Manuel Bompard face à Thierry Breton sur LCI

Debate between Manuel Bompard and Thierry Breton on France's debt crisis and economic future amid rising borrowing costs.

Key Takeaways

France faces a critical moment with rising borrowing costs impacting its fiscal stability.
A significant portion of France's debt is held by the European Central Bank, which opens debate on potential freezing.
Legal and treaty constraints currently limit France's ability to unilaterally cancel or freeze debt.
Public investment and climate action require regaining borrowing capacity, a key argument for debt restructuring.
Changing EU treaties to address debt issues is a complex, lengthy process requiring cooperation among member states.

What the video covers

Manuel Bompard and Thierry Breton debate France's soaring borrowing rates and economic challenges.
Discussion centers on Jean-Luc Mélenchon's proposal to freeze part of France's debt held by the European Central Bank.
Bompard explains that about 20% of France's debt is held by the ECB and could be frozen to ease fiscal pressure.
Breton counters with legal and treaty constraints preventing direct debt cancellation or freezing without EU approval.
They discuss the evolution of the debt discourse from cancellation to freezing and the political implications.
The debate touches on the need for public investment, climate action, and regaining borrowing capacity.
Breton emphasizes the complexity of changing EU treaties and the long timeline required for such reforms.
Both acknowledge the importance of finding pragmatic solutions within the EU framework to address France's economic issues.

Chapters

What is the main proposal by Jean-Luc Mélenchon regarding France's debt?

Jean-Luc Mélenchon proposes freezing the portion of France's debt held by the European Central Bank, which is about 20%, to reduce fiscal pressure and regain borrowing capacity.

Why can't France unilaterally cancel or freeze its debt currently?

Current EU treaties and legal rulings prevent direct debt cancellation or freezing by member states without agreement, as the ECB is restricted from lending directly to states.

What are the challenges in changing EU treaties to address France's debt issues?

Changing EU treaties is a complex process that could take 5 to 10 years and requires consensus among member states, making immediate debt restructuring difficult.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

It is now time for the debate between Manuel Bompard and Thierry Breton. Please, gentlemen, join us here on the set. The France Insoumise coordinator and deputy faces the former Minister of the Economy and former European Commissioner. These are two visions of France confronting each other at a serious moment for the country. As borrowing rates soar dangerously, who will pay to fix France’s accounts?

Speaker A

France confronting each other at a serious moment for the country. As borrowing rates soar dangerously, who will pay to fix France’s accounts?

Speaker A

Good evening, gentlemen. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening, Thierry Breton. Good evening, Manuel Bompard. Let’s start with the figures that are obviously echoing throughout Europe. These figures are unprecedented since 2008, the great crisis of 2008. The borrowing rates for France are at 4.25% for France.

Speaker A

. Italy, even Italy is doing better. It was well below 4.20 before, even if it’s a small difference. Germany at 3.8 is really the starting point, let’s say, of the concerns. You are entering this debate in a rather

Speaker A

Italy, even Italy, is doing better. It was well below 4.20 before, even if it’s a small difference. Germany at 3.8 is really the starting point, let’s say, of the concerns. You are entering this debate in a rather disruptive way, Manuel Bompard, through Jean-Luc Mélenchon saying, "We can freeze the debt." Let’s start there.

Speaker A

Explain to us in a few simple sentences what that means. In a few simple sentences, and perhaps to correct a number of pieces of misinformation or misconceptions, Jean-Luc Mélenchon refers to a portion of France's debt that is currently in the vaults of the

Speaker A

Explain to us in a few simple sentences what that means. In a few simple sentences, and perhaps to correct a number of pieces of misinformation or misconceptions, Jean-Luc Mélenchon refers to a portion of France's debt that is currently in the vaults of the European Central Bank, of the Bank of France, but attached to the European Central Bank. It is about 20% of France's debt that is held by the European Central Bank. So it is not a debt that belongs to private investors,

Speaker A

in a sense. It belongs to us ourselves. And so the question posed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon is that regarding this debt, we can ensure it is put on ice, frozen, as he used the term. Why? Well, to reduce the pressure and to regain

Speaker A

in a sense. It belongs to us ourselves. And so the question posed by Jean-Luc Mélenchon is that regarding this debt, we can ensure it is put on ice, frozen, as he used the term. Why? Well, to reduce the pressure and to regain borrowing and investment capacity because we are faced with a number of major debates and great difficulties today. We have seen the summer we just experienced, for example, on the climate front, and we need public investment of several tens of billions

Speaker A

of euros per year. And for that, we must regain investment capacities and borrowing capacities.

Speaker A

of euros per year. And for that, we must regain investment capacities and borrowing capacities.

Speaker A

Mélenchon. Back in 2022, it was "we are wiping out all the debt." Then we had "we're going to take the Banque de France debt and burn it." Then it became "we're going to deep-freeze it." Then it became "now we're freezing it."

Speaker A

Well, first, I am happy to see that we now have a discourse that is a bit more reasonable because you say you are re-explaining, Mr. Bompard; I have followed the semantic evolution of Mr.

Speaker A

if we can agree on this subject, because that is the right approach. Well, I'm going to tell you two things.

Speaker A

Mélenchon. Back in 2022, it was "we are wiping out all the debt." Then we had "we're going to take the Banque de France debt and burn it." Then it became "we're going to deep-freeze it." Then it became "now we're freezing it."

Speaker A

—it was the legacy of Covid and the inflationary period. Now, we are down to 520. Yes, it's dropping from 3,500.

Speaker A

And now, well, it's not exactly the same thing. Semantics mean something. And then, and now it's, "well, we're going to propose," because deep down that's what you mean. We are going to propose to our European partners to see if we can agree on this subject, because that is the right approach. Well, I'm going to tell you two things.

Speaker A

because we decided to have the single currency—the States said extremely clearly that we could not carry out this operation. So we'll come back to that. Wait, wait, I'm going to be more precise. We cannot carry out this operation in the current state of

Speaker A

The first is that, first of all, it's no longer 600 billion, because every year there are 40 billion less that are being eliminated. So the 600 billion, which were indeed 600 billion at the start—you're right, it was the legacy

Speaker A

Well, there are two paths. The first path is simply to ask on your first argument, if you allow me , on the current state, we cannot. We can develop that later, but react to that. first to change the treaties, but

Speaker A

—it was the legacy of Covid and the inflationary period. Now, we are down to 520. Yes, it's dropping from 3,500.

Speaker A

we had the semantic evolution at the same time, so there you go, but wait, Mr. Breton, admit it all the same, and it's not you I'm going to put—it's not you I'm going to put—the evolution.

Speaker A

50 billion, I'm just saying. There you go. So it is a significant amount, I'm not neglecting that. Still, it's not at all what we said it was. And above all, the States, especially the States, ensured, when we decided—once again,

Speaker A

anything other than the debt currently held by the European Central Bank. So admit that no one will be swindled and that it's lodged at the bank.

Speaker A

because we decided to have the single currency—the States said extremely clearly that we could not carry out this operation. So we'll come back to that. Wait, wait, I'm going to be more precise. We cannot carry out this operation in the current state of

Speaker A

We are in complete agreement on this subject, and I truly challenge you to look at our stated positions. We have never said otherwise, but anyway, I wanted to make that clarification. Next , you tell me it's not authorized. Well

Speaker A

things. Moreover, the President of the Central Bank said it, the President of the Bundesbank said it. Uh, there have already been rulings by the European Court of Justice. So, we can't. But there are paths.

