If I tell you that two people have married me, someone can ask me: “And what? Many people get married.” But of course, someone who says that our two friends are about 55 years old and that they have been living together for 25 years, and that they are left-wing who don't believe in weddings, may ask: “What are you doing?”

And so I said to them. “What are you doing?” They told me that the argument is economic. In the event that they marry, that they did not even make friendly meals, it seems that subsidies are received, that more is charged in the income statement, and that if one of them dies, the other will receive the full inheritance and the widower's pension.

I have looked at this small society from our so-called “well-being” (I mean they have not yet taken it away from us) and I have reflected on the irrational development it has had. For example, in the couples of before, as the man worked, the woman was left without sources of money at the time of death. That's why the widower's pension made sense. Today, when they both work, does that help make sense?

Another one, a retired adult, is given a small pension and then put the ticket to go on the cheapest train, adapt the phone bonds, make the phone calls cheaper, and solve the problem with some other income, with the help of their sons or daughters.

The third one, when a student goes to college, says there's a broad scholarship system, mostly to pay for transportation expenses, but what the poor really would like, to leave their parents' house and live with a friend, can't do it.

Finally, a person in a situation of unemployment, when his or her share is exhausted, is granted a lower subsidy, but he or she can obtain aid for renting his or her home, for paying such rent, or for the fulfilment of basic conditions.
We have a thousand other aids in municipalities and councils, both for dental repairs and for conducting studies and caring for the elderly at home. Some – those who work with “light” – ask for them; most of us don’t even know. It is my question, would not all of this be solved if, in addition to putting the right social services, each of the men and women we live here was given a “base salary” – dignified – for the state to meet its needs? I am convinced that it would be much cheaper, much more profitable for society, much easier for the organisation and much cleaner in order not to put anything in. And more reassuring for everyone. Is it a lot to ask?