L’Express joins forces with the Viavoice polling institute, HEC Paris and BFM Business, to regularly question a representative panel of French people and executives on a current subject. Yann Algan, professor of economics and dean of pre-experience programs at HEC, deciphers the results of this Barometer of decision-makers devoted to the 2025 budget.
L’Express: To reduce the deficit, the French people interviewed, even more than the decision-makers, recommend cutting public spending as a priority. However, current parliamentary discussions revolve almost exclusively around the creation of new taxes… How can we get out of this dialogue of the deaf?
Yann Algan : The French have clearly become allergic to taxes. The political uncertainty and the scale of the announced savings – 60 billion euros, including 40 billion on public spending – are creating a lot of concern among them. Their stated preference for reducing the latter is not surprising: in France they represent 57% of GDP, the highest score in the world, with an efficiency which is not always there. However, with the exception of the Covid period, this rate has not increased over the last fifteen years. In my opinion, it would have been more judicious for the Prime Minister to focus the debate on the primary deficit, that is to say the difference between revenue and expenditure, without the burden of interest on the debt.
The real challenge is to stabilize our debt/GDP ratio, which means returning to a zero primary deficit. Currently, this is around 4%. Going from 4% to zero in one year is impossible. The credible hypothesis retained by the Economic Analysis Council is eight years, or a reduction of 0.5% per year. However, the Finance bill presented by Michel Barnier, with 60 billion savings to be made from 2025, is equivalent to a 2% drop in the primary deficit in one year. This is a considerable shock, which raises the risk of a contraction of the economy, with significant recessive effects.
But the Barnier government does not have eight years left…
That’s the problem. To reduce the primary deficit to zero, spending cuts must be structural, lasting, carried out by an executive which is committed to the long term and which takes responsibility for its choices, following a social debate. Everything that is lacking in the current period, regardless of the qualities of Michel Barnier.
As we cannot cut corners everywhere, the government should indicate more clearly the priority areas to be preserved: in particular defence, the environment, education, health. And then we comb through unproductive and inefficient spending in other sectors. A first analysis made it possible to identify a deposit of 20 billion. With in particular the refocusing of learning aid, which is legitimate because windfall effects have appeared among large companies and large schools. Or the overhaul of exemptions from employer contributions. But we remain far from the expected 40 billion euros.
There are, however, other avenues. The standard of living of retirees, for example, is now higher than that of workers. This is an exception among Western countries and is not economically sustainable.
Two thirds of French people surveyed by our partner Viavoice consider themselves losers with such a budget and consider it unfair. What does this feeling inspire in you?
One interpretation of this feeling of inequity comes in particular from our tax system, and the very strong degression that we see among the richest, the billionaires. The Institute of Public Policies, which carried out a very detailed study on the subject last year taking into account all levies including VAT, found that the tax rate on the wealthiest was 26%, i.e. 10 to 20 points less than that which affects the working classes and the middle classes. For what ? Because most of their income comes from capital, which they manage to relocate so as not to be taxed, and not from work.
There is a growing consensus among economists of all persuasions that there is a hole in the racket. A 2% tax on the wealth of billionaires would bring in 20 billion additional revenues. And without any notable recessive effect since their marginal propensity to consume is very low. I am quite surprised that this measure is not being studied at this critical moment.
This does not call into question the supply policies of recent years. And a very significant part of the current deficit comes not from an increase in public spending, but from a reduction in our tax revenues. To restore taxpayer confidence, all categories must contribute equitably to this tax effort, including the richest.
The recent deterioration of public finances has highlighted forecast errors of Bercy in terms of tax revenue. Should this task be entrusted, as some suggest, to an independent body?
It would be very healthy. This is not to call into question the skills of senior officials at the Ministry of the Economy, who are very well trained and had no intention of hiding anything. But in a complicated context, after the “whatever it costs”, the energy shield, the inflationary surge and less growth than anticipated, Bercy’s models were not effective.
What seems to have been particularly problematic is the underestimation of the number of business failures, which had been kept on hold until then, and which led to a sharp reduction in revenue. To avoid the poison of suspicion, and restore the confidence of the French in institutions, it is necessary to have independent forecasting agencies.
There is another blind spot in budgetary practice, namely the absence of an in-depth debate at the time of the presentation of the public accounts for the past year. Parliamentarians only seem to be interested in the upcoming budget, without ever learning from the previous one…
There is indeed a brick missing in our system, and this is a French singularity, the United States or the United Kingdom do this analysis work both ex ante and ex post. Hopefully something will come out of this political crisis. Like implementing, no longer in words but in concrete actions, a better evaluation of our public policies. For years now, Parliament has been supposed to have a body of this nature and elected officials should be trained in this issue. However, we are still at the same point: there is no serious parliamentary evaluation process. This is a dismaying shortcoming.
.