Transcription
We therefore give an appointment to the French and to the French for the next electoral deadlines. If they want billionaires to finally be taxed, they will have to choose the left and the ecologists. The government will be favorable to amendments that will unfreeze all of these social minimums. Let's stop playing sorcerer's apprentices. Today, we have it more than the ISF as it was paid before 2017. I would say that we are reaching the moment where we can already see that on the revenue side, they have no intention of moving an inch. There is no other solution to protect the French from the disastrous impact this budget would have and to allow a change of policy than the censure of the government. The Zukman tax was rejected on Friday, but the socialists are not despairing of reaching a compromise on the budget. We look at why in this issue 130 of Serge's "Le Bonbon". [Music] [Applause] [Music] In recent weeks, the socialists had made the Zucman tax the marker of the government's sincerity. Either it was adopted on the altar of compromise, or the government would fall. To make the dish more digestible, Olivier Fort's party had even gone so far as to propose a lighter version. Start-ups and family SMEs saw themselves placed out of reach of the jaws of the Zucman ogre. In vain. Neither the original format nor its hologram was voted on. Leaving the hemicycle, we therefore expected a declaration of war in due form. Censure or death. In fact, we got this. You have understood, the Zucman tax was not adopted because a majority emerged with the far-right and the right. And unlike last year when the far-right abstained, this time, it clearly chose its side, it hesitated, it chose the billionaires rather than the working classes. And we therefore give an appointment to the French and to the French for the next electoral deadlines. If they want billionaires to finally be taxed, they will have to choose the left and the ecologists. A bit weak, we will agree. But this exquisite moderation has an explanation, this one. Many of you have also, including on these benches, ladies and gentlemen deputies who support the government's action, in any case who have committed to participating in this stability, who consider that the freezing of social minimums for the most vulnerable people in our country is not something acceptable and accepted not only obviously by our most vulnerable fellow citizens, but also by all charitable associations and by those who are involved in the solidarity mechanisms that we know. Here too, because I think we should not circulate too many caricatures on these subjects, the government will be favorable to amendments that will unfreeze all of these social minimums within the framework of the finance bill for social security. Why do I give these two examples? And indeed, I could give a third one which is the question of our public hospital on which we know. No, let's be precise, Mr. Deputy Ruffin, let's be precise on these subjects, including on the hospital on which you know the target of Ondame to be a bit technical and particularly severe and on which objectively a debate can be opened on the subject. This is the budget, it goes and it comes back. It is made of very small things as a bard from Alexandria sang in the last century, and these small things have charmed Olivier Fort's calculator. A prime minister who has taken a few first steps that are not neutral. We have just recovered in a few minutes around 5 billion since there are both 3.6 billion that corresponded to the freezing of pensions and social benefits and 1 billion more that should arrive for the hospital. So I consider that there are 4.5 billion that we have just recovered and that we have also recovered the taxation of financial assets via the CSG for 2.7 billion which was voted in committee. So you do the math yourself and you see that we have obtained something in the day if the copy is maintained as it is today. I say this solemnly, there will be no positive vote and there will even be a vote against from the socialists, and therefore this budget will not pass. This is not blackmail, it is simply the necessary respect for French men and women. Translation, it's good but it's not enough yet. Coming from another force than the Socialist Party, one could have received this argumentation with benevolent circumspection. But here, the PS has a past, that of Hollandism. Rightly or wrongly, public opinion has the impression that the cursed sequence is being replayed, the one that started with "my enemy is finance" and ended with the labor law and the CICE. Whether they like it or not, the PS has since been presumed guilty, and it will take a few presidential terms before it gets rid of it. Within the PS itself, openly, the "gauche socialiste" current, represented in the Assembly by deputies Pierric Courbon, Fatia Kelloa Hashi, and Paul Christophle, is calling for a militant vote on censure as soon as possible. Especially since, for the moment, Sébastien le Cornu's promises are just sandcastles. If the Assembly does not finish examining the budget within the time allotted to it, i.e., November 23rd, the Senate's tide will erase everything. To put it more trivially, is there still wheat to be harvested for the socialists? It's hard to see clearly. On Friday, the vote on the transformation of the current property wealth tax into a tax on unproductive wealth disarmed more than one deputy. And this amendment has two problems for me. First, on the substance, it has been said by a number of us here. It is an amendment that was not seen in committee, that was not worked on in committee, that has no impact study, and therefore no one can say, imagine if its yield will decrease or increase. And national representation cannot make a decision of this importance on the assets of our fellow citizens like this. There are thresholds that increase, there are rates that decrease. So frankly, my feeling is that the yield will decrease, and moreover, there is a guarantee that is placed on this amendment on the substance. Several remarks on the substance. There was what I believe to be rather fair in the current IFI, a progressive rate, which may seem fairer, and we are moving to a fixed rate. This means that those with more significant assets will be proportionally