Nearly two and a half centuries ago, Adam Smith published the Research on the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. It set out principles that would become the basis for economic thinking about value creation and how to grow it, and the rules to be adopted to achieve these goals. Today, it is wealth creation and not wealth itself, built up over the years, that has become the focus of economic thinking and political debate. Growth, the increase in the wealth produced, has become the objective of governments, which have made it the main tool for improving the living conditions of populations.
On the other hand, the accumulated wealth has become a taboo and those who mentioned it were accused of wanting to seize it and ultimately of ruining the country since this wealth was proof of the success of the policies carried out. Taxation provides a good example of this because it mainly concerns household income and consumption, corporate profits and only marginally wealth.
However, the question is at the heart of the political debate that is shaking France on the occasion of the adoption of its budget for the year 2026 with the caricatural proposal of the economist Gabriel Zucman to introduce a tax on the highest assets that could bring in up to 20 billion euros each year. Since these assets are the symbol of economic success, because they have been the result of it, this proposal was considered by many not only to be excessive but also to be a sign of a dangerous ignorance of economic reality.
The increase in the wealth of the French is undeniable. At the end of each year, INSEE publishes an assessment of household wealth for the previous year. In the year 2000, it was 5,600 billion, in 2013 10,400 billion, in 2019 12,560 billion and finally 14,560 billion in 2023. These figures are presented after deduction of debt, real estate loans or consumer credit. In 25 years, the value of their assets has therefore been multiplied by 2.6. Real estate tripled and financial assets more than doubled.
This is partly due to strong household savings, which have accelerated in recent years. During the first half of 2025, the financial savings rate of households reached 9.8% of gross disposable income, a record level and unparalleled in Europe, especially if we know that France has a pay-as-you-go pension system while in Germany it is capitalization that is in place and that the contributions of working people are included in the calculation of their savings rate.
The recent surge in past trends is generally interpreted as a consequence of concerns about the international situation and political instability. But that doesn't explain everything. The increase in inequalities, with the sharp increase in the number of beneficiaries of salaries above €100,000 per year, for example, contributes to this. When the president of Stellantis leaves office with 35 million euros, we know that he will not spend it the next day and his case is not isolated.
This enrichment therefore occurred in a context of increasing inequality and a rise in the poverty rate in the country. The increase in purchasing power is much smaller than the change in the value of assets over this period. A kind of divorce has occurred between those who have assets that are constantly increasing in value and those who live solely from their work or from social assistance, the amounts of which are stagnating.
The debate that should take place on the subject of the taxation of assets is to know whether the State contributes to the development of these assets and if so in what way. If this is the case, it is not illegitimate to introduce a certain proportionality in the levies according to the value of assets. Public action in this area is indisputable.
The State's first contribution concerns security, both external and internal. The purpose of spending on National Defence is not only to protect citizens but also their property. The same applies to internal security, from fire protection to theft and assault. Here again, the value of the property is very unequal depending on one's personal situation. Finally, there is the financial security offered by a strong currency and low inflation. This is in stark contrast to the 1970s, when double-digit inflation had the effect of a tax levied on holders of Caisse d'Epargne savings accounts.
The second contribution of the State is more visible. These are the direct consequences of the investments it makes or supports on the value of assets. The most spectacular example is given by the development of high-speed lines. Any property located in a city served by or in the immediate vicinity immediately increases in value and therefore swells the wealth of its owner.
Expansionary monetary policies with low interest rates have facilitated the acquisition of real estate, which, in the face of rising demand, have seen their prices rise, which has benefited households that already own property. The supply-side policy, based on the reduction of the charges weighing on companies, has mechanically increased their profits and the value of their shares when these companies were listed. How else can we explain that despite the very weak growth of the French economy, the CAC 40 index has just reached its record level at the end of October?
Finally, threats to the environment with climate change and extreme weather events require costly investments largely financed by public funds. However, the first victims of these events would be the owners of these properties, the value of which the State thus helps to protect. The same applies to insurance. To compensate in the event of a claim, if these become more serious and more frequent, the rates will have to increase. Any policy that aims to combat these disruptions will therefore help to curb increases in the charges paid by policyholders.
These policies have largely contributed to the worsening of France's budget deficit and to the increase in its debt. The government's responsibility today is to begin a process of restoring the public accounts. The year-on-year reduction of the operating expenses of the State and public institutions is essential, but it will necessarily be a slow process, alongside the reforms of social protection systems. But this will not be enough and tax increases are inevitable.
It is therefore not unfair that those who have benefited the most from the deterioration in public finances should be called upon to participate in its recovery. The protection of national wealth is a priority for the State. Those who benefit from this protection are those who hold it. It is therefore logical that they contribute to this expenditure according to the value of their assets, without the measures being caricatured and appearing as the sanction of successes of which the whole country should be proud.
The left has not been able to propose a rational explanation for the taxation of assets and has limited itself to a punitive justification. But such a change in taxation is inevitable if we want to reduce tax inequalities and reduce public deficits at the same time.