Speaker A

that the European Central Bank does not have the right to lend directly to states, which is true. But in fact, this article has already been bypassed, since there have been buyback operations by the European Central Bank of debt securities that were already on

Speaker A

Well, there are two paths. The first path is simply to ask on your first argument, if you allow me, on the current state, we cannot. We can develop that later, but react to that. First to change the treaties, but

Speaker A

We've already done that; we've already bought those debt securities. And by the way, Under what circumstances? Clarify under what circumstances so we can understand clearly.

Speaker A

as for me, for the moment, as is being said, we cannot. Well, first of all, I thank you that we can debate this, and I thank you for now speaking about our proposal as it really is, because during

Speaker A

cancellation or the freeze. Admit that at the time, people were already saying it wasn't possible. And besides, what happened? Germany filed a complaint at the time before the Court of Justice of the European Union, saying it was illegal, and the Court of Justice of

Speaker A

we had the semantic evolution at the same time, so there you go, but wait, Mr. Breton, admit it all the same, and it's not you I'm going to put—it's not you I'm going to put—the evolution.

Speaker A

for, and do not prohibit what we do with the debt held by the European Central Bank. You can read the treaty texts. Nothing prevents having freezing measures. And this isn't just a semantic shift; it's that we can do

Speaker A

But admit it, admit for instance that when Mr. Attal or Mr. Lecornu tell us "No, no, we can't do that because private investors will be swindled." Neither Jean-Luc Mélenchon nor I have ever suggested we were talking about

Speaker A

be very precise because there is a procedure, so I will be. There is a procedure: you have to get 21 people to vote. So, the Central Bank operates with 26 people. There are 21 representatives, therefore, from all the countries in the Eurozone. These

Speaker A

anything other than the debt currently held by the European Central Bank. So admit that no one will be swindled and that it's lodged at the bank.

Speaker A

they all expressed themselves by saying , "not even in your dreams." So now, does that mean—oh no, I am saying this. So now, so now, no, wait, so now, so now, I am going to tell you, this is

Speaker A

The Bank of France today, through the Bank of France's participation, but which belongs to the Central Bank.

Speaker A

They even expressed themselves in the opposite direction. Oh no, that is not true. That is not true. Oh no, that is completely false.

Speaker A

We are in complete agreement on this subject, and I truly challenge you to look at our stated positions. We have never said otherwise, but anyway, I wanted to make that clarification. Next, you tell me it's not authorized. Well,

Speaker A

not put it in the freezer. But nobody asked him that question. So what I am saying is that the question must be asked, so it will take roughly between 6 and 18 months. First, someone has to ask it. Well, that is

Speaker A

but I'm not the one saying it, the treaties are. Afterwards No, actually, that's not true, Article 123, excuse me. Let's get into the details of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; what does this article say? It says today

Speaker A

Not that to me, please, sir. Oh, well, not that, but it is the reality. But well, you contest this point; it is a treaty reality. But I will just finish, I just—I will just conclude after. Once it is posed, then,

Speaker A

that the European Central Bank does not have the right to lend directly to states, which is true. But in fact, this article has already been bypassed, since there have been buyback operations by the European Central Bank of debt securities that were already on

Speaker A

will obviously take it to the European Court of Justice because I, like Christine Lagarde, am among those who say the treaties do not authorize it.

Speaker A

the primary market. And wait, wait sir, let me finish my line of reasoning, and then I promise I'll let you respond.

Speaker A

court, since it's May 18th and we are going to do a massive chronology. You are President of the Republic, and so he triggers it; it will take roughly between, let's say, 2 and 3 years to get the result. Let, let him answer

Speaker A

We've already done that; we've already bought those debt securities. And by the way, under what circumstances? Clarify under what circumstances so we can understand clearly.

Speaker A

about this: it is Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that says the European Central Bank is independent. Except, Mr. Breton, you know as well as I do that I can find you several times where

Speaker A

Well, we started after the so-called subprime crisis, and then we continued during, well, 2015 to fight against inflation, and then for the Covid programs. You will admit at the time buying only, not cancelling. Yes, no problem, I'm getting to the

Speaker A

exceptional situation. It was the subprime crisis, and at that moment everyone set the treaties aside and we said we are going to get together because we are going to think about how we deal with this situation. You can

Speaker A

cancellation or the freeze. Admit that at the time, people were already saying it wasn't possible. And besides, what happened? Germany filed a complaint at the time before the Court of Justice of the European Union, saying it was illegal, and the Court of Justice of

Speaker A

Was it or was it not? So that means you think that Mr.—that Mr. Mélenchon, as President of the Republic, will be able to give orders to Ms. Lagarde. Let me respond to your various points. I am telling you that

Speaker A

the European Union said, "No, not at all, it is absolutely in accordance with the treaties to have carried out these operations." Now, what I am telling you, Mr. Breton, is that the treaties do not state, do not provide

Speaker A

you is why what we were able to do exceptionally because we had to save the banking system, we wouldn't be able to do today because we have to face the climate emergency or the social emergency. I consider that it is

Speaker A

for, and do not prohibit what we do with the debt held by the European Central Bank. You can read the treaty texts. Nothing prevents having freezing measures. And this isn't just a semantic shift; it's that we can do

Speaker A

mistaken to say that. I’ll tell you why. Because in truth, that’s where there’s a misunderstanding of our proposal. We’ve obviously talked about France's debt, but if we raise the question of sovereign debts held by the European Central Bank, it also

Speaker A

different things with it. We can cancel it, or we can transform it into what is called perpetual debt. It is more equivalent to a freeze, and that is a debate among economists, among these. We must be very precise here. We must

Speaker A

investment, everyone has an interest in this measure because everyone needs to regain investment capacity. When you have 50%of the countries in Europe today, representing 50%of the European GDP, all with over 100%debt-to-GDP ratios, they all have an interest in

Speaker A

be very precise because there is a procedure, so I will be. There is a procedure: you have to get 21 people to vote. So, the Central Bank operates with 26 people. There are 21 representatives, therefore, from all the countries in the Eurozone. These

Speaker A

players well. I am 100%sure that this is something that will never see the light of day, for a simple reason: first, as I told you, there are already precedents that have been handled by the European Court of Justice. Either

Speaker A

are the governors of the national banks, plus the six members of the executive board, and they vote as 21, and you need a majority of those 21 to specifically request that. So, today, the majority, and so today

Speaker A

Sir, we’re leaving; I’m going to finish my point. And so, it will take —it will take 3 years, because I have another proposal for you. I have another proposal to make because that one is headed straight for a wall. It

Speaker A

they all expressed themselves by saying, "Not even in your dreams." So now, does that mean—oh no, I am saying this. So now, so now, no, wait, so now, so now, I am going to tell you, this is

Speaker A

world, the only currency in the world trying to propose this system that doesn’t work. But you know what the markets are going to do, because unfortunately, 56%of our debt is not French. They’ll say, "Wait, they want to cancel the debt?" That’s how

Speaker A

it, I can tell you very clearly. You are right, there are three who have not expressed themselves. There is Portugal, there is Spain, and there is Italy.

Speaker A

he just wrote an article I invite you to read today. He says it absolutely doesn't hold up. So, there you go.

Speaker A

They even expressed themselves in t

Speaker A

Well, I’m in favor of that too. Well, that will take 5 to 10 years, and you would need unanimity. What will happen in 5 years?

Speaker A

Good luck trying to get France Insoumise to convince the CDU, the Christian Democrats, and everyone else.

Speaker A

But maybe—just maybe—there you go, but you have 10 years ahead of you. So, and then the third solution—I’m going to answer you, because, really...

