Hollande forced into U-turn after France's "Pigeons" swoop on tax plan

Atlas shrugs in France, and wins.

François Hollande was pressured into reneging on a highly unpopular tax bill on Thursday after fiscal changes outlined in the 2013 budget provoked uproar amongst France’s entrepreneurial sector.

The climb-down came after a viral barrage launched by a group of web entrepreneurs calling themselves ‘Les Pigeons’ (French slang for ‘chumps’). The movement has garnered a significant wave of support, with almost 63,000 members on Facebook alone and the hashtag #geonpi trending worldwide on Twitter.

At present, French entrepreneurs pay 19 per cent capital gains tax (plus 15.5 per cent in social security contributions). New measures announced in the September 28th budget pledged to bring capital tax in line with income tax, meaning that start-ups that take in over €150,000 annually (most of them) would be forced to pay a whopping 45 per cent in capital gains tax, practically double the current amount. When added to the mandatory 15.5 per cent in social contributions, the total tax rate clocks in at a staggering 60 per cent.

To put that into perspective, the average European capital gains tax lies somewhere between 18 and 25 per cent, with maximum rates set in the UK (28 per cent) and Germany (26.4 per cent).

"Les Pigeons" protest that such shifts in the country’s fiscal policy are unfairly skewed against the startup community. Commentators warn that such tax increases could decapitate France’s entrepreneurial base, choking innovation and rendering small businesses creation almost entirely untenable.

Crucially, Hollande’s decision to introduce such exorbitant tax hikes represents a fundamental backtrack on earlier campaign pledges to re-balance taxes in favour of startups, leaving many entrepreneurs asking themselves if they still have a future in France.

“The government thinks France’s entrepreneurs are pigeons”, the movement’s Facebook page declares. “Anti-economic policies are crushing the entrepreneurial spirit and exposing France to a big risk”.

The formidable lobbying force of the ‘Pigeons’ movement led to finance minister, Pierre Moscovici, setting up emergency talks with entrepreneurs last Thursday to negotiate changes to the tax bill.

“We don’t want to give the impression that we want to punish the Pigeons”, a Hollande representative told Reuters. “We’ll find a solution … the Pigeons should return to their nest”.

However, despite the climb-down, Hollande has set a dangerous precedent. By alienating France’s thriving entrepreneurial community, he runs the risk of squandering the sector’s promising economic potential. A study of 108 French SMEs revealed a drastic 33 per cent growth in revenue from €753m in 2010 to €1bn in 2011. These impressive growth rates ran parallel to a 24 per cent increase in employment figures, with most workers employed under a CDI contract - the strongest of its type in France.

The decision to saddle such a burgeoning sector with a salvo of taxes seems confusing at a time when many of country’s larger corporations find themselves struggling to remain competitive. Peugeot and Bouygues have already laid off thousands this summer and the mood in the French business community is souring. Hollande is alienating small business precisely when he needs them to drive growth.

Such economic oversight comes at a bad time for Hollande. With unemployment at a 13-year high and 2013 growth forecasted at shocking -0.2 per cent, Hollande’s perceived pursuit of an anti-capitalist, anti-economic agenda won’t do him any favours - especially if he is to fulfill his election promise to hoist the French economy back on its feet.

Concerns are rising in France that the government’s strident model of budgetary rigour is simply incompatible with nurturing a flourishing entrepreneurial sector.

For François, the Honeymoon has ended abruptly. And with his approval rating plummeting from 56 to 41 per cent since his inauguration, he needs all the friends he can get.

François Hollande. Photo: Parti Socialiste

Alex Ward is a London-based freelance journalist who has previously worked for the Times & the Press Association. Twitter: @alexward3000

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.