"Riot tax": making every policyholder pay is not national solidarity

On 1 January 2027, an extra line could appear on home and car insurance renewal notices. After the violence of 17 and 18 October, the government wants to bring into force as quickly as possible the "riot" guarantee passed in the 2026 finance law. The scheme, which its opponents are already calling a "riot tax", is dividing even the centrist bloc and the right.

What is planned

According to Public Sénat, the mechanism appears in article 171 of the 2026 finance law, enacted in February. It was introduced in the Senate through a government amendment, identical to one tabled by the general rapporteur Jean-François Husson (LR), then adopted in the National Assembly through article 49.3. It provides for a solidarity surcharge on home and car insurance contracts, capped at 1.5% of premiums. It would feed a pooling fund, managed with the Caisse centrale de réassurance and backed by a state guarantee capped at 3.25 billion euros.

According to Europe 1, the rate under consideration would be 0.8%, for a fund of around 400 million euros, and the levy could also apply to business contracts. The scheme would only cover future riots, not those of October. Nothing is final yet: Public Sénat reports that the decrees are expected in December and must go through the Conseil d'État, and the specialist site WEKA points out that approval from Brussels under state aid rules is also required.

The financial emergency, for its part, is real. According to an estimate by the agency Morningstar DBRS reported by Économie Hebdo, insured losses from the two days in October could reach 1.2 billion euros, compared with nearly 800 million for the eight days of riots in summer 2023. The Minister for Trade, Serge Papin, has mentioned at least 3,000 damaged shops.

The positions at stake

The text's supporters put forward a serious argument. As Le Club des juristes recalls, the Insurance Code excludes riots by default, unless a contract clause says otherwise. If insurers withdraw from this risk, it is the most exposed shopkeepers, residents and municipalities who will be left without protection. Jean-François Husson judged the proposal "very suitable", according to Public Sénat. MoDem MP Philippe Vigier argues urgency: it must be possible to rebuild quickly, he explained on Europe 1. SMACL, the historic insurer of local authorities, for its part supports a fund modelled on the natural disaster scheme, according to WEKA. As for the Economy Minister, Roland Lescure, he rejects the word tax and speaks of solidarity between insurers.

Opponents are numerous and do not all come from the same side. MP Philippe Juvin (LR) considers it "not healthy" to make policyholders pay for the risk of riots. Laurent Wauquiez had spoken of a "rioters' tax". Amendments to scrap it had been tabled by part of the Droite républicaine group, the RN, the MoDem and Horizons, but article 49.3 prevented them from being debated, Public Sénat reports. On the insurers' side, the head of Generali France, Jean-Laurent Granier, had written in Les Échos that their role is "to insure, not to guarantee irresponsibility", as quoted by WEKA. In the street, a vox pop by Europe 1 in Lyon mostly shows a sense of injustice, without the value of an opinion poll.

The analysis

We must first acknowledge what is fair in the intention behind this scheme. Leaving a neighbourhood baker or a small municipality alone in the face of destruction, because the market no longer wants to cover this risk, would be an abandonment. Pooling is a solidarity-based idea, and the natural disaster scheme has proven its worth.

But the method raises three problems. The first is one of principle. Guaranteeing public order is the state's primary mission. When it fails to do so, it is up to national solidarity, that is, the budget and progressive taxation, to bear the consequences, not a surcharge identical for everyone that takes no account of income. A modest household and a wealthy household would pay the same percentage on their contract.

The second concerns democracy. A levy that will apply to all home and car insurance contracts was adopted without MPs being able to debate it, and its final rate has yet to be set by the decrees. For such a visible measure, that is too little.

The third is an omission: prevention. SMACL estimates, according to WEKA, that one euro invested in prevention can save eight in future claims. Yet municipalities' insurance premiums rose by 43% between 2020 and 2024, according to the Observatoire des finances et de la gestion locales cited by the same site. Funding repairs without investing in neighbourhoods, education and the presence of public services means condemning ourselves to pay again.

Finally, setting this surcharge against the "rioters pay" bill makes little sense. Making those responsible for damage pay is legitimate, but with a cap of 10,000 euros per person according to WEKA, that will not be enough to cover a billion euros of damage.

Another way

Parliament is currently examining the 2027 budget, whose revenue section is due to be voted on 3 November in the National Assembly, according to NosParlementaires. This is the moment to take back control: write the rate into law rather than a decree, have part of the fund borne by the state budget, and attach a prevention fund for the most exposed municipalities. Solidarity in the face of riots is necessary. The question remains whether it will be national and fair, or simply levied on everyone's insurance bill.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.