Speaker A

Yes, yes. I know you're going to wave around the specter of these proposals to make people afraid. I’m trying to help you find paths, because the one you’re taking...Forgive me, but you’re not really helping me, because in truth, you are largely responsible

Speaker A

for the economic situation we are in today. So forgive me for saying that I’m not sure you are the best person to tell us how to fight debt today.

Speaker A

Well, let me tell you, do you want to know why? Because for all the recent governments over the last 30 years, forgive me, but you’ve supported their policies, with the possible exception of François Hollande's term back then.

Speaker A

But I’ll set that aside, I’m just telling you: I’m happy to debate these proposals with you, but accept the idea that we debate on equal footing. You have your point of view, I have mine, and you’re not...Can I

Speaker A

interrupt you, gentlemen? One second, one second. I’ll give you the floor right back. A quick status check that I find interesting is that you both have a great deal of credibility. Both of you, because on one hand, you’re

Speaker A

something of the go-to for economy and finance for Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and you haven't been in office yet. So, I must give you huge credit that France's accounts are really not good, and you really had nothing to do with that. You

Speaker A

have never been in government. And Thierry Breton also deserves huge credit because you are one of the very few economy ministers to have prevented the slide in 2006. It is a very rare case in the financial history of France

Speaker A

. The debt-to-GDP ratio had decreased. Which we haven't seen very often in history. The following year.

Speaker A

So, in any case, you are here, Mr. Breton, and well, we aren't going to review your track record for that, but the truth is you had a policy of privatization; you notably privatized the highways. We are still biting our

Speaker A

fingers over it today. So, obviously, when you sell just about all the jewels —talk about everything, but everything, I'll talk about everything, if you want to talk, say...

Speaker A

You didn't have an effective policy because if your effective policy to fight the deficit is to privatize on a large scale, oh really? That's how we did it. Agreed.

Speaker A

Let’s close the parenthesis, if you’ll allow. Let’s—wait, let me finish the personal parenthesis. On, since there is a figure, even though you are of different opinions, we can agree on one point, which is that there is, in fact, a slide in France's

Speaker A

accounts. Abhijit Banerjee, Nobel Prize winner in economics, who went after Jean Tirole very directly.

Speaker A

He is wrong, sir. He will tell you that he is wrong. Let me finish.

Speaker A

So, your reaction to Banerjee; I must quote his remarks. So, it must be said to Mr. Banerjee’s credit, it is true that he advised, I believe, Emmanuel Macron and François Hollande, which were not a very great Nobel success.

Speaker A

Debt cancellation, as if it’s not toxic. Like many others. Let me—let me just finish reading.

Speaker A

Debt cancellation is the equivalent of hydroxychloroquine touted by Professor Raoult as a miracle treatment for Covid . Response from La France Insoumise to Mr. Banerjee.

Speaker A

But no, but actually, well, what I find nice about the discussion is that we changed the subject. Meaning that initially, the proposal that was in the note, if we implemented it, it would be a catastrophe. Uh, investors would be

Speaker A

swindled, interest rates would—I saw there too a sort of fiction you wrote, Mr. Breton, saying people would no longer be able to go withdraw money at the ATM and so on. I observe that you have changed your tune. Now, you say

Speaker A

In my hypothetical, I said you were backtracking because you realized it wasn't possible. I am absolutely not backtracking, but I notice that now you're telling us, "uh, no, actually it's just going to take time," that it's going to......other people, so

Speaker A

it's not the same thing. You're telling me, basically, that investors are going to get scared, and so on. An investor looks at what's happening: you don't pay, the country's risk premium increases. Interest rates—it's risk, risk, risk. So that, my argument—and

Speaker A

I promise I'll let you respond—is that at some point, you have to be a little bit consistent. You can't say both: "Interest rates are rising because debt is rising, and therefore the debt-to-GDP ratio is rising, which drives up interest rates," and then

Speaker A

when someone offers a reasonable, concerted solution to say, "On the contrary, we're going to lower the debt ," you say, "Oh, well, that's also going to increase interest rates." You have to make up your mind. Excuse me, but if I'm a creditor, if I'm a private

Speaker A

investor, and I feel that, as a result of a decision that is in some way concerted, I've improved the situation of states and countries, I'm not going to raise interest rates, I'm going to lower them. But you aren't being

Speaker A

consistent about your... Just on this point, Mr. Bompard, because I see that you're defending it with passion—and in a way, I admire it, really, I do—I admire that you defend it with passion, but you're changing your semantics. I admire that,

Speaker A

because it's good, but I just want to say—and I don't want people to think we're getting into overly technical professional fields—but you just said something that is simply a mistake. I —in passing, it's saying that interest rates are a function of the

Speaker A

level of debt—no, I’m going to finish if you’ll allow me. Yeah, but I have...

Speaker A

Interest rates...interest rates are a function of the debt-to-GDP ratio. No, Mr. Bompard, that is false. Yes, you just said it; you just said, "I'm lowering my debt ratio, so therefore I'm lowering my interest rates." No, interest rates, Mr. Montpard, I’m

Speaker A

sorry to say it, but I’m really saying it simply, so please take it as such. Interest rates are a function of only one thing, sir.

Speaker A

The risk premium—the risk premium we place on an issuer regarding their ability to repay. And so, in this case, whatever it is, by how much will you lower it? We just said it, it will never happen. 20%.

Speaker A

You’re going to lower it. No, it’s not 20%. It’s 500 billion, that’s a lot, it’s more like 15%, but regardless: you’re going to lower it by 15%and you think for a single second that by lowering it by 15%you lower

Speaker A

interest rates? It makes them go up, because precisely we’ve put ourselves in a situation where we aren't repaying . So your interest rates will rise mechanically. That’s all. There you go, that’s all. But no, look, I just —you can take the—you can take the

Speaker A

arguments however you want, Mr. B. I have—but you’ll have a hard time, first of all, you shouldn't make me say things I haven't said. I questioned your own logic, since in public debate I'm told the more indebted we are, the

Speaker A

more difficult it will be and the higher our interest rates will be. That is indeed what is generally said in public debate, and that is precisely what I am contesting. Well, precisely, if you think it’s a risk premium,

Speaker A

then ask me why the risk premium would be higher when a country’s debt is lower than it was before. I mean, your reasoning, forgive me, cannot hold water because you’re operating on the principle that because we cancelled the

Speaker A

debt or froze the debt held by the European Central Bank, we’re going to do the same to investors. I won't say anything. It is solely...it is, it is something, I repeat, and perhaps there, which is contrary, once again, to the

Speaker A

spirit of the treaties, which will require the steps I proposed earlier, which will eventually require, if those didn't pass, changing the treaties, and you could eventually propose that. I'm simply saying that to do it would take 5 to 10 years, and the third solution

Speaker A

—the third solution, when 73%of Europeans are very attached to the euro today—would be to simply leave, not the euro, because you can't just leave the euro, but to leave the European Union itself and lead to the exit of

Speaker A

the euro with it. Then you could do, then you could do whatever you want, like in Argentina, like in Argentina, you could do whatever you want, go ahead and finish your allusion because I know you aren't the only one making

Speaker A

it; Édouard Philippe made it as well. There you go. Do you see a form of disguised "Frexit" in this type of measure? No, I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm saying the only solution to do it, if they really want to, the only

Speaker A

solution—I emphasized "really" and I'm saying it so viewers can check— those are the three possible paths.

Speaker A

They are impractical, but they exist. And the third one is, indeed, if they really want to do it, then at that point they should propose a Frexit. But I remind you once again, and I repeat, that 73%of French people do not want to

Speaker A

leave the euro, but perhaps you will be able to convince them. everything. And at that point, indeed, propose the exit and you could do, you could do anything you want at that point, saying: "The money that is in the Bank of France

Speaker A

belongs to me, so I'll do what I want with it." But, but I'll tell you very simply: I don't advise it.

