idea that private property is almost untouchable has led us to believe in the last 30 years, since the neoliberal revolution, but it's totally irrational. A Republican measure, which I hope will now be discussed more, is the maximum income, that is, that there should be more than a certain amount a positive marginal rate of 100%. Why? Because that person's wealth is contrary to the freedom of most citizens. Because it's obvious that the person who has a great fortune has a huge political impact, not just economic. The application of this general criterion enables concrete economic policies to be pursued.
Basically, it is a question of political will.
There is no economic policy measure that benefits all citizens.
Of course! That is what any economist, even right-wing economist, made clear a few decades ago: that economic policy is first political and then the economy. And politics means in which part of our citizenship we favour and in which we do not, and then we apply the economic technique that makes it possible. Because there is no economic policy measure that benefits all citizens, or that harms everyone.