2027 Budget: revenue vote postponed, tax fairness still on hold

The timetable has slipped once again. The formal vote on the first part of the 2027 finance bill, covering revenue, was due to take place on Tuesday 20 October in the National Assembly. It did not happen. According to the Journal du Net, it has now been put back to 3 November, with debate not due to resume until 27 October, after the Social Security budget.

The facts

As LCP reported on 19 October, 2,828 of the 3,396 amendments tabled still remained to be examined at that point. Debate was suspended at midnight on Monday, with no compromise in sight. The finance committee had already rejected this part of the bill on 9 October, by 31 votes to 3, according to the tally kept by NosParlementaires.

What has been voted in the chamber outlines a profoundly reshaped budget. By 116 votes to 30, deputies scrapped the cap on the 10% tax allowance on pensions, which was expected to raise 1.4 billion euros. They rejected the progressive contribution demanded from local authorities, a 2.5 billion levy, as well as the cut in the VAT refund rate on local investment, the latter by 125 votes to 16, according to the Banque des Territoires.

At the same time, several tax breaks were added. The ceiling on tax-free overtime was doubled, from 7,500 to 15,000 euros, and the tax credit for subscribing to SME capital was raised from 18% to 25%, notes NosParlementaires. An amendment from the UDR, an ally of the RN, raised the exemption ceiling on family gifts from 50,000 to 100,000 euros, Moneyvox reports. Conversely, reinstating the wealth tax (ISF), the Zucman tax on fortunes above 100 million euros and the RN's tax on financial wealth were all voted down.

The Minister for Public Accounts, David Amiel, has put a figure on the outcome: the first week of debate is said to have worsened the deficit by 10 billion euros, according to LCP. The government is aiming for a deficit of 5% of GDP in 2027, after 5.4% in 2026.

The positions

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu plays it down. According to the Journal du Net, he believes the political forces were "testing each other" and that a compromise is still possible in December. The government maintains that the 5.5 billion effort asked of local authorities is essential.

Deputies from across the spectrum reply that local investment is not an adjustment variable. The centrist Charles de Courson (Liot) considers the contribution from local authorities unconstitutional, while the Socialist Christine Pirès Beaune points out that the VAT refund is a sum that is owed:

This is not a subsidy — Christine Pirès Beaune, Socialist deputy

For the RN, Jean-Philippe Tanguy argues that most of the savings claimed by the government actually rely on tax increases. On the left, La France insoumise is predicting the bill's defeat, through a censure motion or social mobilisation, according to remarks by Aurélien Le Coq reported by NosParlementaires.

The analysis

Each of these arguments holds part of the truth. Municipalities, which carry most local public investment, built their financing plans on rules that the government sought to change midstream. And it is legitimate to refuse a recovery budget that relies first and foremost on poorly targeted tax increases.

But the sum of these refusals produces an incoherent result. The Assembly is removing revenue, adding exemptions and setting aside every contribution asked of the largest fortunes. The tax breaks voted, on overtime, family gifts and the tax credit, benefit first those who have room to spare, without any new resource to fund them. Yet debt is not erased by a vote: it is passed on to tomorrow's public services, hospitals, schools, local authorities.

There is also an institutional question. Last year, NosParlementaires recalls, the revenue part was rejected by 404 votes to 1, and the budget was only adopted on 2 February 2026, through Article 49.3, without a final vote by deputies. This year, the ordinary session will end as early as 28 February 2027, before the presidential election. If Parliament has not ruled within the 70 days provided for by Article 47 of the Constitution, the government could resort to budget ordinances, a procedure never used before. A State that gives itself a budget without the national representation having voted on it is weakened, however lawful the route chosen.

Conclusion

The two weeks of respite now opening will serve no purpose if each group keeps defending its own constituency. A simple rule could guide the resumption of debate: any tax cut voted should be offset by equivalent revenue, and that revenue should be sought first from those who have the most. Can a legally sound contribution from the very largest fortunes still be the meeting point between those who want to protect municipalities and those who want to balance the books? It is on this question, more than on the date of the vote, that Parliament's credibility will be decided.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.