Speaker A

But Mr. Breton, here again, you're conjuring up fictions because that has never been our proposal. The demonstration I made to you today, I believe, based on elements that are concrete, is that what you call the first possibility, meaning using the

Speaker A

part of the debt currently held by the European Central Bank to lighten it and shield it, is something that is entirely, it is something that is entirely practicable. Contrary to that, so we don't agree on, we don't agree on

Speaker A

this subject. And the second possibility, which consists of changing the treaties to allow the European Central Bank to lend directly to states , I confirm that this is a position that, well, the first does not depend on the second. Now, Mr. Rogemin, since

Speaker A

I have given my proposals and so on, I understood, Mr. Breton, that you were not convinced on this subject. You have every right not to be, but on the other hand, I still haven't understood what you are proposing. Do you think we are

Speaker A

going to go and repay the debt, do you think we are going to repay the debt?

Speaker A

That is clear, that is clear and that is certain, but but but over time, of course, but over time , but the problem, once again, is not to say that we are going to do it in a year, the problem is to have a

Speaker A

trajectory, yes, You know, in economics, forgive me for saying it, but what counts is the trajectories, the trajectories well between now and 2040, 2050, but very gradually, returning to 120%of GDP by 2040, sir. But how did the Greeks do it

Speaker A

? How did the Italians do it? How did the Portuguese do it? Sorry, sorry, sorry, the Italians, sorry, the Portuguese, sorry, the Spaniards, sorry . It worked so well, your solution! You took 25%of GDP away from them. It

Speaker A

wasn't me, it was Mr. Pigas, let's not mix everything up, sir. It was Mr.

Speaker A

Pigas who did it. And I am talking about Portugal, but have you seen Portugal, but 20 20 points of, but you know you know why it gets repaid mechanically? Because precisely we have inflation and then we can lower it by

Speaker A

one point a year and that is precisely the new treaties. You say, you there is something that always interests me. You say, we are for disobeying, a bit like, you know, we are we are the bad boys.

Speaker A

Oh no, not at all. But but if you say we are we are for European disobedience , I heard, you said, you said very often: "We are for European disobedience, not just in Europe, because it is contrary to sovereignty. people," and well, how

Speaker A

do we go about disobeying? When we have to disobey, what does it mean, to disobey? Well, excuse me, but France is a country, France is a country that has its word, sir. France is a country that has a word that is respected. So to

Speaker A

disobey, does that mean not keeping, does that mean not keeping your commitments, is that it? So you...but how do we disobey? No, no, but we disobey and we disobey in relation to the treaties, we disobey in relation to

Speaker A

the commitments that are ours. It is true that we do not disobey today in relation to the treaties. That is clear. It's clear that we respect, it's clear Mr. Breton, that we respect the 3 %rule. That's clear. Thank you for

Speaker A

saying that. I am with you. Germans respect the rules on budgets. It's clear that we respect them. Are you prepared to disobey? You are always, Mr. Breton, you are always ready to say we must respect the rules, we must

Speaker A

respect the rules. It makes people suffer. I'm interrupting you, Breton, you just agreed, it's interesting, on one point: that in any case France has not kept its word, and you are also very severe on this subject, European rules haven't been respected by anyone

Speaker A

since 2007. Since then, by chance, a few things have happened, 2007, that hasn't escaped you. Let's stop here for a moment. How far does the danger go? Is the French spendthrift putting the European order in danger? Because that

Speaker A

is an extremely important point. However, currently, the way things have been managed over these years, listen to Bruno Le Maire, he was on our broadcast, he has a bit of an Alcoholics Anonymous position: he himself obviously consumed a lot of

Speaker A

debt. That's quite a way to put it, sir! He's repenting, he's repenting. You have to give him that. He goes much further. He says, watch out, the eurozone, which is an achievement of the European Union and the European

Speaker A

project, is in danger. We are going to hear him. I would like your reactions.

Speaker A

For you, is the eurozone, which was a historic, quite historic, European Union achievement, under threat tonight ?

Speaker A

But do you really think our German partners, whom I know well, are going to enjoy this joke for much longer? So, the reason why we must regain control is first for our sovereignty, our independence, our ability to fund our

Speaker A

schools, our hospitals, our armies. But there is a second reason behind it, which is that at some point, our partners will say, "Well, they are totally irresponsible, we are headed for a crash, there is no question of us

Speaker A

paying for France." Are we at that point? No, no, but wait, the increase in interest rates today is the case everywhere in Europe. Do you agree with that? Why is it higher for us? Let me finish a sentence.

Speaker A

Why is it higher for us? But it depends on the country. Oh really? It depends on the country? I am telling you it's because we don't keep our word. No, but hold on.

Speaker A

Because the risk premium on France. Wait, wait, wait, sir, just let me finish. Otherwise, you're just talking to yourself, explaining what needs to be done, while we continue in this current situation, which, in my opinion , won't improve if we keep going like

Speaker A

this. Just let me finish; I’ll give my point of view, you give yours, and then I promise you, people will decide with all the facts.

Speaker A

Exactly, that is democracy. What I am telling you is that yes, we are in danger. We are in danger if we continue to be locked into dogmas that prevent us from facing, preparing for, and anticipating the future. And, by the

Speaker A

way, we often cite the Germans in public debate, saying, "Oh yes, the Germans, they are serious, fiscal discipline, and so on." The Germans, Mr. Breton, have just decided on a 500- billion-euro investment plan to develop climate infrastructure. Wait, wait. The

Speaker A

Germans have just abandoned their golden rule that they had written into their Constitution because they realized they couldn't respect it precisely because they needed to make massive investments. Wait, the Germans, according to the Bundesbank you mentioned earlier, could have a deficit

Speaker A

between 4 and 5%by 2028. So, I don't mind people saying—because it's common practice to smear France by saying France is the bad student of Europe. The truth is that we are all facing and backed up against the same

Speaker A

wall on the same issue. The fact is that if we don't make massive investments to prepare, for example, for adaptation to climate change, ecological planning, the fight against climate change in 10 or 15 years, well, we might be happy, we might have a

Speaker A

deficit—and I don't even think so because it won't work—but we will have done nothing, we will have fallen behind. And that is, by the way, why the Germans, at one point, reflected and reacted, saying: "Oh dear, we must

Speaker A

prepare for the future quickly because what we've been doing for years and years has caused us to fall significantly behind." So that is the debate I want to have with you, Mr.

Speaker A

Breton. Prepare for the future. Prepare for the future. We must break free from the dogmas that today condemn us— condemn us to lag behind, to be unadapted, and to fail to face the major issues that lie ahead of us.

Speaker A

And you see, you say that with a lot of conviction and I'm sorry to say this, but you, you, you are saying nonsense with a lot of conviction. Why? But I'm saying it, but please, once again, don't take it the wrong way. Don't take

Speaker A

it the wrong way. But don't take it the wrong way, don't take it the wrong way.

Speaker A

You talk about dogma. What is a dogma, Mr. Montpard? What is a dogma? A dogma?

