Ce que ni la Gauche ni la Droite ne Veulent Entendre sur les Impôts

The speaker expresses deep frustration with current debates on taxation, arguing they have strayed from economic rationality and efficiency into pure ideology. While acknowledging that societies have different models, the speaker contends that taxation, as the tool for financing public systems, should not be ideological. The goal, in their view, should be to optimize revenue collection to fund redistributive systems like France's. The speaker criticizes debates that lack impact studies or even ignore existing studies showing ineffectiveness, all in the name of justice, morality, or ideology. An example cited is the ecological tax (malus) on Porsche 911 sales in 2025. A report highlighted that this tax generated twice as much revenue as the sales of 50,000 Dacia vehicles, presented as a success. However, another analysis revealed a different picture. Before the malus was implemented, approximately 1,200 Porsche 911s were sold annually. With the introduction of the malus, sales dropped significantly, to just over 300 units in 2025. The speaker points out that the VAT collected from the higher volume of sales before the malus actually generated more revenue for the state than the combined VAT and malus collected from the reduced sales today. This difference, they argue, could have funded ecological initiatives. This situation, the speaker believes, represents an "under-optimization." While the intention of a malus is to discourage the purchase of luxury, polluting vehicles, and thus reduce sales, the goal should be to manage this reduction so that the state still benefits financially from both VAT and the tax. Instead, the speaker observes that policies are going too far, discouraging purchases to the point where state revenue decreases. Another example mentioned is the proposed tax on unproductive wealth, which was voted on during the budget discussions. The speaker criticizes this initiative for being poorly conceived, passed without impact studies, and even acknowledged by deputies as needing correction by the Senate. The speaker laments that despite having intelligent individuals in fiscal departments who might understand optimal fiscal policies for revenue maximization, the actual laws are voted on by deputies who, in the speaker's opinion, lack understanding of economics and taxation. These deputies, driven by electoral, partisan, and ideological considerations, are unable to conduct the necessary impact studies to determine if their proposals will enrich or impoverten the state's coffers. This disconnect, the speaker states, is revolting. In conclusion, the speaker feels fundamental errors are being made regarding tax objectives and expresses uncertainty about how to respond as a citizen, questioning the effectiveness of voting.