🛒 Issue
Work and cost of living: what each candidate thinks
By Fadrique Garcia Font · Reviewed on 19/10/2026
A minimum wage of 1,600 euros after deductions, keeping the 35-hour week, VAT on energy and motor fuel, how long unemployment benefits last and rent controls.
5 questions, 55 candidate positions and 2 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: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Agrees: “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
In between: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Agrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Disagrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
In between: “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”
Agrees: “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
In between: “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Agrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
In between: “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”
Agrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Disagrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Agrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Agrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Agrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Disagrees: “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Agrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
Disagrees: “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Agrees: “VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut”; “Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work”
Disagrees: “The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions”; “Rent controls should apply in all large cities”
In between: “The legal working week should stay at 35 hours”
The minimum wage (SMIC) should be raised to at least 1,600 euros a month after deductions.
The SMIC is the legal minimum wage. For a full-time job, it is a little over 1,400 euros a month after deductions.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 4 in favour, 0 in between and 7 against.
-
Attal AgainstEntretien sur franceinfo, 9 septembre 2026 (compte rendu de campagne) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan AgainstProjet de Debout la France « Économie », mis à jour le 10 octobre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann Strongly in favour« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 40 Why
-
Le Pen AgainstProgramme du RN aux législatives de 2024, p. 8 Why
-
Lisnard AgainstNouvelle Énergie, fiche « Comment David Lisnard veut-il augmenter les salaires sans augmenter le coût du travail ? » (i24NEWS, 11 juin 2026) Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly in favourComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 9 Why
-
Philippe Against« Trois principales annonces d’Édouard Philippe à l’Heure de vérité », site de campagne, 8 octobre 2026 Why
-
Retailleau Against« Les pressions ne marchent pas avec moi, rien ne m’arrêtera », entretien au JDD repris sur republicains.fr, 12 septembre 2026 Why
-
Roussel In favourContrat de législature du Nouveau Front populaire, juin 2024, p. 4 Why
-
Tondelier In favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 13, mesure 1, p. 55 Why
-
Zemmour AgainstProgramme présidentiel 2022 « Pour que la France reste la France », p. 28 Why
The legal working week should stay at 35 hours.
Since 2000 the legal working week has been 35 hours. Hours worked beyond that are overtime, paid at a higher rate.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 6 in favour, 1 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal AgainstChantier « Travail et salaires », site de campagne attalpresident.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In favourProjet de Debout la France « Économie », mis à jour le 10 octobre 2026 Why
-
Glucksmann In favour
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Le Pen In favourPublic Sénat, 13 avril 2017 Why
-
Lisnard AgainstDiscours de rentrée, campus de La Gagne (Cannes), 29 août 2026, cité par Nouvelle Énergie Why
-
Mélenchon In favourL’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 8 (archive du 9 mai 2026) Why
-
Philippe Strongly againstPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau AgainstLes Républicains, « Le travail gagnant », décembre 2025, p. 20-21 Why
-
Roussel In favour« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 9, p. 12 Why
-
Tondelier In favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 14, mesure 1, p. 57 Why
-
Zemmour In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why
VAT on electricity, gas and motor fuel should be cut.
Motor fuel and household electricity and gas are charged at the standard 20% VAT rate, on top of other energy taxes.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 5 in favour, 2 in between and 4 against.
-
Attal AgainstEntretien sur BFM TV, 21 septembre 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 between« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 17 et 85 Why
-
Le Pen Strongly in favourContre-budget 2026 du groupe RN, octobre 2025, p. 4 Why
-
Lisnard In betweenNouvelle Énergie, fiche « Quel candidat veut faire baisser le prix du carburant ? » (publications du 6 avril et du 22 septembre 2026) Why
-
Mélenchon In favourL’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 6 et 9 (archive du 7 et du 9 mai 2026) Why
-
Philippe AgainstDiscours au Conseil national d’Horizons, Reims, 10 mai 2026 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, propositions 58 et 125, p. 30 et 52 Why
-
Tondelier AgainstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 1, mesure 3, p. 16, et chap. 17, mesure 5, p. 66 Why
-
Zemmour In favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
Unemployment benefits should be paid for a shorter time, to encourage people back into work.
Since 2023 the maximum period of benefit has been cut by a quarter: it is 18 months for people under 53.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 5 in favour, 1 in between and 5 against.
-
Attal In favourEntretien au Parisien, 3 juillet 2026 (compte rendu de campagne) Why
-
Dupont-Aignan In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Glucksmann Strongly against« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 53 Why
-
Le Pen AgainstProgramme du RN aux législatives de 2024, p. 4 Why
-
Lisnard In favourSud Radio, 29 février 2024, cité par Nouvelle Énergie (fiche « Quel candidat veut réformer l’assurance chômage ? ») Why
-
Mélenchon Strongly againstComment nous allons remettre de l’ordre dans les comptes publics, octobre 2026, p. 12 Why
-
Philippe Strongly in favourPriorités « Pour une France plus prospère », site de campagne edouardphilippe.fr (consulté le 19 octobre 2026) Why
-
Retailleau Strongly in favourLes Républicains, « Le travail gagnant », décembre 2025, p. 31-32 Why
-
Roussel Strongly against« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 2, p. 10 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly againstProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 14, introduction (p. 56) et mesure 7, p. 58 Why
-
Zemmour In favourBFMTV, « Face à BFM », 17 septembre 2026 Why
Rent controls should apply in all large cities.
Rent control sets a ceiling depending on the area and the type of home. It has been trialled since 2019 in a few cities that opted in, such as Paris, Lyon and Lille.
Of the 11 candidates with a position on this question: 4 in favour, 1 in between and 6 against.
| Candidate | Position | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Attal | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Dupont-Aignan | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Glucksmann | In favour | « Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 64 Why |
| Le Pen | In between | Estimated position Why |
| Lisnard | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Mélenchon | Strongly in favour | L’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 7 (archive du 4 mai 2026) Why |
| Philippe | Against | Estimated position Why |
| Retailleau | Strongly against | Les Républicains, « Se loger mieux et moins cher ! », mai 2026, p. 3 Why |
| Roussel | Strongly in favour | « La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 99, p. 43 Why |
| Tondelier | Strongly in favour | Programme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 2, mesure 1, p. 20 Why |
| Zemmour | Against | Estimated position Why |
-
Attal Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Dupont-Aignan Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Glucksmann In favour« Notre vision pour la France », programme de Place publique (Acte I), mars 2026, p. 64 Why
-
Le Pen In between
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Lisnard Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Mélenchon Strongly in favourL’Avenir en commun, édition 2025, chap. 7 (archive du 4 mai 2026) Why
-
Philippe Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why -
Retailleau Strongly againstLes Républicains, « Se loger mieux et moins cher ! », mai 2026, p. 3 Why
-
Roussel Strongly in favour« La France des Jours heureux », programme présidentiel 2022, proposition 99, p. 43 Why
-
Tondelier Strongly in favourProgramme des Écologistes « Pour une prospérité écologique », juillet 2026, chap. 2, mesure 1, p. 20 Why
-
Zemmour Against
Estimated position: inferred from the candidate’s overall programme and statements, without a specific document stating it.
Why
Explore other issues
Who do you agree with on this issue?
The questions in this issue are part of the full test. On 2 of them the candidates hold opposite positions, so your answer matters.
Take the political test