Gabriel Zucman (Paris, 39 years old) is the economist of the moment in France thanks to a simple and explosive idea: imposing a 2% tax on the wealth of billionaires. His proposal, intended to correct an “anomaly” that allows the ultra-rich to pay a much lower effective rate than the lower middle classes, has placed this disciple of Thomas Piketty at the center of the political debate in his country. Zucman has been everywhere for weeks: his essay Billionaires don’t suffer from impôt sur le venu et nous allons y mettre fin (Billionaires don’t pay income taxes and we will put an end to that), published just a month ago, has become an editorial phenomenon that has sold close to 50,000 copies. In it he outlines his proposal: apply a minimum tax of 2% on assets exceeding 100 million euros – around 1,800 assets in France – so that the richest contribute to the balance of public finances.
The proposal, supported by left-wing parties and a large majority of public opinion, was rejected twice by the French Parliament, but Zucman does not consider the battle lost. He tells it in an interview in his office at the Paris School of Economics, a somewhat monastic space with a plant, a computer, a bicycle helmet and a blackboard with the formula for a tax that has managed to reopen the debate on fiscal justice throughout Europe.
Ask. How do you explain the success of a book that talks about taxation?
Answer. My work reveals that billionaires pay, as a proportion of their income, far less in taxes than anyone else. The majority of the population bears an overall tax burden of between 25% and 50% of their income; billionaires pay between 0% and 2% of their wealth. This violates the principle of equality before taxes, which is constitutional in France. For years there was great opacity: public statistics were silent. Several research groups have worked to dispel that silence. Today people want to appropriate that knowledge. That’s why they read my book.
Q. Is taxation no longer perceived as a technical issue, but rather as a matter of social justice?
R. The fact is that without taxes there is no society. They are a structural element of democracy. Depending on whether we place the slider on 0%, 50% or 90%, we get very different companies. And even in France we have a debt of 116% of GDP and a deficit of 5.4% even in a period of growth. We need to balance the accounts and distribute efforts better.
Q. Meanwhile, the wealth of billionaires is increasing dramatically.
R. In 1997 they represented 3% of world GDP; today it is 14%. Their companies, all multinationals, have benefited from globalization and their owners barely pay income taxes, so they can reinvest their income almost without paying taxes. A stock market bubble is enough for a single person to weigh several points of a country’s GDP.
Q. For example, the first French fortune, Bernard Arnault, owner of LVMH.
R. Its assets amount to around 150 billion euros, around 5% of the French GDP. Tomorrow it could be 10% or 15%. This happens in France, but it could happen in any other country. We can end up with individuals whose economic burden becomes gigantic.
Q. 86% of French people support his tax, including nine out of ten right-wing voters. Why does Parliament reject it?
R. For the influence of billionaires in political life and in the debate of ideas. In recent months they have mobilized to prevent the proposal from being approved and have spread falsehoods by the media they control. But its power should not be overestimated: the forces of democracy are stronger in the long term. Creating new taxes is always a difficult struggle.
Q. You hate the rich, what do your detractors call you?
R. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s not about people, it’s about democracy, about how different groups contribute equally to the common good.
Q. Arnault called him a “pseudo-researcher” and a “far-left militant”.
R. It is the nervous reaction of the big fortunes who know that the situation is not sustainable, and also the proof of having no concrete arguments. In the absence of motivation, we resort to insults, Trump style: when someone doesn’t agree they call them a communist and, in doing so, they denigrate students of knowledge and university. It is the wind of Trumpism blowing across the world.
Q. In any case you have never hidden that you are left-wing.
R. I have my beliefs, like everyone else. But this minimum tax is not a fiscal revolution or a punishment for the rich. It comes from a G20 report, at the request of the Brazilian government. I proposed doing the same thing with billionaires as with multinationals: setting a minimum tax rate. The 2% was calculated so that they don’t pay less than others, but they don’t pay more either. This is not a radical or particularly left-wing idea, but the bare minimum, the most minimalist version of tax justice. We have identified an anomaly and need to correct it.
