The Prime Minister has just made public the measures that his government plans to submit to Parliament on the occasion of the adoption of the finance law for 2026. The objective is to halt the deterioration of the country's public and social finance situation by proposing savings and increases in household taxes. The concept of a "blank year" covers the freezing of spending and social benefits for one year. But by weighing on household resources, doesn't this risk slowing down consumption, and therefore growth with a rise in unemployment, and causing a "black year"?

The place is still open to discussion since these proposals were unanimously opposed to them. Their wording shows that there are margins. The proposal to abolish two public holidays leaves the door open to a reduction to a single public holiday. But the method is bad. What is criticised in the calendar is their concentration during the spring. Why not bring together in a single day commemorating peace in Europe on May 8 and November 11, for example in October? This would not prevent the organization of ceremonies paying tribute to the combatants of the two wars. 

Another problem of the French calendar is the "bridges" which, without weighing on the remuneration of employees, often disorganize production. Why, as it exists in the United States, not decree that Labor Day will take place on the first Monday of May? This would avoid, when May 1st is a Tuesday or Thursday, creating a four-day shutdown of activity and disrupting the operation of many companies.

But the issue of public holidays is anecdotal compared to the real financial issues. The replacement of the 10% allowance on pensions by a flat-rate tax credit is not unjustified from a social point of view, but the savings made for the general scheme will only contribute marginally to restoring the balance. On the other hand, the de-indexation in 2026 will only increase the surpluses of the supplementary schemes, which will benefit from the contributions of managers whose salaries can be sure will not be frozen. Increasing the contribution ceiling, on the other hand, would both reduce deficits and protect the purchasing power of millions of pensioners.

These subjects, which will be at the heart of the political debate, are however secondary in financial terms. The planned adjustments to income tax are also not likely to lead to a significant reduction in the budget deficit and a slowdown in the increase in public debt. The only measure that is up to the stakes is an increase in VAT. It is not a question of the introduction of a "social VAT" but of an increase for the benefit of the State. To respond to the criticism of the anti-redistributive nature of this tax, the increase could be concentrated on the two highest rates (20% and 10%). The State could thus recover nearly 20 billion euros.

Would this increase affect the purchasing power of households? This is less obvious than we say because because of the acute competition that exists on consumption, it is not certain that companies, and in particular distribution, will fully pass on the increases. In addition, the resulting inflation would then translate into higher wages. Rather, it is the margins of companies and importers that are under pressure. This is why the employers have never supported this proposal and prefer tax increases or cuts in social benefits, which hit households.

The State must put order in the system of tax loopholes or subsidies that has accumulated over the years to encourage economic agents to act in the direction that its leaders deem appropriate. The effectiveness of this technique has never been demonstrated as the windfall effects are so significant. Why grant aid to someone who would have carried out his project anyway? But there is a whole set of pressure groups whose raison d'être with those who mandate them is to protect these mechanisms and create new ones.

The cost for the State is considerable and it has increased even more with all the aid devoted to the energy transition (renovation of housing, renewable energies, electric cars, etc.). A brake must be put on these policies, which primarily benefit foreign suppliers. The question of donations, which sometimes give rise to a tax credit of up to 60%, also deserves to be asked, especially when we observe the abundant cash flow of many beneficiary associations. This personal choice is deeply admirable. But why does it have to result in such a high tax reduction that will result in an additional burden for all taxpayers in order to finance it?

The scope of the savings to be made is therefore vast, but the most important must be made by the State, because it is the State that is at the origin of the deterioration of its financial situation. The priority in a continuous and staggered action over time must focus not on the public services that the French people need crucially, but on the functioning of the administration, first and foremost the ministries, the Parliament and the Elysée as well as the many bodies created over the years to do the work that was not done by those whose mission it was. If we want to convince, we must set an example.

A brake must be put on the real estate expansion in Paris and in the large provincial cities of these institutions. The occupied areas will be reduced and the buildings sold without the need to create a new structure to manage the State's assets. The lifestyle of politicians and their staff will have to be reduced to a reasonable level and communication expenses reduced. If a minister needs a team and external consultants to present his policy, it is because he does not have the qualities required to carry out his duties.

To convince people of the merits of public action, fear must give way to reason. France has set up an overabundant administration whose purpose is to multiply rules and standards. A slimming cure is essential, but it should not be confused with a reduction in the number of staff in essential public services such as education and health. That is why it is essential that the difference be made if this action, which contributes to the reduction of deficits and the reduction of the bureaucratic burdens on economic agents, is accepted.

France does not have a monopoly on concerns. In Germany, a country that is cited as a model for the management of its public finances, the head of Deutsche Bank, the country's largest bank, Christian Sewing, has just declared that demographic decline and the ageing of the population are jeopardising the social protection system and he has invited the government to take measures to deal with this. It is therefore up to the French government, by setting an example by tightening its management and by formulating credible proposals acceptable to the population, to convince Parliament. Otherwise, a new period of political instability will set in, which will have more consequences for the financial markets than the current imbalances that it was supposed to remedy. 2026 will then really be a black year.