- Reclaim the referendum: The left should answer the nationalist right’s anti-immigration referendums with one of its own — on a wealth tax — shifting the democratic contest from identity to equality.
- A tax revived from 1945: The proposed 2027 solidarity tax echoes the post-war ISN, combining a one-off 50 per cent levy on wealth gains above €100 million since 2017 with a permanent annual tax of 5 to 10 per cent on assets over €100 million.
- €800 billion in strategic capital: The plan would raise roughly €800 billion — about 30 per cent of GDP — paid in shares into a sovereign fund to steer investment toward energy, education, research and healthcare.
- Exile made pointless: Tying liability to years of residence would leave a long-standing resident who departs still owing almost the entire bill, stripping tax flight of its appeal.
- The legal objection fails: No constitutional barrier exists — Article 11 lets a newly elected president call the referendum, Article 34 reserves taxation to law, and the 1945 precedent proves it has been done.
France is set to make decisive political choices in the coming year. On one side stands a nationalist right wing on the rise, increasingly aligned with business interests, aiming to take power by stigmatizing immigration and foreigners. In its bag of tricks: anti-immigrant referendums promising to « give the people their voice back. » Faced with this, the left dithers, hesitates, is divided and stammers. To clarify its own stance and unite its ranks, the left must propose a referendum to adopt a national solidarity tax targeting billionaires and centimillionaires. Given the current state of debate and the stakes involved, this is the best way to resolve the issue. The right wants to give the people more control over matters of identity and immigration. The left should do the same, but focus on solidarity and justice. In doing so, it would demonstrate that the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Rassemblement National is a smokescreen meant to deflect social anger and protect the wealthy.
Such a proposal would clarify the choices at stake and put the democratic question at the heart of the presidential election. No referendum has been held in France since 2005 (something unseen since 1945). The Yellow Vest movement ought to have been an opportunity to organize a genuine citizens’ referendum. Nothing was done. It is now time to trust citizens once again and give them a say on an issue that has been central to France since the 1789 Revolution: equality and the end of privilege.
This body of law, submitted to a referendum, could be modeled on the national solidarity tax (ISN) established by the ordinance of August 15, 1945. The ISN had two main components: a tax on the largest fortunes held in 1945, with rates rising up to 20% for the wealthiest; and an exceptional levy on increases in wealth between 1938 and 1945, with rates reaching 100% for the most substantial gains.
The 2027 version of the ISN, which the left could propose for adoption by referendum, could also comprise two components: first, a one-off tax of 50% on gains exceeding €100 million between 2017 and 2027; and second, a permanent annual tax of 5% on assets over €100 million and 10% above €1 billion. The projected revenue would be around €800 billion (€400 billion from the exceptional component and €400 billion over ten years from the permanent tax), equivalent to roughly 30% of GDP.
This remains modest compared to Germany’s Lastenausgleich of 1952, an extraordinary tax on large fortunes whose revenue amounted to 60% of German GDP at the time, when private wealth was far less significant than in France today (250% of GDP then, versus over 500% now). To prevent tax avoidance, the ISN would be due in proportion to the number of years of residency in France, so tax exile would cost the state very little (a taxpayer leaving France after 60 years would still pay 60/61 of the resident’s tax in the first year, 60/62 in the second, and so on).
These €800 billion would be paid by billionaires and centimillionaires in the form of equities and shares and placed in a sovereign fund, allowing public authorities to redirect investment in line with the country’s strategic priorities, particularly energy. Based on these new assets, France could launch an exceptional €400 billion bond to fund an ambitious investment and recruitment plan in education, research and healthcare.
This referendum would open up a new social contract, a different development model that is more sovereign; one that is fairer and more sustainable (see the Global Justice Report: A Plan for Equality & Prosperity within Planetary Boundaries). It would contrast sharply with the model championed by billionaires and technonationalists, whose only agenda is to fill the world with data centers and accumulate ever greater wealth, with no regard for social or environmental concerns.
Some will argue that such a national solidarity tax would be legally impossible or unconstitutional. This argument is historically unfounded since a similar tax was applied in France in 1945 and in many other European countries and Japan. These countries implemented such taxes to address the challenges of the postwar era, a period marked by high debt and significant public investment needs. This situation is similar to what we are experiencing today. No constitutional change since then has prohibited or limited the progressive taxation of wealth. Moreover, Article 11 of the French Constitution allows the president to submit to voters any bill relating to « the economic or social policy of the nation » (without prior parliamentary approval). Article 34 specifies that the setting of tax rates and bases of all kinds is a matter for the law, and no one else. If an elected president submits such a referendum under Article 11 upon taking office, it would be impossible to oppose it on democratic grounds.
Of course, one may oppose the ISN on political grounds by arguing that today’s vast wealth inequalities are essential to meet future challenges or that such a tax is desirable in principle but easily circumvented in practice. These arguments are not persuasive in light of historical data, but the debate itself is legitimate. What is certain is that we must stop hiding behind pseudo-legal arguments and accept that this discussion belongs in the political, historical, social and economic arena. This is the democratic debate to which voters are entitled.
