💰 Issue
Economy, taxes and debt: what each candidate thinks
By Fadrique Garcia Font · Reviewed on 19/10/2026
The Zucman tax on the largest fortunes, bringing back the wealth tax, cutting spending or raising taxes to reduce the deficit, and the number of public servants.
4 questions, 44 candidate positions and 4 complete disagreements (how they are assigned).
What each candidate proposes on this issue
A summary of their positions on the questions in this issue, based on their programmes, statements and the votes of their party’s group. Details and sources, question by question, below.
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Agrees: “A wealth tax should be brought back”
In between: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Disagrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”
In between: “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Agrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Disagrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Agrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Disagrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
Disagrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Agrees: “To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes”; “The number of public servants should be reduced”
Disagrees: “There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros”; “A wealth tax should be brought back”
There should be a minimum tax of 2% on fortunes worth more than 100 million euros.
This is the so-called “Zucman tax”. The National Assembly passed it at first reading in February 2025, then rejected it during the debate on the 2026 budget.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 4 in favour, 1 in between and 6 against.
-
Attal AgainstVote de Gabriel Attal à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 881, 20 février 2025 Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In betweenProjet de Debout la France « Économie », mis à jour le 10 octobre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann In favourProgramme « Réveiller l’Europe » (européennes 2024), mesure 315, p. 40 Why
-
Le Pen AgainstVote de Marine Le Pen à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 3300, 31 octobre 2025 Why
-
Lisnard AgainstMessage de David Lisnard cité par Le Journal de l’économie, 17 octobre 2025 Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly in favourComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 13 Why
-
Philippe Strongly againstTribune « Ma proposition aux entrepreneurs », site d’Horizons, 5 novembre 2025 Why
-
Retailleau AgainstVote du groupe Droite républicaine à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 3300, 31 octobre 2025 Why
-
Roussel In favourVote du groupe GDR à l’Assemblée nationale, scrutin n° 881, 20 février 2025 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly in favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 17, mesure 1, p. 66 Why
-
Zemmour AgainstProgramme présidentiel 2022 « Pour que la France reste la France », p. 27 Why
To reduce the deficit, public spending should be cut first, rather than raising taxes.
According to the draft 2027 budget, the public deficit would reach 5.4% of GDP in 2026, and public debt is above 115% of GDP.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 6 in favour, 1 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal Strongly in favourEntretien au Parisien, 3 juillet 2026 (compte rendu de campagne) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In betweenDiscours de rentrée « La Révolution du bon sens », 20 septembre 2025 Why
-
Glucksmann Against« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 85 Why
-
Le Pen In favourPublic Sénat, 6 octobre 2026 Why
-
Lisnard Strongly in favourDiscours de rentrée de David Lisnard, campus de La Gagne (Cannes), 29 août 2026, cité par Nouvelle Énergie Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly againstComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 6 et 17 Why
-
Philippe Strongly in favourDiscours du grand meeting de l’Adidas Arena, Paris, 5 juillet 2026 Why
-
Retailleau Strongly in favourPublic Sénat, « Bruno Retailleau s’engage sur un plan d’économies de près de 200 milliards d’euros », 12 octobre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Strongly againstPCF, « 17 octobre et 5 novembre : ensemble, imposons de nouvelles conquêtes pour vivre mieux ! », 14 octobre 2026 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 17 « Refonder le pacte fiscal », introduction, p. 65 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly in favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
The number of public servants should be reduced.
The State, local authorities and public hospitals employ several million people. Some propose not replacing part of those who retire.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 5 in favour, 2 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal Strongly in favourLettre aux Français sur les finances publiques, 15 octobre 2026 Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Glucksmann Against« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 48 Why
-
Le Pen In betweenPublic Sénat, 6 octobre 2026 Why
-
Lisnard Strongly in favourGrand meeting de Saint-Raphaël, 3 juillet 2026, cité par Nouvelle Énergie Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly againstComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 9-10 et 14 Why
-
Philippe Strongly in favourPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau Strongly in favourPublic Sénat, « Bruno Retailleau s’engage sur un plan d’économies de près de 200 milliards d’euros », 12 octobre 2026 Why
-
Roussel Strongly againstPCF, « 17 octobre et 5 novembre : ensemble, imposons de nouvelles conquêtes pour vivre mieux ! », 14 octobre 2026 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 51, mesure 2, p. 167 Why
-
Zemmour Strongly in favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
A wealth tax should be brought back.
The wealth tax (ISF) was abolished in 2018 and replaced by a tax on property wealth only (IFI).
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 6 in favour, 0 in between and 5 against.
-
Attal Strongly againstDébat de la Rencontre des entrepreneurs de France (Medef), 27 août 2026, compte rendu de campagne Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In favourProjet de Debout la France « Économie », mis à jour le 10 octobre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann In favour« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 85 Why
-
Le Pen In favourContre-budget 2026 du groupe RN, octobre 2025, p. 7 Why
-
Lisnard Strongly againstNouvelle Énergie, fiche « Quelle différence entre David Lisnard et le RN ? » (entretien avec Tom Benoit, 29 novembre 2025) Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly in favourComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 13 Why
-
Philippe Strongly againstTribune « Ma proposition aux entrepreneurs », site d’Horizons, 5 novembre 2025 Why
-
Retailleau Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Roussel Strongly in favour« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 127, p. 52 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly in favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 17, mesure 1, p. 66 Why
-
Zemmour AgainstProgramme présidentiel 2022 « Pour que la France reste la France », p. 44 Why
Explore other issues
Who do you agree with on this issue?
The questions in this issue are part of the full test. On 4 of them the candidates hold opposite positions, so your answer matters.
Take the political test