There is a taboo subject of political debate in France: inheritance and inheritance rights. The deputy of Yvelines, Aurore Bergé, wants to lighten them. Her initiative aroused even more trouble in the majority since, initially, she had tabled the amendment on behalf of the entire Renaissance group. However, many Macronist deputies have dissociated themselves from it.
>> Wealth and inheritance: seven things to know to understand the debate on inheritance rights
Aurore Bergé therefore took it over with one of her colleagues from Val-de-Marne, Mathieu Lefèvre. But the Minister of Public Accounts, Gabriel Attal, told him that he was hostile to it. To justify her approach, Aurore Bergé recalls that it is nevertheless a commitment of the candidate Macron during the presidential campaign…
The blur
If a whole fringe of the majority is opposed to it, it is first of all because over time, Emmanuel Macron has said almost everything and its opposite on this subject. He was hostile to any reduction in inheritance tax. Then, in 2018, he opposed the inclinations of walkers to increase this taxation. Finally, during the presidential campaign, he therefore promised to raise the ceiling for exemption from inheritance tax for “take into account the evolution of real estate prices“. A position which also had an electoral goal: to siphon off the votes of the right. But on the extent and especially the pace of the reform, Emmanuel Macron remained rather vague.
And when it’s blurry, there’s a wolf! And even at least two. Maybe a pack. First, a question of priorities: with the energy crisis, soaring inflation, slowing growth, there is no question of reducing inheritance tax from the 2023 budget. Then, a real ideological wolf. Lowering inheritance tax is quite popular in public opinion, but first on the right, the left is rather hostile to it. Hence the internal divisions in the Renaissance group where there are still deputies from the left. Without forgetting that originally, macronism made a point of fighting against birth inequalities and rewarding work, risk-taking, but not income and inheritance.
In short, in view of these dissensions, we understand why this amendment aims, officially, only to pose the debate. And why it will probably not be voted on because there is above all urgency, not to decide anything…