The Minimum Living Income (IMV) it was one of the Government’s star measures in the worst months of the pandemic, when many families saw their work and livelihood disappear at a stroke and an abyss opened before them in the midst of a health emergency.
An aid to prevent the risk of poverty of a minimum of about 470 euros per month per person that can exceed 1,000 euros in the case of larger family units (adults with several children), provided that the requirements are 100% met taxes, and that it could be combined with other income to have a minimum income to support the household based on its members.
Although more than a year after its approval, this measure continues to give much to talk about, since everything points to because it has not been as effective as I intended and that another option would have been better than an income that has taken too long for many citizens. And that, if it has arrived.
The alternative to IMV that would have worked
The IMV application It can be done online or in person and will require personal and financial information from the applicant or applicants. In principle, a procedure that should not take more than one or several weeks.
Yes OK the resolution period is a maximum of up to six months. Half a year in which there may be an administrative silence that many families cannot bear. This happened during the first months that it was in force and that led many people to cry out against the Government for this delay.
The initial bewilderment was such that in august of last year the Government had only approved 0.5% of the requested benefits. I mean, nothing. And it is that there was an avalanche of 700,000 requests for which they were not enough, in addition to that many (many) were denied due to the high requirements.
Thus, at the end of last year, of the 1.2 million requests received, there were only 160,000 families collecting the IMV, since mmore than 70% had been denied for not meeting the requirements. That is to say, the majority of those who have requested this help have not gotten it, so the promised social shield has not been so much.
Therefore, we can advance that this IMV has not had the desired effectiveness and that perhaps it would have been better to opt for another strategy or formula already proposed previously that has had good results in other countries.
For example, the measure that we propose here in its day of the Universal Basic Income, simpler to apply and from which more people could have benefited. Above all, because it is denied a posteriori, not a priori like the IMV. Something that would have allowed many families to have something to throw away the worst months, although they would have had to return a part later if they had not adjusted to the requirements.
What’s more, would have served to reactivate the economy earlier -by citizens have more money to consume-, although the Government was anchored in a minimum income that has only reached a few and that has saturated Social Security even more at a very hard time -management of ERTE’s, layoffs, etc.).
Another option is to a temporary allowance, which in fact was being given until the IMV was approved to those who were ceased from their work by the Covid – those who had a contract of more than two months’ duration could collect it. If this temporary subsidy had been paid while the IMV was starting up and the applications were being approved, or denied, it would have served to provide income to thousands of citizens. That is to say, a combined modality to alleviate the ravages of the pandemic.
Therefore, if today only a small percentage of those who have requested it enjoy the IMV, it means that many people have been abandoned by the State that had conspired to protect them.