Q. Who allowed it?
R. It has always existed, but it has been exacerbated by the recent explosion of those fortunes. In 1996, the 500 largest assets were equivalent to 6% of French GDP; Today they control 42%. So, a 2% tax would barely amount to 0.1% of GDP. Today it would be 0.8 points, an even more significant figure for a country that needs to save two and a half points.
“In Spain there is still a lack of data: we need more detail and transparency from the Administration. I trust that they are there”
Q. Has the left been hypocritical about taxation?
R. Yes, in France and throughout Western Europe. There was an implicit pact: “You let us build the welfare state and in exchange we leave you alone”. Wealth taxes have almost never taxed billionaires. In 1981 Mitterrand created a tax on large fortunes, but immediately exempted larger ones. It was a political trainwreck from which we must learn.
Q. Is France a country in decline?
R. No. Emmanuel Macron’s record is, overall, terrible, but France remains one of the most productive countries in the world and boasts numerous successes related to the welfare state. For example, Europe does much better than the United States in health. There is much to be proud of, although we cannot rest on our laurels.
Q. He directs the European Tax Observatory. What is the situation in Spain?
R. It’s difficult for me to answer because the data is still missing in Spain. In France, the Netherlands, Brazil, the United States, Sweden and Norway we have studies prepared together with tax administrations. There is excellent work in Spain, but a greater level of detail and transparency is needed. I trust there is. In fact, this is a very recent process. In the US there was no data until 2019. In France, a couple of years ago. In any case, the Spanish fiscal curve is similar to that of the rest of European countries, although the level of pressure is slightly lower than that of France.
Q. It ensures that ultra-rich Americans pay more than Europeans.
R. In the United States this debate took place almost a century ago. In 1933, the press revealed that JP Morgan, one of the great fortunes of its day, had not paid taxes in 1931 or 1932. The scandal led Roosevelt to pass a law penalizing shareholdings. Since then, some billionaires pay more than Europeans: about 9% of their income. Even so, Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos have found a way to pay very little. There was a year when Bezos declared an income so low that he received family assistance.
Q. “When the people have nothing left to eat, they will eat the rich,” says a phrase attributed to Rousseau. Are we already at that point?
R. I don’t see the risk of violence, but I see the risk of democratic crisis.
Q. If your tax passes, will there be massive capital flight?
R. It’s a classic argument and much exaggerated. Tax exile exists, but it is not massive and can be limited. For example, taxing those who have become multimillionaires in France for a few years and then leave, without reaching the American model, which makes its citizens pay taxes, wherever they live, for life.
Q. Today’s culture is full of fictions in which the rich are symbolically devoured: Parasites, Succession, The White Lotus…How do you explain it?
R. I’ve seen them all. The explosion of millionaire wealth is one of the most important trends of recent decades. It is not strange that it also appears in fiction. The question is how to address this problem in a rational, democratic and effective way.
Q. He comes from a wealthy family and is the son of doctors. Does your reflection arise more from what you have observed than from what you have experienced?
R. The 2008 crisis was decisive. I was 21 and wanted to understand what was happening. I immersed myself in international statistics and discovered the extent of tax evasion. Then I lived for almost ten years near San Francisco, where extreme wealth and homelessness coexist. I was there when Trump won. All this led me to work directly on public policies.
Q. Have you received pressure or threats?
R. I was prepared: I experienced something similar up close in the United States, when I collaborated on the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in 2020. Both were victims of very harsh hate campaigns. Fiscal history shows that any major reform is an uphill battle. In early 20th century France, even the minister promoting the income tax, Joseph Caillaux, was attacked for years until he managed to pass it.
Q. I think things didn’t end well for him…
R. His wife ended up killing the director of The Figarowho had led a campaign against him. So if we start comparing, mine is nothing. Furthermore, I assure you that I am a very Zen person, and so is my wife. In our house we don’t go that far… (laughs).
Q. In just a few months he became famous. According to a study, he is the ninth most cited personality in the French media. How’s the ego?
R. I never looked for this exhibit. I try to take advantage of it to spread knowledge and encourage democratic debate. If this attention helps people take responsibility for those ideas, it will have been worth it.
