President Macron, true to his desire to overcome the right-left divide, has cleverly proposed ‘concentrating’ the wealth tax on property assets, on the grounds that the latter would do little to finance the ‘real’ economy.
At Grand Bourgtheroulde, President Macron made it clear: the wealth tax is ‘not a taboo or a totem pole’. Hard to believe, given that this left-wing totem, taboo on the right, sticks to the President like a plaster to Captain Haddock.
On the right, we hesitated for a long time… There are many reasons for this. Firstly, abolishing it is unpopular. Two-thirds of French people are opposed to it, and the fact that it only affects eight households out of a thousand is perhaps not unrelated to this. Secondly, as Jacques Chirac had opportunely attributed his defeat in 1988 to the abolition of this symbol, its political cost was fantasised. At least, that’s what the candidates in the right-wing primary believed (wrongly, it seems!). Finally, the lobbies that exploit the niches that have gradually been introduced (investment funds for SMEs, foundations, works of art, overseas territories, etc.) weighed in with all their misonicism: this tax should be maintained, not because it is effective or even fair, but because its exemptions would be useful! And what about the budget? The ISF represented 5.2 billion euros, a trivial amount compared to the 1,000 billion euros in compulsory levies that hit the French every year and the tax losses linked to the exiles it caused.
President Macron, true to his desire to overcome the right-left divide, cleverly proposed to ‘concentrate’ the wealth tax on property assets, on the grounds that the latter would do little to finance the ‘real’ economy. At the time, the communication was perfectly mastered: by vilifying ‘real estate income’, he gave the left a pledge; by announcing that assets other than real estate would no longer be taxed, he was applauded by a right-wing that, scalded by past promises and the difficulties of its candidate, no longer really believed in abolishing the wealth tax. The French therefore voted for a candidate who advocated transforming the wealth tax. This promise has been kept: it has been achieved, albeit at the cost of increasing taxation on symbols of unproductive wealth (which will yield no return): yachts, bullion and private jets. For part of the majority, the transformation of the ISF was a pill as Molière defined it, an ‘unpleasant thing to live with’. Did you say Totem?
It has to be said that the pill has not been digested, and the ‘great’ debate is centred on a ‘gift’ to the so-called wealthy rather than on the economic or budgetary relevance of the tax. We might even forget that the ISF has not been abolished but transformed! From an economic point of view, the decision to tax only property wealth is questionable. This reform, inspired by the work of our colleague Yves Jacquin Depeyre, is based on the premise that property is immobile capital: its owner will be less tempted to move to more favourable tax jurisdictions.
From a tax point of view, the tax on real estate wealth existed outside the IFI: it is property tax, with an obsolete base but a growing weight. In this respect, it is regrettable that the IFI has not simply replaced the ageing property tax: a broad base (current market value, with no allowance) and a low rate are often the best instruments for effective taxation.
Finally, there is a political interpretation of the switch to the IFI, which finds some echo in the demands of the yellow waistcoats: as the share of property in a household’s wealth decreases as that wealth increases, it is the largest holdings that have benefited – the word is a misnomer when it comes to paying a tax – from the reform.
The evaluation of the transformation of the ISF promises to be lively. Let’s bet that we won’t be talking nonsense and that, for once, we’ll be looking at what our immediate neighbours are doing.
Bertrand Lacombe
Lawyer, lecturer in tax law.