2027 Budget, continued: Amiel promises to fund the youth plan, but with what revenue?

The day after Matignon's announcements for high school and university students, MPs resumed their review of the 2027 finance bill on Tuesday 27 October. According to Libération, the debates are proceeding with little enthusiasm, as the text seems to have little chance of being adopted as it stands. One question nonetheless dominates the chamber: who will pay for the youth plan?

The facts

On Monday 26 October, after a month of high school protests, Sébastien Lecornu's government presented a series of measures. According to Public Sénat, they include 15,000 additional places in higher education, mainly in BTS, IUT and health programmes; a cap of 28 pupils per "seconde" class applied from 2027 in the least advantaged half of schools, then everywhere in 2028; the cancellation of 836 planned job cuts in secondary education and the creation of 500 posts; and 300 posts for nurses and psychologists. A 5 billion euro plan for buildings was also announced, including 4 billion in subsidised-rate loans for local authorities and 1 billion for universities. Student grants will be indexed to inflation, at an estimated cost of 40 million euros. Parcoursup is to change from the next admissions round before being replaced in 2028.

According to Le Figaro, the package would amount to 5 to 6 billion euros. On Tuesday morning on TF1, the minister for Public Action and Accounts, David Amiel, set out the framework. As reported by AFP, he considers the target of bringing the public deficit down to 5% of GDP in 2027 "intangible" and believes that this new spending will have to be offset by additional efforts. He refuses, he says, to

"promise the youth with one hand and strangle them with debt with the other" — David Amiel, on TF1

To find this revenue, the minister opened one avenue: stepping up the fight against abusive tax optimisation, particularly certain tax loopholes benefiting the wealthiest. According to AFP, these provisions are already in the initial text, but he specified neither the schemes targeted nor their expected yield.

The positions at stake

The government defends a line of fiscal responsibility. When debates opened on 13 October, David Amiel had called the text a "safeguard budget", according to LCP, explaining that the way to save could be discussed, but not the amount. The bill provides for around 43 billion euros in additional savings. This argument deserves to be taken seriously: the cost of debt weighs on the State's room for manoeuvre, and a younger generation left with deteriorated public finances would not be better served.

Youth organisations nevertheless judge the effort too limited. In a press release, the Union étudiante describes the announcements as "largely insufficient" and recalls that it is calling for 250,000 places in higher education, far from the 15,000 promised. It is calling for demonstrations on 31 October and 5 November. According to Le Figaro, La France insoumise calls the measures a "scam" and demands a vote on Parcoursup at the end of the debate without a vote scheduled for Wednesday in the Assemblée. The Socialists, who had unsuccessfully tabled a motion to reject the budget on 13 October, were already criticising the government, according to LCP, for refusing to raise the contribution of the richest. The Rassemblement national, which voted against that motion, also considers the budget "bad" but chose to debate it.

Analysis

The minister's position contains a step forward that should be welcomed: the government explicitly links social spending to an effort asked of the wealthiest taxpayers rather than to new cuts in public services. It is a shift in tone, consistent with a basic demand for fairness.

But an avenue is not funding. As long as the loopholes targeted, their yield and the timetable remain vague, the risk is twofold. If the promised revenue does not materialise, the 5% rule will force cuts elsewhere, perhaps in schools or universities themselves. And if the plan relies mainly on loans to local authorities, as Public Sénat indicates for 4 of the 5 billion in the buildings component, regions and departments will bear part of the burden.

The Gaullist tradition has always held two requirements together: the State must keep its accounts in order, and it must keep its word to the Nation, starting with its youth. A promise made to high school students in the street and funded by uncertain revenue would weaken both at once.

Conclusion

The budget debate offers a rare opportunity: to turn social anger into a deliberate fiscal choice. The government could present this week, by amendment, the precise list of loopholes it intends to trim and the expected amount, so that every euro promised to young people is backed by identified revenue. The opposition, for its part, would do well to judge this plan on its merits rather than reject it wholesale. One question remains: in a chamber without a majority, will Parliament be able to make tax fairness the point of compromise that pension reform was last year?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.