Speaker A

What is a dogma? A dogma is an idea. I don't call that, I don't call that a dogma. I don't call that a dogma. I call the fact that we pooled our currency together. So, you talk about the Germans. First, the

Speaker A

German golden rule. The German golden rule that they implemented in 2009, obviously has escape clauses. They used them for Covid. They effectively implemented them. No, no, they also implemented. They also implemented escape clauses. To be able to have

Speaker A

investments, investments they deem significant and necessary, like defense . So obviously, if we set a golden rule , we will also have those same capabilities. Now you say, you realize the Germans, you realize the Germans are going to invest 500 billion. They

Speaker A

are going to invest 500 billion. Actually, you're right. They are going to, they are even going to invest 836 billion to be more precise between now and 2030. 836 billion, 836 billion including climate spending and military spending. And why can they do it, sir?

Speaker A

Why can they do it? Because they decided they were going to go into debt, because they are at 62% and with that, they will go up to 68%.

Speaker A

There you go. Well, and we will still be at 115. So they can do it because, precisely because they managed their country well. And you know, in Germany, it's not exactly the Third World either . We are not there dying with our

Speaker A

mouths open. Stop it, Mr. Bonpard. So, so, well no, and you say that, well no, but what I mean is, well, I'm just telling you that to say they have managed to handle things fairly correctly. Granted, they didn't spend

Speaker A

enough on defense, and I'm the first to say it, and that's why they want to make up for it. So let me, I suggest, leave aside the dogma. For me, it is absolutely not a dogma. It is simply

Speaker A

the word of France, and the word of France is no longer respected because, precisely, we are no longer meeting our objectives. Every year we say we'll keep them and we don't. Look at why you're coming from Brussels. Look at

Speaker A

why France has such a weakened voice. What Mr. Breton just said is very interesting. You say every year we say we'll keep them and we don't. You are absolutely right. Wait. And that is why we need Breton Mr. Breton look

Speaker A

look at what's happening at the assembly let him finish it's a school playground B let him finish I'm trying let's avoid turning this set.

Speaker A

I agree but listen don't just interrupt an argument it would be simpler and you'll see later we can have a debate that's an informed debate. Well what am I telling you Mr. Breton? It's that from my point of view the economic

Speaker A

logic you defend is driving us into a wall. I'll tell you why later you can say it's nonsense or that it's whatever and so on. Last year at the same time we had the same budget debates. We were

Speaker A

told we need uh budget cut policies. So , we need to go make savings yes we need to go make savings. Here, we had the same debate, pensioners. Are we going to make pensioners contribute and so on? We said, we have to do that

Speaker A

because the deficit is too big. So, we have to do that and next year, at least , we'll start reducing the deficit.

Speaker A

Well, so we did that and this year, is the deficit going to be lower than last year? And why is it not going to drop?

Speaker A

Why is it not going to drop? It's me once again structural reform. No but well. Oh yes but you're continue. No but have the debate by yourself, no problem at all. Go ahead. Go ahead. But everyone knows your arguments. You

Speaker A

never stop saying them at the assembly. So we know them by heart but say them here tonight it's interesting. I No not at all not at all. But we know where that leads us. It leads us into a

Speaker A

wall. Where are the structural reforms for we'll talk about them but finish first Manuel.

Speaker A

There accept that we can have a say. Let him finish. That's what I believe. And besides, it's not just what I'm saying. For example, the International Monetary Fund that you usually like says the problem with austerity policies is that

Speaker A

it doesn't work to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. Why austerity why? Why? Because when you are in a country where 50%of the growth is driven by popular consumption, when you have an economic policy that reduces purchasing power and compresses

Speaker A

economic activity, well, what happens the following year? There is less tax revenue, there is less popular consumption, so there is less growth, so we are in a recession. That quarter, there was less tax revenue and thus more deficit. How many companies closed

Speaker A

this year? Too many. I thought the policy would—tens of thousands. How many? 700? 70,000 last year, it was 58,000 the year before. It’s not me in power; it’s companies that create value, not me, sir.

Speaker A

Well, maybe not you, but these are the economic policies in place. We were sold Mr. Macron's supply-side policy, trickle-down theory that would create economic activity, and we haven't seen a dime of it. So that’s my point of view, and then I’ll let you respond.

Speaker A

My point of view is that if we continue with the same old recipes, we will get the same result, which is an increase in the deficit. What we must do—Very little. My point of view, my point of view is that by continuing, by

Speaker A

continuing with this discourse—which, again, I respect, it is yours. But while I respect it, of course— it’s democracy, I respect it—it is yours. But with this point of view, we shouldn't be surprised that we're at a 4.2%interest rate, that this year we

Speaker A

have 78 billion, 78 billion, 78 billion to pay, and that by 2029 we will be at 110 billion in the state budget. I would like to remind you that the state budget is 380 billion. So 110 billion, precisely because—it's my point of

Speaker A

view, I accept that you...I accept that you...—because we have precisely this type...because we have precisely this type of discourse, and that precisely the risk premium...you know, with every word, the risk premium increases.

Speaker A

That's just how it is. Manuel Bompard, I would like us to look at a number of solutions, particularly what you have proposed regarding inheritance. We're going to talk about several interesting chapters to open tonight: average wealth, great wealth,

Speaker A

and retirees too, since a number of commentators, quite rightly, believe the boomer generation—to put it simply—should make an effort as well.

Speaker A

But let's start with those who have wealth. I believe it was Ms. Panot who articulated this proposal for heirs, or rather, people with an inheritance of over 12 million. Once again, if you would like to clarify your proposal. No

Speaker A

, but our proposal is, it is very simple: it is to, it is to take action.

Speaker A

Moreover, there are a number of economic studies, including from the Council of Economic Analysis, for example, that say we have a problem today with inheritance tax, that it isn't sufficiently progressive. And so, the proposal is to change inheritance

Speaker A

tax so that it is more progressive and that, in particular, high net worth and very high net worth individuals contribute much more than they do today . Emmanuel Bonpar: "Journalists, as you know, tend to simplify everything and often ran headlines like: 'Above 12

Speaker A

million, I'm taking it all.'" Is that what it is? That's the top bracket of the...But it's a progressive tax with brackets. And yes, the idea is that when you have 12 million...Now, why did we choose this figure of 12 million?

Speaker A

Because, in fact, it is 100 times the average net worth. The average net worth that is passed on at the time of inheritance. Yes. We believe that when you have 100 times the average net worth, you shouldn't have more. No, but

Speaker A

the problem, well, first I hear that there is an issue of equity, which is inherent to our country, after all. It is indeed part of who we are. Uh, now the question, now, now the question isn't about how to tax more. The

Speaker A

question is how to tax so that it brings in more for France. What interests me is what brings in the most for France. I'll give you an example, but I would really just like you to let me finish, then I won't interrupt you.

Speaker A

You may have noticed. Oh yes, well, anyway, that's fine. I, I , I, I contact since 1983, when we introduced the wealth tax, it's been a political choice. There are 19,645 families who have left France. We have the exact

Speaker A

figures. They left with 100 billion in taxable bases and 200 billion in capital. H These are the numbers. This is what has happened since 1983. So now, that means that in one generation, we've let 200 billion in capital leave. I just want

Speaker A

to finish. I just want to say that if we had kept them uh 200 billion in capital plus 100 billion in taxable bases, that brings in roughly between 5 and 10 billion per year. And that's really not counting

Speaker A

all the activity it generates and so on , just in taxes in France. There it is.

Speaker A

So, if you will, the point is that, of course, some remain. But if we do the same thing, while Ms. Meloni welcomes 3,000 households every year who feel that Meloni’s proposals—no inheritance tax, a direct tax that you pay once and for all and then no more

Speaker A

taxes—well yes, it's true that in Milan, you know what... or people are starting to speak quite a bit of French, and do you think that's pleasant? Yes, yes. answer it's up to France.

Speaker A

Look at Mr. Breton, he's right. They all left, by the way, when we all by the way, when we abolished the wealth tax, they all came back. No.

