In reality unemployment is mostly involuntary

The announcement by the President of the Republic Fund revenue of active solidarity, defended by Martin Hirsch, by a levy of 1.1 on the income of the capital, was hailed as a fair and effective. However, the inclusion of this tax in the tax shield, proposed by Christine Lagarde, exonèrerait once again the highest revenues of solidarity with the poorest. It would make the outright degressive levy: more is rich, less it contributes. The creation of the said tax shield had already led to the removal of the ISF for very high incomes, EWB which one forgets that he had originally been created to finance the RMI. The financing of the RSA will therefore weigh on the middle classes and small savers, whose purchasing power is particularly engaged in the current period.

But this is the philosophy of the RSA that debate. The RSA is a new premium employment, reserved for the poorest, offering the possibility to cumulate the RMI with income provided by any job for very low income. The premium for the employment had, at the time of its creation, is the subject of criticism. At a time where the wage bargaining is struggling to restart, this type of device is indeed not to encourage businesses to distribute their gains in productivity as salary increases, leaving the State load only the problem of the purchasing power of employees. For its part, the RSA will promote the proliferation of low wage jobs (like "Borloo jobs" less than 10 hours per week in the human services), without allowing the poor out of poverty. He will lead the establishment of a part time trap, of "working poor" in Anglo-Saxon.

As the EPP, the RSA is not only a bad instrument of employment policy, but it is also a poor device for poverty alleviation, excluding the real excluded. Presented as a major innovation, the RSA is much less revolutionary that there already is a temporary device of incentive for the continuation of employment for the recipients of the RMI.

As the measures taken to punish the unemployed refusing "valid offer", the EPP and the RSA imply that the unemployed and excluded rationally are not working because the gap between the income from work and the allowance paid is too low. These measures are the old and controversial liberal theory of voluntary unemployment, which postulated that the economy is in full because nobody wants to work more to the market conditions. However this theory is contradicted by the facts. In reality, unemployment is mostly involuntary. The result of the lack of jobs created by an economy whose growth is sluggish due to the failure of investment of the enterprises which are also the reversal of consumption linked to the crisis of the authority to purchase as well as now, the effects of the US downturn. Today, there are 2.5 million unemployed of categories 1 to 3 within the meaning of the ANPE (immediately available and seekers of employment at indeterminate or not, time full or partial) loans to work in market conditions, while prevalent than 290.000 job vacancies. The ANPE counted in 2007 only 18,000 fraudsters it is quick to strike. "Good job offers" available are much smaller that it is now discovered that theoretically vacant jobs are largely occupied by "undocumented", often refusing to regularise. Investigations done on cohorts of beneficiaries of the RMI finally indicate that they choose employment as soon as the opportunity arises, even if the difference between RMI and bought income is low.

In the end, the RSA will concern a limited number of RMI (100,000, announces, on more than 1 million beneficiaries), those who will have the chance to meet a precarious employment. The device excludes genuine excluded, those who are not in condition to resume employment, including the allocations will not be adjusted. In this regard, the RSA is in no way an instrument to fight against extreme poverty. Instead, the sum of EUR 1.5 billion, for the financing of the RSA, could be devoted to the adjustment of all social minima. At a time when the recession settles, it is also a real stimulus plan that is needed to support growth, necessary condition for the truly sustainable job creation. The Government refuses to consider it to have already spent 14 billion per year to the funding of the tax package, which the macroeconomic impact is unlikely considering the downward revision of the growth forecasts for 2009.