less taxed. The threshold is raised. Same thing. Why is the threshold raised? This will mean that a certain number of our fellow citizens will escape this revenue stream. And finally, there is a sort of sleight of hand on the content of the base. Multi-property owners, even if they have 10, 15, 20 apartments, and good for them, will escape this tax, we wonder why. On the other hand, those who have life insurance policies or euro funds, which also serve our industry and are also in productive industry and economy, will be taxed. So Maroco, it's really "Let's stop playing sorcerer's apprentices." Today, we have it. This Monday morning, Amélie de Montchalin provided some figures. We are at the moment I am speaking to you, still around, and even precisely at 4.7% deficit. In other words, there have been tax increases voted, approximately 2.5 billion for multinationals more than the initial text. There have also been tax cuts, approximately 3 billion less in taxes for SMEs in 2026 than in 2025 if the text were voted today. Approximately 2 billion less in taxes for households, notably due to the unfreezing of the income tax scale and a set of measures on the wealthiest to date which would represent, if applied with existing measures, more than the ISF as it was paid before 2017. Good news, the yield of all measures contributing to the wealthiest is therefore higher than the yield of the wealth tax in 2017. That's something. But for the rest of the provisions voted by the deputies, it's Maach Bonu, nothing. Because Amélie de Montchalin estimates that four of these measures are contrary to the Constitution or European law, and as luck would have it, these are the ones that bring in the most. Thus, the tax on the profits of multinationals in proportion to their activity carried out in France. Its yield is estimated at 26 billion. That's really too bad. After that, I wanted to inform you that Mr. President of the committee and Mr. General Rapporteur will receive in the week a very in-depth impact study of four measures that seem at this stage contrary to either our constitutional order or our rule of law due to their frontal contradiction with European law in particular. These four measures, as you know, I had already mentioned them in these hemicycles, concern the tax on multinationals, share buybacks, super dividends, and the reduction of the Pillar 2 ceiling. In these four elements, I have not included these votes in the figures I have just given you, as it seems to us at this stage that these measures could not be applied. For the ecologists, the rejection of the Zucman tax shows that it is time to draw the curtain. I would say that we are reaching the moment where we can already see that on the revenue side, they have no intention of moving an inch to appease the country, which is crying out for social justice and fiscal justice. Our Zucman tax is overwhelmingly approved by 86% of French people, and I am appalled to see that the National Assembly is not in echo with this popular aspiration, which is majority, ultra-majority in the country. So we are in a moment of crisis, a turning point also perhaps in the budget discussion where some hoped to be able to make compromises since Mr. Le Cornu had promised us compromises, well, we see absolutely nothing coming. Manuel Bonpard points out that the Prime Minister's new concessions are only a translation of the rejection of the "year of grace" and the freezing of social benefits by the deputies of the Committee on Social Affairs. In other words, Matignon's advances are insignificant. He explains to us that a certain number of provisions, some of which have already been rejected by a majority of deputies here in the National Assembly, either in plenary session or in the social security finance bill in the Committee on Social Affairs, he explains to us that on these measures that have already been rejected by the deputies, he is ready to make an effort, and we should come here and thank the Prime Minister for accepting that because the deputies have rejected measures, he is now agreeing to withdraw them from his budget. This way he is trying to fool us for days and days to pretend that the discussion with him is useful, well, that's enough now. There is no other solution to protect the French from the disastrous impact this budget would have and to allow a change of policy than the censure of the government. It is time for a new constitutional point. If the finance bill is not adopted by the deputies, either because they reject it or because they fail to complete its examination, the government's draft goes to the Senate. For those who might have forgotten, the Palais du Luxembourg is frankly right-wing. This will be followed by the stage of the mixed parliamentary committee, seven deputies and seven senators. But here again, the right is in the majority. Assuming they agree, the Assembly will only be able to validate or reject the version drawn up by the CMP. No question of playing Zucman tax 2, the return. In short, it's off to a bad start, especially since the Constitution provides that Parliament has only 70 days to make a decision, which brings us to December 23rd. If this deadline is exceeded, the government can resort to a special law that will allow it to levy taxes. Even if it means resuming the budget discussion in January. Basically, the 2025 budget is renewed while we agree on the 2026 budget. But the executive can also resort to a budgetary ordinance, and then it's open bar, a 493 that doesn't say its name. The gains claimed by the Socialist Party could therefore disappear as quickly as they appeared. The moment is approaching when censure will appear as the lesser evil. Thank you for watching this chronicle. If you enjoyed it, a like and a share are in order. And if you haven't subscribed to the channel yet, don't hesitate to take the plunge. It's good for the algorithm, and you won't miss any of our content. Just click on the bell. To support us, it's on Donorbox. I remind you that each donor benefits from a tax reduction of 66% of the amount of their donations, within the limit of 20% of taxable income. It would be a shame not to take advantage of it. Thank you to all those who already accompany us. We will meet again on Thursday for a new "Bourbon". [Music] [Applause] [Music]