So here we are thinking about what we are 'due'

I was sitting by the canal the other day having an early evening drink with some friends when I mentioned that I was now officially unemployed until September 14th, date at which my new contract starts at the language school. I was about to launch in to how I would spend this free time (namely start my new business) when all three quipped, almost in unison, "So, have you got your unemployment benefits yet?". "No", I answered, "I've got a job lined up, I live practically rent-free, have an allowance, was paid generously when my contract finished and have got plenty of money in my (three) accounts, I don't think I need it." Stunned silence. "But, but, you've cotised" they explained, as if to a jungle-resident who has just landed in the welfare state.

These three friends have a point. As a French employee, a generous hunk of my salary goes to the State: 327 euros a month to be precise, i.e. around 25% to 30% of my gross salary. In fact 33 euros a month have gone to the unemployment benefits vault and, true, I could claim around 500 euros a month until September (though I have only cotised around 270 euros). The way they see it is this: you've contributed to the kitty, you are entitled to the kitty. End of debate. Is it though?

These friends consider themselves fiendish left-wingers. One of them has already voted communist at a Presidential election. They think the right-wingers (dangerously close to the evil droite néo-libérale anglo-saxonne) are selfish, individualistic exploiters who like nothing better than sending the prolétariat down the mines so that they can afford a fourth annual holiday in the Maldives (a little exaggerated, but that is the gist.) Yet here they are saying that I should milk the State for a bit because, clearly, if I am entitled to it, then it is my due.

I also consider myself a rabid left-winger, but this has left me pensive. Thinking about it, it occured to me that here we have two very different views of taxes and the State. I adhere to the concept of redistribution, you take money from those who can afford a bit to spare and expect everyone to have a slice of it when required. This is true especially when it comes to health and education, but also unemployment benefits, especially when there are 800 000 extra unemployed - mainly unqualified industrial jobs, with mortgages to pay and children to feed - because of the financial crisis.

But there are very finite and limited ressources to share out, so what will there be left for those who need benefits if those who don't use up the money? The French debt and deficit are enormous, increasing and unsustainable. The Social security balance is so deep in the red that there is a serious debate about when the system will crash.

For me, not taking benefits is solidarity; I don't mind paying for those who need beneits and, the other side of the coin, do not expect people who don't need them to profit from them. My friends take a different view: the law says you can, so you should. But this seems to me very close to the pay-as-you-go individualist concept of welfare that is estasblished in the USA: put your money in then take your money out, regardless of whether others need it more, which they rightly criticise and consider non-humanitarian. This is the worst kind of non-individualism: when you see things through the prism of the State and no longer act out your views because you don't consider your individual self to be an actor in the scheme of things.

My moral to this anecdote is this: your views should not change according to whether there is a law in place or not. If you believe in redistribution and sharing out of wealth, you should be prepared to accept that some of the wealth you have is given out. The law is there to give you a right, not an obligation, to have support, and it is up to your political consience to determine who deserves it most- those entitled to it or those who need it. And then act accordingly. Amen.