Ce concept casse le lien: “Je travaille/j’ai un revenu”. Avec le revenu universel, c’est : “J’existe/j’ai un revenu”. C’est un revenu de base que tout le monde reçoit sans conditions. Ce revenu d’existence est cumulable avec d’autres revenus. Il remplacerait certaines aides pour éviter les doublons.
Economic independence[edit]
At a number of points in For Us, the Living, Heinlein describes an environment in which individuals are able to choose whether or not to accept a job. Passing references are made to the large number of individuals who take up art or other careers that traditionally do not pay well. The book also points out the short working hours and high wages paid to employees. The book ascribes this flexible working environment to the social credit system (the “Dividend”) adopted by the United States which provides enough new capital in the economic system to overcome the problems of overproduction while providing a guaranteed minimal income for all members of society.
For Us, the Living also depicts an early example of homesourcing in fiction. The character of Diana, a nationally renowned dancer, is shown performing in her own home for a broadcast audience, which sees her dancing on sets added by the broadcasting company to her original feed. The mechanism for this homesourcing is not described in much technical detail, but it appears to be similar to a high-definition video signal interfaced with something like modern chroma key technology.
The biggest economic impact in the book, however, is Heinlein’s Social Credit system, that he takes many pains to explain: the Heritage Check System, an alternative form of government funding, in place of taxation. The heritage check system is a moderately altered Social Credit system.[5][6] Its modification reflects Heinlein’s more libertarian views and Heinlein’s interpretation on how financial systems are affected by the relationship between consumption and production.[7][8]
The system could be construed as a libertarian‘s approach to a socialist idea, creating an alternative to a tax system that puts fewer requirements on individuals, while simultaneously providing more for the common welfare.[9] This is not too surprising, as Heinlein (a proclaimed libertarian) was also fascinated by Social Credit plan that appeared in Canada (which was later shot down by their Federal Government).[10] In this role, the government becomes less a part of the economy and more a facilitator of it.
The Heritage System in “For Us, the Living” can be summarized by four major actions:
- A required end to fractional reserve banking. Banks must always have a 100% reserve for any loan they give out.
- New money is printed only by the government, and then, only enough to counteract the natural deflation that would occur in a system without fractional reserve banking.
- The government uses this money (and only this money), divided among all of its necessary roles. Any extra is divided evenly among citizens and businesses that over-produce, to offset the loss of not selling their over-production (the government buying the over-production for its own use, which can be bought by citizens later if they so desire at the same price.)
- Goods bought by the government are later sold by the government (or used by it), and normal governmental services (such as postage) are sold. These goods and services provide the standard backing for the currency, similar to how gold is used to back the gold standard.[11]
Dealing with government funding in this way is theorized to stabilize an economy, and deals with the production/consumption problem that Heinlein claims to exist with more conventional economic systems:
“A production cycle creates exactly enough purchasing power for its consumption cycle. If any part of this potential purchasing is not used for consumption but instead is invested in new production, it appears as a cost charge in the new items of production, before it re-appears as new purchasing power. Therefore, it causes a net loss of purchasing power in the earlier cycle. Therefore, an equal amount of new money is required by the country.”[12]
In addition to stabilizing the economy, it is theorized to have the added benefit of being a system where Federal taxes would not be needed for Government function, and only be needed for regulatory measures[13] (e.g. enforcing environmental standards, corporations being taxed for not meeting government requirements, tariffs that exist purely to discourage buying from certain locations, wealth redistribution, etc.)
The system also makes note of the fact that government spending and government taxing are not only not related, both can happen in the complete absence of the other (especially in a heritage check system), and that as far as market effect, taxing causes deflation and Government spending causes inflation. He notes that and that as a result, the value of money can be completely and totally controlled, making the currency as stable as it is desired to be.[14]
Social and governmental[edit]
For Us, the Living also depicts graphically the transition between the society that Perry left in 1939 and how it is transformed through a series of acts by the Government. Of specific note is the “War Voting Act”. In this act, if the United States wished to engage in armed conflict with any other country, a national referendum was required to be held. Voting on a war is limited to citizens eligible for military service and not currently in the military. In the event that the article was passed and the country was to go to war, those who had voted for war were the first to be enlisted in the armed forces, those who did not vote were the second group conscripted, and those who voted “No” were the third group. Heinlein states that in the history of the “War Voting Act”, the process had been enacted three times, and all three times the entire citizenry were actively engaged in very vocal debate as to whether the conflict was warranted. All three times, he states, the measures to go to war were defeated.
After the transition has been completed, the social norms of the society are effectively transformed. One of the most pervasive, is the distinction between “public sphere” and “private sphere”. The society as a whole respects privacy in what are considered private sphere events, such as intimacy, closeness, interpersonal relationships and even identity in business and governmental transactions. As there is a great deal of information in the society, this becomes rather critical in moving the society toward a point away from information fetishism and toward a society where persons have respect for one another’s privacy and work as a society for the betterment of all.
Commentaires récents