Question 14333 — social policy

Summary

Mr. Abdelkader Lahmar questions the Minister of Labor and Solidarity on the dangers and inconsistencies contained in the preliminary bill aimed at creating a unified social allowance (ASU). Ultimately, 3.9 million households are expected to lose out. More than one in 5 households belonging to the poorest 20% of households will see their income drop with the reform! Under the cover of “simplification”, the Government is preparing therefore further weakening already very precarious families. Although he assures that the poverty rate would fall by 0.5 points, no details are given on the intensity of poverty. We can therefore fear that in order to lift households close to the threshold out of poverty, we will push the poorest of the poor even further into poverty. Because yes, at a constant budget, any increase in income of a poor household will be to the detriment of other households who will see their income drop. Instead of structuring national solidarity around a truly progressive and redistributive tax system (reestablishment of the ISF, “Zucman” tax, taxation of superprofits, etc.), the ASU therefore organizes a competition for crumbs between the most modest. The promise of an ASU making it possible to increase “earnings at work” and to fight against low-income traps wages is also fallacious. First, all available evaluations show that, whatever the household situation, work always pays more than the social minimum. There is therefore no need to reform the latter to encourage work, unless the objective is to give assurances to the right and the extreme right who are already saturating the public debate with clichés and fantasies about the “cancer” of welfare. Afterwards, the problem of “low-wage traps” would not arise if the Macronist government had not spent ten years massively subsidizing companies – via the activity bonus – to maintain low wages. If the minimum wage had been regularly reassessed, if salaries had been indexed to inflation and if the Government had encouraged the periodic holding of branch salary conferences - as has been proposed for two five-year term La France insoumise - the country would not have millions of workers struggling to live on their salaries. Finally, at a constant budget, maintaining the level of social minimums, the desire to increase earnings at work and the absence of additional resources form a triangle of incompatibility. The only way to overcome the contradiction will be to lower social minimums to increase earnings at work. This will make the right's dream come true: capping all resources from national solidarity at 70% of the minimum wage. The question that arises is therefore simple. He asks him if the Government would not be better off putting this reform on the shelf and letting citizens decide, through voting, in 2027, the future they wish to give to the national solidarity system. He wants to know his intentions on this subject.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.