By opposing the 2% minimum wealth tax on the 1,800 French people whose net worth exceeds €100 million, after the measure was adopted by France’s Assemblée nationale (lower house of Parliament), the upper house, the Sénat, has shown just how disconnected it is from the issues of our time. This is nothing new. Between 1896 and 1914, the Sénat blocked income tax measures, with arguments as fallacious as those used today. However, let’s reassure ourselves: The funding needs for social and climate challenges, as well as the public debt, are so significant that this opposition will not hold out long when faced with the current economic, political, and environmental realities, which will very soon require far more radical redistributive measures.

Let’s first look at the arguments put forward by the Sénat and President Emmanuel Macron’s supporters. Is this a confiscatory tax? That idea makes little sense. According to Challenges magazine, which is hardly a bastion of left-wing thought, France’s 500 highest fortunes rose from €200 billion to €1.2 trillion between 2010 and 2025 – a 500% increase. With a 2% annual wealth tax, it would take a century to make them go back to their 2010 level. That’s assuming they receive no income in the meantime, which would make little sense, given that these fortunes have grown by 7% to 8% per year over the past 15 years.

Would there be tax exiles? The bill adopted by the Assemblée Nationale already provides for an initial mechanism to address this: Billionaires would continue to be subject to the minimum wealth tax for five years after leaving the country, limiting the appeal of a tax exile. We must go further: If one builds a fortune while relying on the country’s infrastructure, education, and health systems, there is no reason that one should so readily escape the collective obligations that fund these systems. For example, we could decide to apply the tax on the basis of the number of years spent in France. A taxpayer who has lived in Switzerland for one year after spending 50 years in France would continue to pay 50/51sts of tax owed by a French citizen. Those who refuse to pay would be breaking the law, and would face the corresponding penalties (asset seizure, arrest at airports), just like anyone else.

What about the risk of seeing our flagship national companies bought out by foreigners? Once again, this argument does not hold water. France is brimming with savings. If some billionaires cannot pay the 2% tax in cash, they could absolutely pay it in shares, which the state could then sell as it sees fit – for example, to benefit interested employees. This would also be an opportunity to grant French employees the company board voting rights that have applied in Germany or Sweden since the postwar period (in which workers select between one-third and half of all seats on supervisory boards, regardless of capital ownership). These have delivered excellent results in both countries (the most productive ones in the world, per hour worked). Wealth is collective: It depends on the involvement of thousands of employees, not a handful of individual geniuses.

Would the minimum wealth tax be unconstitutional? This legal argument comes back around to contradict itself. In reality, it is the fact that the richest individuals escape the common legal taxes that undermines the constitutional principle of equality before taxes, and should have been refused long ago. Ultimately, like all major tax debates since 1789, this is, above all, a political and democratic debate. It must be approached with solid arguments, not by hiding behind pseudo-legal justifications designed to perpetuate blatant injustice.

What is striking is that opponents of the minimum wealth tax totally lack historical perspective. The funding needs linked to decarbonization are enormous, as are those for the health and education systems, all together with the public debt we all know about. It is unrealistic to imagine that the working class and the middle class will calmly accept additional taxes or cuts to public spending. So long as the wealthiest individuals pay taxes that are trivial relative to their net worth, no one will accept the slightest sacrifice. Just as in the decades that came before 1789, the headlong rush into public debt will continue as long as those in power refuse the necessary fiscal revolution.

History also teaches us that a debt of this magnitude cannot be escaped with ordinary measures. During the Revolution, the abolition of the nobility’s tax privileges (the equivalent to the 2% minimum wealth tax) was followed by an even more radical measure: the public appropriation and auctioning off of Church property, which was then about one year of national income, roughly equal to the amount of public debt at the time. The billionaires of 2025 are the equivalent of the Church’s assets in 1789: Their fortunes will have to be made to contribute, to redistribute the wealth to employees and reduce the debt. The €1 trillion increase that the 500 largest fortunes have benefited from since 2010 will eventually have to be taxed at 30%, 40%, 50% or more, just like ordinary taxpayers. Ultimately, multimillionaires, and not just centimillionaires, will have to contribute. This is what was done in postwar Germany with the Lastenausgleich (« burden sharing ») system, which generated the equivalent of 60% of Germany’s GDP in 1952. This is the only way to reduce a public debt of such magnitude, without inflation and without sacrificing future investments.

In 1914, the Sénat finally accepted the income tax, albeit reluctantly, with a marginal rate of only 2% for the highest income levels. Ironically, it was the Bloc National (1919-1924) – one of the most right-wing legislatures in the French Republic’s history – that would raise the tax rate to 60% in 1920, and then to 75% in 1923, under pressure from the left and the trade unions. If the senators opened up their history books a little more often, they might become a little wiser.