Zemmour proposes 25% income tax on migrants in France

Zemmour proposes a 25% income tax on migrants

Can the cost of property damage be recovered by taxing a specific group based on their origin? This is the core question raised by Éric Zemmour’s proposal: eliminating social welfare benefits and imposing a levy on African and Muslim migrants to pay for destruction. The scheme, as it circulates, has little fiscal substance and much symbolic weight: a 25% tax on annual income for the next 40 years. Read coldly, this turns any wage earner into a net contributor to the state for four decades.

Who pays: the problem of defining the taxpayer

The first flaw is textbook. The proposal mixes three criteria that do not always align—origin, religion, and administrative status—and fails to clarify which takes precedence when issuing the bill. Critics point out that many targeted individuals already hold French passports, making them full citizens; legally, they are not migrants, and a tax based on origin would clash with the principle of equality before the law.

The alternative gaining traction in this area is applying a points-based system to benefits: stripping aid, healthcare access, and other coverage from those who accumulate incidents. It sounds more executable, though it transforms social policy into a disciplinary system where rights depend on one's record.

• 25%: annual income to be taxed from migrants
• 40 years: duration of the proposed levy
• 100%: labor cost another proposal places on employers

From tax to expulsion: what is actually being proposed

The tax is not the only piece on the table. One strand targets employers, proposing to charge them 100% of the labor cost for every foreign worker hired, aiming to make hiring expensive. Another moves directly to border closures and deportation, arguing that no fee can fix what, according to this thesis, is an entry problem.

At the extreme, a public statement attributed to the president of Reconquête! (the French political party) suggested using private militias with legal immunity to restore order. This type of proposal does not solve funding issues; it merely shifts them to another place and budget.

Who pays for damages if the targets have no income?

Here lies the economic contradiction of the plan, which is hard to avoid. An income tax only collects from those with declared earnings. If the initial diagnosis is that this group lives off benefits and does not work, the tax base is zero, and revenue is also zero. The cost of damages then falls back on the general taxpayer, exactly whom the measure purported to protect.

The very architecture of the levy—a quarter of income for four decades—works far better as a political signal than as a revenue source. No one has yet explained the collection mechanism for those who do not declare income, nor what happens when the taxpayer changes countries.

Institutional warning on the economic scenario

The backdrop is not solely migratory. In the same discussion, a warning attributed to the president of the Cour des comptes (French Court of Auditors) circulated regarding a scenario of 25% unemployment, with the war in Ukraine as an added factor and a reassuring message for savers. Such data, if materialized, completely changes the conversation: from who pays for damages to who pays for pensions.

The points-based license as a dress rehearsal

There is a frequently cited precedent explaining why these measures stop causing scandal. With the points-based driving license, the same thing peine: it seemed like an outrage, but today it is internalized. Those supporting this thesis do not ask for a raid, but for patience. First, the instrument is installed; later, its application is graduated. The objection is reasonable: a driving license measures specific behaviors behind the wheel, not a person's administrative status.

With these calculations, the tax on migrants has one virtue no one disputes: it would likely be the only state budget item that never gets collected.