Contre l'individualisation des droits sociaux
Both neo-classic economists and feminists defend social and fiscal rights individualisation as a way to incite married women to work by penalising inactive ones. According to us, this is not a good reform direction. Individualisation would reduce both the income of the poorest families and the redistributive capabilities of the system. Only a family-based system can allow the distribution of adequate social allowances, especially to family with children, and tax according to the "contributive capacity" principle. In the French system, health insurance is universal, while unemployment and retirement allocations are individual. Social allowances and taxation are and must stay family-based. France has preserved both a satisfactory birth rate and a high and growing level of female activity. Work disincentives weight on unskilled people living alone or in a bi-inactive couple, but not especially on married women: they must be corrected by labour-market reforms.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Henri Sterdyniak, 1992. "Pour défendre le quotient familial," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 256(1), pages 5-24.
- Maria Jepsen & Danièle Meulders & Olivier Plasman & Philippe Vanhuynegem, 1997. "Individualisation of the social and fiscal rights and the equal opportunities between women and men," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8607, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.