Speaker A

Oh no, no, no, not at all. Oh, then why are there 850? Because they had left for that, apparently.

Speaker A

It's once you settle in. But that's the problem because what you're saying is false, because migration, unfortunately because what you're saying is false, because the studies from the Council of Economic Analysis—I have the figures myself.

Speaker A

Yeah, but you might have figures, but it's 30%of the people who were subject to the wealth tax, and those are the official figures from the Council of Economic Analysis, RCH at Matignon, so you can say it's Manuel Bompard who—

Speaker A

not 0.1%of taxpayers—to say there isn't such a flight. But not at all, and besides, besides Mr. Macron told us, "Okay, we're going to stop, we're going to abolish the wealth tax, and they will come back." And they didn't come back. I'll even

Speaker A

tell you, Mr. Breton, this should interest you. The same Council of Economic Analysis says that the richest 1%leave for abroad half as often as the rest of the population. So if we were a fiscal hell for billionaires and the

Speaker A

richest, well frankly, we wouldn't have those numbers. I have to—we also have to make a living, there's a commercial break coming up, and after that You're already living very well.

Speaker A

Oh, you're, you're flattering. We have a good audience, above all. There we go . Thank you, and I will complete my reasoning.

Speaker A

You will complete everything. We'll be back in just a moment on this core subject, that is to say, does taxation risk driving away a certain number of wealthy individuals??

Speaker A

I haven't given my proposals yet, don't worry, both of you will speak, including for the much larger fortunes, but also, it was François Hollande who talked about what it means to be rich in France. He said 4,500 net, he

Speaker A

increased the figure, 4,500 net and others are concerned too. See you in a moment.

Speaker A

the debate. Thierry Breton, thank you Thierry Breton, Manuel Bompard, thank you Manuel Bompard, on France, on the French economy in the difficult times that France's finances are going through. How to fix France's accounts?

Speaker A

Uh, should we make the wealthy pay, and from what level? We were mentioning inheritances above 12 million. There was, Manuel Bompard, Mrs. Aubry's comment about billionaires being compared to pests. She explained it, you explained it. But beyond these

Speaker A

words, what is the contribution you hope for, the remedy you hope for through taxing this category?

Speaker A

Well, generally speaking, you know, we talked in the first part of our debate about the problem of deficits, and often it is presented in public debate as being an explosion of state spending . Well, the truth is that since—and

Speaker A

the figures show it—since Emmanuel Macron came to power, if the revenue level as a proportion of GDP had remained at the same level as when he took office, today we would have less than a 3%deficit. Why? Because there

Speaker A

has been 60 billion euros less in revenue for the state, essentially due to gifts given to the wealthiest and. A report from the Institute of Public Policies stated that these policies benefited the richest 5%eighty times more than the poorest 5%. That is why,

Speaker A

sorry, I'll stop there. But earlier, I was laughing a little when I was told, "Yes, anyway, if you impose such and such a tax, they will leave, so they won't pay it tomorrow." No, but anyway, it's not that they will

Speaker A

leave, it's not a threat, you know. Unfortunately, uh, look, this discussion isn't just happening here, uh, look no further than Sweden. Do you know Spotify?

Speaker A

Spotify, all young people know it, right? Well, he is a, he is a wonderful entrepreneur. He he created that from nothing.

Speaker A

He was he was he was a geek. He built it all by himself and his company is now listed and it's worth a lot, because we're talking about money that is virtual money, it's shares. So he has he has about 10 billion worth. Well

Speaker A

, and and indeed, first, in Sweden there are no longer any inheritance taxes, and secondly, they now want to bring back a fairly harsh wealth tax.

Speaker A

What did he say? Well, he said, "I need to have an ecosystem that is favorable to me, so I will leave." Those aren't threats. What I want to say is, and I'm going to tell you, you'll see, I don't

Speaker A

want to shock you, Mr. Montpar, okay? Go ahead. No, but I'll tell you, we need billionaires.

Speaker A

And do you know why I say that? No. Because in today's world, when we say we are a billionaire, most of the time it's that we are paper billionaires, that is to say paper, I mean, in shares . And at heart, when you look at it,

Speaker A

I'm going to give you a figure that actually surprised me a lot myself. I actually, I I I worked on it in preparation for the discussion we were going to have.

Speaker A

Go ahead. I discovered that in Europe, out of the top 25 European market capitalizations, uh, 15 are capitalizations that come from people we call billionaires because they created their company and are still significant shareholders, they and their family. I then looked

Speaker A

globally, uh, hold on, out of the top 30 market capitalizations, uh, including Chinese, including American, including European. Uh, well, it's, it's 27. That means that there is a correlation between very large, highly valued companies and those who created them. So, of

Speaker A

course, people will say, "But they possess this capital, it's extraordinary, it's terrible.""We must hunt them down," as Ms. Panot says, since Ms. Panot calls them pests.

Speaker A

Well, it wasn't Ms. Panot, it was Ms. Aubry, and she didn't say that, she said they were harmful. "Harmful" in the dictionary means it's meant to be hunted down because it's something that causes harm, but hey, if you want, we

Speaker A

can play with definitions. It's harmful, it causes harm, so we're going to eliminate it. That was how, well, anyway, let's not go into those details. Let's not go into those harmful details. Well, for me, billionaires are But in the world we're in, take the

Speaker A

company, the world's top market cap, it's Nvidia. You know it well because it's your field. Nvidia is worth 5 trillion euros. It’s a man, it’s a man who is American, who was of Taiwanese origin, and who is today...

Speaker A

Well, I would love it. I would love for him to come and settle in France.

Speaker A

Agreed. But he won't come. Response to that. But first, the first thing to say is that while there are billionaires who may have paper fortunes, France reached a historic record of poverty this year, something we hadn't seen since the 70s.

Speaker A

And so the question being asked— pardon me, it's nothing exceptional or extraordinary—is the question of, I agree with you on that. No, I, well, I agree with you. I agree with you. But let me, yes, for once. The question

Speaker A

posed to us is how we ensure that we share wealth more, and so those people you're talking about—because forgive me, but maybe they made a fortune, but they made a fortune because they have employees who work. They made a fortune

Speaker A

because they had access to public services, to infrastructure, and all that was still paid for by the public authority based on everyone's contributions. So at some point, the question posed to us is, do we find that moral? I personally recognize, I

Speaker A

claim, that I find it immoral today to be a billionaire in a country where you have, uh, 10 million poor people.

Speaker A

People who, precisely, to clarify your, when you say it's immoral, what exactly is the goal you're pursuing? But the goal I'm pursuing is that we ensure we share the wealth. And for that, we have tools at our disposal. And taxation,

Speaker A

taxation is not meant to punish, that's not the point. It's not there to drive people away, contrary to what you say.

Speaker A

It's there to ensure that we share, and so we share. So yes, when someone has income or assets 100 times greater than the average, well, they share, and when someone earns 100,000 times more income than another person, perhaps they are

Speaker A

very skilled and very talented. But forgive me, from my point of view, there is nothing that justifies you earning 1,000 times more than someone else, because the other person also works and their work and contribution to society are also important. That's

Speaker A

all, quite simply. can say a few words. Go ahead. I let you speak at length before Thank you. But thank you. So I just want to tell you that, one, I share the ambition of having less poverty, because you are right, since 2016,

Speaker A

poverty, especially for single-parent families and particularly for single mothers, has been accelerating, and it is totally intolerable. Secondly, for our young people, because we don't talk about the young, but I think about the youth like every single day for the

Speaker A

young, well, we must give them an ambition, a vision, and today, sorry, but we aren't giving it to them. And third element, if we are lucky enough to have successes, because you say: " There you go, you always make a

Speaker A

distinction, so we say harmful." But no , we didn't want to say that. But if you use those words, I'm going to tell you one thing, sir, my...let me speak for a second! The words, I'm going to tell you one thing.

