In a political landscape saturated with tax debates, the gallery signed by Armand Thiberge (Brevo), Jean-Baptiste Rudelle (Criteo) and Marc Batty (Dataiku, FEVE) To this Sunday created the surprise in the columns of our colleagues of the Tribune and shared by their authors on Linked in. These three figures of French Tech, directly concerned by Zucman tax, publicly defend the idea that very great heritage must contribute more. A position that contrasts with the dominant line of employers’ organizations, such as MEDEF, AFEP, Digital France or growthplus, traditionally opposed to any increase in capital taxation.
When the company claims justice
While France is already one of the most redistributive countries, according to INSEE figures, 57 % of people receive more than they payonce taken into account the expanded redistribution (monetary transfers and public services), even though only 44.7 % of tax households are taxable on income tax, support for the Zucman tax is massive with 86 % of French people who are favorable.
This membership is explained by a quantified reality, between 2003 and 2023, the heritage of the richest French 5 12 % per year on averageagainst 1.4 % for the rest of the households. This gap has a demand for tax equity difficult to ignore.
The real debate: the plate and the dynamics of the heritage
The heart of the problem is therefore not that “the rich do not pay”, but that Taxation mainly affects income made (wages, dividends, capital gains during assignments), while the latent value increase Very great heritage can accumulate without being imposed. It is this asymmetry, between work immediately taxed and capital in deferred growth, that the Zucman tax intends to target.
Signatories’ proposals
Armand Thiberge (Brevo), Jean-Baptiste Rudelle (Criteo) and Marc Batty (Dataiku) advance several solutions to make the tax applicable and credible:
- Tax the increase in heritagerather than the only declared income.
- Authorize payment in shares via a fund managed by the BPIwith maintaining voting rights delegated to the transferor and a buyout option, in order to resolve the question of illiquidity.
- Limit tax exileby strengthening exit tax and considering global taxation of the largest French fortunes, like the American model.
- Assume the symbolic significance : The tax is not designed as a major budgetary tool, but as a national solidarity test.
Sweep away
Opponents of the Zucman tax often advances three arguments, starting with the illiquidity of titles held by entrepreneurs, but also the risk of talent flight and the fear of an obstacle to innovation. The gallery takes these criticisms.
On the question of illiquidity, the authors recall that a simple mechanism exists, allowing to settle the share tax, entrusted to a fund managed by the BPI. The voting rights would remain delegated to the entrepreneur and a buyout option would make it possible to recover the titles once the liquidity is available. In other words, there is no need for forced sales to pay tax.
Regarding the flight of talents, they point out that the exit tax system already largely supervises departures. And if some people fear an exodus, the signatories evoke the possibility of going further, drawing inspiration from the American model of global taxation. In this scheme, the greatest fortunes would remain taxable in France even if they chose to settle abroad, reducing the interest of escape strategies.
As for the brake on innovation, they dismiss it by taking the example of California. The US state applies marginal tax rates greater than those of France, while remaining the world epicenter of technological entrepreneurship. For signatories, the entrepreneurial dynamic is first based on a state of mind and an ecosystem, much more than on the level of taxation alone.
