The automatic universal inheritance of 20,000 for training, employment or entrepreneurship that Sumar has promised and that all young people would receive for the simple fact of turning 18 has triggered a certain controversy in some sectors of the left who doubt its redistributive potential , if the entire population receives it apart from income. However, both its theoretical promoters, such as the French economist Thomas Piketty or previously Tonuy Atkinsson, and Sumar’s team of economists insist that it is much more redistributive than other palliative measures that are applied depending on income, such as the minimum vital income, the achievement of which – as we have seen these three years – requires an ocean of management, inspired by The Process, by Kafka, which act as a disincentive precisely among those who they need it
And the reasons why economists postulate the capacity for redistribution and reduction of inequality of universal and automatic measures are two, as explained yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Rights and spokesman for the economy of Sumar, Nacho Álvarez, who he is also Secretary of Economy of the executive of Podemos. Firstly, the origin of the funds intended to pay these 20,000 euros. Sumar proposes that the measure be applied at the same time as an ambitious tax reform is implemented that will include a tax for large fortunes. This tax is what would provide the 10,000 million annually that Sumar calculates that the universal inheritance would cost. So, even if the child of a completed family is entitled to it because he has reached the age of majority, the net balance of the family would be negative, that is to say, he would have contributed to this measure much more than would get In other words, as they explain to Sumar, “we are not concerned that the son of a very high-class family will receive the universal inheritance, because his parents will pay for this inheritance and that of a dozen other young people with the tax we propose”.
But then, why isn’t access to this automatic payment limited to families who are net taxpayers? The reason is explained by the minimum vital income: if the measure is subrogated to income it would no longer be automatic and, therefore, for obvious reasons of administrative management, many working-class young people – surely those who need it the most – they would be left without the amount just because of the inability or disinterest in the management to certify that the level of income is adequate to receive it.
Álvarez explains that in the Spanish social protection system there are many palliative measures of inequality that are applied based on income, and experience shows that the simple fact of processing the accreditation of family assets or disposable income it means that its effectiveness is limited and that many people who should access it do not. The spokesman for Economy emphasizes that, according to the indicators, universal measures such as pensions or access to healthcare – despite the fact that they are also provided to the upper classes – are the most redistributive and those that contribute the most to reducing inequality, and that is why this inheritance, subject to the tax on great fortunes, must be universal in order to have the intended effect.
