Elsa Conesa, journalist at World responsible for budgetary questions, answered your questions concerning the measures proposed by the different political parties.
Sigor: What do you think of the feasibility of the Keynesian policy of the New Popular Front (NFP), which focuses on recovery?
Indeed, it is a central question in the campaign, which also divides economists, among whom we observe growing polarization. The answer is not simple, because economics is not a hard science. It is difficult to predict with certainty how actors respond to economic policy measures.
That being said, the criticism most often leveled against the left’s program is its cost, which exceeds a hundred billion euros. It includes numerous measures, often costly, in a context of very tense public finances. On the other hand, the financing options are essentially based on new taxes, the yield of which will also be uncertain, because the large groups and the wealthiest, who are targeted, always have the possibility of adapting to reduce their bill. tax.
Zak: Between the parties’ figures, those they produce for each other, and those of institutes, it becomes almost impossible to find reliable and relevant information on the real economic and financial impact of party programs. Any suggestions for seeing things more clearly?
You are right, it is very difficult to find reliable, and above all non-partisan, information on the consequences of measures. This is partly the result of a very short campaign, which left little time for the parties to work, and for experts to analyze them.
The figures are therefore often politically tinged, hence the somewhat crazy sums circulating. Apart from the question of cost, predicting the impact of this or that economic measure remains difficult, for example the minimum wage of 1,600 euros. The objective of the NFP is to boost purchasing power, but it also represents a cost for businesses, with inevitably consequences on employment and the labor market.
FAB: Given the weakness of yesterday’s debate, don’t you think that France’s financial room for maneuver has become so small that politicians are engaging in measures without consequence?
France’s financial room for maneuver risks considerably restricting what the next deputies and the next government will be able to do or not. France borrows the equivalent of half of the state budget each year, which gives an idea of its degree of dependence on financial markets. That being said, it has so far not had any difficulty in raising money, quite the contrary. It remains protected by its membership of the euro zone and by its strategic role in the European Union. Politicians are therefore not completely deprived of room for maneuver.
Amine CM: The RN plans to lower VAT to 5.5% to boost the purchasing power of disadvantaged categories. Do you agree with the RN on the expected result?
This is precisely one of the criticisms made of the RN: the reduction in VAT will benefit everyone. This is also why it costs so much (10 billion to 15 billion euros per year for fuel, heating oil, etc.). On the other hand, VAT is considered a tax that weighs proportionally more on the poorest, since it is proportional and not progressive.
In other words, the rich and the poor pay the same rate of VAT even though they pay a different rate of income tax. It is therefore not wrong to say that VAT weighs more heavily on low-income households, and this is particularly true regarding fuel, which is essential on a daily basis for households living in rural areas or far from their place of work, for who the car is essential. This was also one of the demands of the “yellow vests”.
Frizzy: Mr. Bardella refused yesterday to answer on the financing of his program, knowing that he does not want to increase taxes. What are the possibilities mentioned by the RN to finance their program?
No party clearly answers the question of financing. The RN invokes the fight against fraud, which we know brings in much less than the sums mentioned to finance its measures. The left is counting on taxes weighing on the richest and large groups, but it is also likely that these will bring in less than expected, since these economic players have the capacity to adjust very quickly to a new tax framework. The measures presented by Gabriel Attal are less costly, but are not clearly financed any more.
Nono: Jordan Bardella talks about a public finance audit and suggests there would be “surprises.” Can we really imagine such a scenario?
The RN is showing bad faith here. Public finances are audited several times a year by the Court of Auditors, and it is Parliament which votes on the budget each year. The data is therefore not hidden, even if it must be recognized that their readability is quite relative for most citizens. We should therefore not expect anything new from this audit, the advantage of which seems above all to be, for the RN, to explain in a few months that it will not be able to finance this or that electoral promise because of the budgetary situation. A situation of which the RN deputies, who sit on the finance committee of the National Assembly, are already aware of.
-PHI: What program do you think could, at least, slow down the increase in France’s debt?
I don’t see any program likely to slow down the growth of the debt. Which is easily explained: opinion studies show that what concerns the French most remains purchasing power. Debt or deficit are almost not mentioned by those surveyed. It is therefore quite logical that no party campaigns around reducing public spending, which would in any case result in painful and unpopular measures. Which obviously does not mean that it is not an essential issue.
Midas: With the state budget already voted for 2024, will the legislative elections call this budget into question?
The future government will always have the possibility of passing a amending finance bill to adjust the 2024 budget, and possibly introduce new tax measures. Both the RN and the NFP have already announced that they would make an amending budget this summer in the event of victory, with emblematic measures on both sides – the reduction in VAT for the RN, and on the of the NFP the repeal of pension and unemployment insurance reforms, the 10% increase in the index point of civil servants, as well as housing assistance.