Speaker A

very sincerely challenge very sincerely, I think you have a stature that is yours and that I respect, but words are important and words can kill.

Speaker A

and I am sorry to tell you I am not exaggerating when one uses words, and you are a bit accustomed to it, not you, but among your people, there are many who are accustomed to that. I am not

Speaker A

questioning your intentions, and what I mean is that when we have—and you say , well, he earns. No, he doesn't earn.

Speaker A

We created, take Mistral, Mistral just did it again, it is going to do another capital increase of 3 billion. He didn't earn it. We are trying to create precisely a dynamic by which we will say on the surface, "Yes, he's a

Speaker A

billionaire, so we're going to want to tax him, he hasn't made a single penny, so he's going to have to sell his shares." I am ready. No, but wait, I will finish if you allow me. I am ready

Speaker A

, I am ready to discuss this issue with everyone, and you will always find me ready to talk, because I share your sentiment that everyone must contribute their fair share, but we must understand the mechanisms, because among these mechanisms, some can be

Speaker A

mechanisms of exclusion, and I say this because, because that is the moment for an answer. Mr. Breton, there too, forgive me, I, I won't, you take an example, you take a company, well, Mistral for instance, We need it, it's artificial

Speaker A

intelligence for viewers, if you will, but in this case, the truth, as you know as well as I do, is that today there are precisely mechanisms for tax evasion and exclusion which mean that today in France you have 13,000

Speaker A

millionaires who don't pay 1 euro of income tax, and that you have billionaires today who, in proportion to their income, pay less tax than the middle classes or the upper-middle classes in France. And wait, why? Why?

Speaker A

Because they precisely use a mechanism that you know as well as I do. They have holdings, and instead of taking the income, they invest it, they stash it away a bit like a piggy bank, and then they manage to use the assets.

Speaker A

It's not, it's not fair to say that, because that's not the mechanism. The tax has already been paid. There is no tax as long as they don't receive it, but we won't go into these details because I know you use them, but I

Speaker A

would really like us to, you have asked me You want billionaires in France, the reflection I understand that you are passionate about the debate, but I'm going to tell you something. For example, for example, for example, you know that on this issue of holdings,

Speaker A

today, you have people in France who pay 0 euros in taxes because they place everything in holdings. If they went to the United States, they would pay a billion in New York because they have precisely decided to prevent that by

Speaker A

taxing the holdings. What I mean by that, what I mean to tell you, Mr.

Speaker A

Breton, we say that, shortcut, unfortunately, I don't want to defend anyone, but you cannot agree, regardless, in my opinion, from my point of view, you cannot agree with the idea that a person who is among the billionaires of

Speaker A

this country pays less or proportionally less tax than the middle classes. You can't agree, you hear me?

Speaker A

I am not defending it, I am asking you, I am asking you—No, not at all, not at all, the "Duman" tax, the tax...

Speaker A

Because the Duman tax is precisely an exclusion tax, and it doesn't bring in anything at all; it's to prevent...

Speaker A

It brings in nothing, it's—it's an exclusion tax. But do you at least share with me—could we agree? Do you want—do you wish to have more billionaires in France?

Speaker A

Answer my— No, well there you go, we have a difference. I don't wish for that, Mr.

Speaker A

Breton, I wish to have fewer poor people. Yes, but so do I. No, but that doesn't mean it's— To have fewer poor people, well, at some point, it's simple. When there are more billionaires, it's because they are accumulating the wealth that is no

Speaker A

longer available for others at the moment. I think that, you see, that is a difference. I think that precisely for France, for Europe, when I say that —when I say that the world, because we aren't on planet Mars—in the

Speaker A

companies that create wealth, the wealth doesn't just appear, everything ...Let's stop, let's stop interrupting each other, and I suggest we put aside, for a moment, the great wealth and great poverty. Let's talk about a subject that will concern a huge number

Speaker A

of people, which is retirees, since the government is clearly looking in that direction; it has considered de-indexing the pensions of those in the higher bracket of retirees. Look at these very interesting and very amusing accounts that exist on Twitter. I

Speaker A

recommend them, really! It's Bernard and Chantal, who embody the boomers, the retirees who have...it's a humorous account, you know, boomers who benefited from the "Trente Glorieuses," who had relatively comfortable pensions , but who also worked for it, and this

Speaker A

account makes a little fun of them. Anyway, it's very amusing, tongue-in-cheek. Bernard and Chantal for example, there you go, it's artificial intelligence; they say " Heatwave in Paris.""Our granddaughter says she's suffocating under the roof in her 9-square-meter apartment.""We

Speaker A

would have offered her our apartment in Odéon, but it's rented out all summer, 12,000 euros a week, to some adorable Americans." There are all these little scenarios to say, "Look, this generation benefited," which is true, they worked hard, and today the

Speaker A

government is clearly tempted to de-index their pensions. Meaning, telling them, "Sorry, we're going to have to lower, to revise downward what we were supposed to owe you." Your reactions to this? Well, I find it deplorable, actually, to use a specific

Speaker A

situation to, in a way, target a particular age group. So, I want to remind everyone that the average pension in France today is € 1,500 net, and that 90%of retirees earn roughly less than € 2,500 net.

Speaker A

Therefore, trying to make people believe that the few examples you're using are somehow characteristic of this entire age group seems absolutely on the merits. Mr. Lescure mentioned, sorry, I just want to clarify, he suggested, I believe, pensions of €

Speaker A

3,000, while others are suggesting a threshold of € 2,000. This means that retirees—and there are quite a lot of them—who earn, for example, more than € 2,000, would see their pensions limited. Remin, on the substance, Mr.

Speaker A

Remin, to be very clear, why target retirees? I mean, I am very consistent on this subject. I say that those who have higher incomes in France must, in my view, contribute more, whether they are retired or not, quite simply. So,

Speaker A

the tool for wealth redistribution isn't the under-indexing of pension benefits, it's income tax, for example.

Speaker A

So let's work on that, but let's not target retirees in particular. I think you have already heard my answer. It is effectively, for once, the same. I believe that, indeed, at € 1,546, which is actually the average retirement, well, you're not rich.

Speaker A

Especially since the grandfather we see there generally, like many grandfathers , also helps their grandchildren.

Speaker A

We must never forget that. There is also this tie, which is now an intergenerational bond that is important.

Speaker A

The social contract that has united the nation since 1945 is based on solidarity. It is a contract that, it's not a commercial contract; it's a contract that unites us with the nation . And that's it, that's the pay-as-you-go pension system. And so

Speaker A

that results in an average of € 1,546 for everyone who retires. And obviously , there is indexation, because we need to be able to plan for the future. So, if we now consider that € 3,000 for a household—that is, excuse me, a man

Speaker A

and a woman who have worked their whole lives and who each have almost the minimum wage, since it's about the minimum wage as a pension—and we consider them rich. That is a political choice. Well, in that case, there is an

Speaker A

instrument called taxes. So taxes are meant to regulate, but the word of the State—and I'm coming back to what I was saying earlier, Mr. Bompard—for me, in these difficult times, the word of the State must be sacred. It must be

Speaker A

sacred in relation to the commitments we make to our fellow citizens and to ourselves. It must be sacred in relation to those who lend us money. It must be sacred in relation to the commitments we make to our partners.

Speaker A

France's word today cannot be sold off. And I note here that you agree on this point regarding pensioners. You just spoke about taxes. Let's open that chapter. Listen to François Hollande, he was our guest at the "Rencontres de

Speaker A

Sens." A question for François Hollande, he had spoken about wealth beyond € 4,000. He is clarifying his thoughts; he has increased the figures a little. Everything is rising, and he now says € 4,500 net. Well, one is considered rich. And I will ask you the

Speaker A

question: in France, should everyone above that level expect tax hikes? Um, you made headlines by saying one is rich above € 4,000.

Speaker A

That was 20 years ago, right? So it must have gone up since then. And how much now? Well, when you look at the figures, they are always the same. If you look at the 10%most affluent in France, it's about €

Speaker A

4,500 to € 5,000 net. Are you in agreement on the words first? Words have meaning, you know. When François Hollande says, "Come on, above € 4,500 net per month, you are rich." Well, words...there are the very rich, the very, very rich, and the ultra-rich

Speaker A

. So, it doesn't mean much. He is right about the statistics he provides, sorry . So there you go. But for me, it makes no sense. It makes no sense. The question is effectively knowing whether we need to raise taxes

Speaker A

or not. I say no. I say there are other solutions because, once again, we are currently the country with the highest mandatory tax rate of all OECD countries. So, there you have it, we are also in this global competition.

Speaker A

There are plenty of things to be done. The welfare state, I just mentioned it, to me, it is sacred in its four missions. That's € 936 billion that we spend together. We must obviously continue to preserve the entirety of

Speaker A

those missions. Look, but instead of looking at taxes, taxes are 83 billion. Here I am talking about 938 billion.

Speaker A

Respond to that. It’s taxes, it’s 85 billion. So there you go. So, so what we need to work on, the bulk of it , is obviously the welfare state while preserving its functions. That is my feeling.

Speaker A

Increase taxes or not? Not reacting to that part. I am answering. Increase taxes. But it’s very simple. Increasing taxes in itself means nothing. The question is, are you increasing them for this or that category of the population? So our position is clear.

Speaker A

We are proposing a reform of income tax to make it more progressive by adding income tax brackets. It is a reform we have estimated that allows for generating additional room for maneuver for the State, leading to 92%of French

Speaker A

people seeing their taxes at the same level or lower, and 8%of French people contributing more, and in particular, obviously, the top 1%and 0.1%wealthiest . To answer your question, a single person earning € 4,000 net per month would have the same level of tax, and

Speaker A

beyond that, they would begin to contribute slightly more. But obviously , it is on the highest categories, the 1%and 0.1%wealthiest, that most of the effort would rest. There you go, and that also allows for lowering taxes for another category of the population that

Speaker A

needs to be able to breathe. That is our proposal. You see, you cannot caricature it by saying "raising taxes" or "lowering taxes"; it increases for some, and it decreases for others.

Speaker A

But that means how much are you increasing the tax burden by? Today it’s 85 billion; how much will it become?

Speaker A

It means it will generate 10 billion euros of additional room for maneuver. 10 billion, there is the on income tax.

Speaker A

The deficit, the deficit we are working on is 157 billion. But I am saying that beyond just income tax.

Speaker A

But that is why I am saying, by the way . I am saying, by the way, there are subjects. That is why I say it again, but I think both of us like mathematics . So, we must have the logic of the

Speaker A

numbers, the real figures for France, which explain why we are where we are today with interest rates; we are not going to redo the debate from before the break.

Speaker A

100 billion euros in business aid, if you want, we remove them. There is no more deficit. So, let's talk about that 100 billion. Out of the 100 billion, there is 80 billion. There is...Yes.

Speaker A

212 billion, which is actually only 111 billion, within which you have 80 billion in tax relief. Well then. Oh, wait, are you keeping those tax cuts or not?

Speaker A

No, I'm in favor of rolling them back. You... You know, you know, you know who that's for?

Speaker A

How many, how many SMEs, how many companies with fewer than 50 employees actually benefit from it? Well, how many? No, I'm asking a question. I'm asking a question, I'll give you the answer for the viewers. 50%, which means 40 billion goes to the little

Speaker A

baker in the Creuse region who needs to keep those exemptions, once again, to keep their apprentice on. That's...hold on, 40 billion. So if you take them away, that's 2 million. That's 2 million jobs...let me answer. Let Manuel Bompard answer. Thierry Breton.

Speaker A

Let Manuel Bompard speak. When looking at a political program, you agree, we look at it in its entirety. So if you want to talk to me about the situation of small and medium-sized businesses, I'm going to tell you about the fact—more fragile,

Speaker A

more fragile—wait, I'm going to tell you about the fact that we will restore regulated electricity rates. You'll see , there are plenty of small and medium-sized businesses that will be very happy. I'm going to tell you about the fact that we will set up a public

Speaker A

banking hub to facilitate access to credit and ensure that they stop—BPI exists too, in the banks. Wait, wait, Mr. Breton, I'm going to tell you about the fact that we will regulate payment deadlines from contractors to subcontractors, because very often the

Speaker A

big ones put the small ones in a very, very difficult situation by delaying payments. So you see, I have plenty, I have plenty of proposals to help small and medium-sized businesses, and I even propose that we make corporate tax

Speaker A

progressive so that the multinationals pay. On the other hand, you are cutting , you are cutting the fact that the little baker in the Creuse won't benefit from his exemption.

Speaker A

Gradually, of course, not overnight, and I'll go one further: 75%of that amount, of the 80 billion, is for companies with fewer than 500, 500 employees. So you see...No, but to tell you, when we say "gift," always...the problem, your semantics once again—

Speaker A

and you are very good, I admire you— but your semantics of "gift to companies," in fact it's for SMEs with few employees. Do you realize what we're talking about? That's not what I was talking about, what am I talking

Speaker A

about? It doesn't matter, France too, France group. The problem, the problem is when you have policies of social contribution relief and the State does not compensate for them. Well, what happens , what is happening? It's that you create an artificial, an absolutely

Speaker A

artificial deficit in social security today. And then you have political leaders who come along and tell you: " Now, we have to cut health spending to ensure we curb chronic diseases, because we have a social security deficit.""But this deficit was created

Speaker A

by these policies." The dialogue I would like to have with you, exactly that one, the dialogue I would like to have with you is this one, because precisely, it is our 983 billion that is our welfare state.

Speaker A

Which functioned when we had, when it was created in 1945, four workers for one retiree? Yes, and for one retiree.

Speaker A

And so we can clearly see, and so we can clearly see, and so we can clearly see, yes, productivity. When you have 44,000 euros per inhabitant, GNP in France, against 54,000 in Germany, what does that mean, there you go,

Speaker A

productivity. By, if you compare 1945 to now, you compare 1945 and productivity as well. So, I'm going to tell you something. he says "We like mathematics and everything." Well, I like mathematics so much that I know that when an employee today produces

Speaker A

four times more wealth than what they produced in 1945, well yes, they can finance four times more support. So you can't just, we had wealth, unfortunately, the wealth, I say we moved past the European, except that the wealth because of that, there you

Speaker A

go, we will talk about it because the wealth of France unfortunately is no longer what it was 10 years ago. Since you are both passionate about mathematics, one of the subjects that will follow, er, will unfortunately be the cultural disaster which is the

Speaker A

collapsing school results.

Topics:France debt crisisManuel BompardThierry BretonEuropean Central Bankdebt freezingEU treatiespublic investmentborrowing rateseconomic debateFrance economy

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries, speaker detection, and unlimited transcriptions.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools