Macron is imposing a shift to electric cars with a ferocious €90k Porsche tax
Status vehicles will become unaffordable unless you are seriously rich. But to flaunt wealth in France carries its own stigma, and its own risks. Setting fire to such cars is a relished rite on the eve of Saint Sylvester.
If you think Britain's ZEV mandate is tough, note the astonishing tariff tucked away in the text of the new French budget, rammed through the national assembly this week by the decree power of Article 49.3 – the hallmark of the Macron era.
As of next month, the tax on a Porsche Cayenne or a BMW X6 M will be €70,000 (£58,000), rising to €90,000 by 2027. That is a tax with teeth.
The malus écologique (green charge) is a rising penalty based on grams of CO2 per kilometre. These start at 113 g/km this year, tightened to 103 g/m by 2027, with some hardship exemptions. That is already enough to capture two thirds of all cars currently sold in France.
The tax on the workaday Renault Captur will double this year to €330, rising to €851 by 2027. The more powerful TCE 90 model will be close to three times that.
Weight above half a tonne will be punished on a rising scale. Above two tonnes, the penalty will rise by €30 a kilo, adding about €1,200 to a Tesla X or €1,800 to a larger e-Mercedes SUV. That makes sense. Lithium, cobalt and steel do not grow on trees.
The French car lobby Mobilians is furious. 'The whole sector is in a slump. Our production is the lowest since 1960, the plants have excess capacity and the market is more than 25pc below 2019 levels,' said Xavier Horent, its director-general.
'The country is drowning in a flood of social plans while the US and China leave us in the dust. Deficit spending is keeping the economy going without any structural reform. It is empty growth.'
Mr Horent said the buoyant CAC 40, the benchmark French stock index, hides 'transferred risk' landing on smaller firms and contractors who are sinking into crisis and cannot save themselves by relocating abroad.
'The modèle français is only protected against a massive devaluation by the euro. Bureaucracy is wasting away our talents and we are paralysed by outdated nostrums: protection instead of risk, pensions instead of work, waffle instead of action. They think they can conjure away the threat of bankruptcy with more taxes. The surfeit of regulations has become pathological,' he said.
We Britons can sympathise because we are struggling with the same aversion to enterprise and wealth-creation, the same pathological reflex of over-regulating and the same dreamy insouciance as China runs away with global manufacturing.
The difference is that even Labour is trying to do something about it, leaving aside the horrors of its first, botched Budget. Sir Keir Starmer is pushing through a radical shake-up of the planning system, evident over the last two weeks in a muscular push for nuclear fusion and small modular reactors, which together put the UK back on the global map as a can-do nuclear nation.
He is embracing artificial intelligence rather than trying to stop it as in Europe. Unlike many, I think markets will forgive this Government and the 2020s may prove to be a decade of recovery for the over-sold UK.
I have yet to be convinced that Emmanuel Macron's France has grasped the nettle on anything, apart from sinful cars. A care-taker budget was finally passed this week amid universal exhaustion and seven months after his snap election paralysed parliament. But it slipped through precisely because it does nothing to control runaway state spending.
'This is not really an austerity budget, simply one that is less expansionary than in recent years,' said Charlotte de Montpellier, of think tank ING.
Francois Bayrou, the French prime minister, himself said it was a dog's dinner. Extra taxes will make life even harder for French firms and minnows will receive a Reevesian battering, but the overall fiscal squeeze hardly moves the needle. The deficit will still be 5.4pc of GDP this year even if the economy bounces back from semi-slump conditions, which markets doubt. 'We find this hard to believe,' said ING.
France will continue to stick out at a treacherous time when global bond markets are no longer willing to fund ageing post-industrial states living beyond their means. Goldman Sachs says Japanese investors have slashed their holdings of French debt by €26bn over the past six months. Woe betide all debtors if Chinese banks start to repatriate their €3 trillion of offshore holdings.
ING said the Bayrou budget would push public spending even higher to 56.8pc of GDP, up from 56.6pc last year. At least Michel Barnier, the former French prime minister, made a stab at trying to reduce it, before he was defenestrated by the welfare Left and the national socialist welfare Right of Marine Le Pen.
French public debt will rise to 115.5pc of GDP this year. The gap with Germany is growing ever wider, which raises a question: how far can the two anchor economies of the euro diverge before monetary union becomes untenable – or before Berlin says ça suffit?
Above all, the budget eschews any serious surgery on the elephantine French state – and my goodness, it needs a full quadruple bypass. 'We think there are over 1,200 state agencies but nobody knows for sure, or knows what they do, not even the prime minister,' said Mathieu Darnaud, the Gaulliste leader in the Senate.
He cites the overlapping functions of the countless bodies making life a daily trial for French farmers: the agency for national cohesion of the territories (ANCT), the service and payments agency (ASP), the subsidy agency (FranceAgrimer), the ecology agency (Ademe), the other ecology agency (Cerema) and so on.
My family knows them well. They are the polite, well-meaning and befuddled companions of our livestock holding in Aquitaine. The farm inspection police, however, are on strike, distressed that they are not loved enough.
It has been almost eight years since Mr Macron swept France touting his book revolution. He seemed to be a modern physiocrat, the Turgot of our age, brimming with energy and vowing to unleash French enterprise. He would shred the 3,000-page code du travail [workers' rights] and repeal 360 separate taxes, some dating back to the Bourbons, others even to the Valois.
He would strike a grand bargain with Berlin, slashing the deficit and making France fit for euro condominium: in return, Germany would agree to an EU treasury and Hamiltonian debt-pooling.
Mr Macron has won a few bets. He has pulled in a good haul of foreign investments. La French Tech has nourished a thriving ecosystem of AI, fintech, and ag-tech start-ups, though London and Cambridge have done so as well. And whether he meant it or not, cars in France are going to be admirably green.
But at the end of the day, the French state is just as big today as it was when he took power. Public debt is 17 percentage points of GDP higher and flirting with a compound interest trap. The retirement age is still 64 and even that is not yet secure.
France remains a great nation and will get its act together in the end. But political expectations are so low at this point that it is deemed a success merely to pass a budget without a vote of no confidence.
So much promise has come to so little.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
California regulators back moves to boost zero-emissions vehicles as feds take on state's standards
California regulators on Tuesday vowed to strengthen their commitment to slashing harmful vehicular emissions as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to overturn the state's pollution policies. 'Clean air efforts are under siege, putting the health of every American at risk,' Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), said on a Tuesday press call. 'California is continuing to fight back and will not give up on cleaner air and better public health — we have a legal and moral obligation,' she added. Randolph spoke alongside the publication of a new CARB report that outlined ways the state could fight back: by accelerating zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption via increased private investment, government incentives and changes in ZEV fuel pricing. The report, submitted to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), identified these specific priority action areas and others relating to state regulations and ZEV procurement, as requested by the governor in a June executive order. Chief among the CARB report's priorities was ensuring that private investment continues to support the ZEV market. To do so, the agency recommended sustaining California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program designed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels, decrease petroleum dependency and achieve air quality gains. As far as government incentives are concerned, CARB suggested that the governor and the legislature consider backfilling federal clean vehicle tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of September. Those credits could take the form of point-of-sale rebates or vouchers and could be scaled to match state policy goals, per the report. The agency also proposed creating an education pipeline for high-paying jobs in the clean transportation industry, as well as investigating opportunities to reinstate high-occupancy vehicle lane access for ZEVs. Regarding infrastructure, CARB identified a need for collaborative buildouts of charging and refueling infrastructure. As for the price of fuels, the agency suggested implementing an electric bill crediting system for EV charging, while support Western grid regionalization and leveraging private investments to bring down the cost of hydrogen. In the regulations area, the agency recommended advancing ZEV consumer assurance measures and working with local air districts on reducing 'indirect sources' of pollution, such as warehouses or railyards. The final priority, procurement, would benefit from the purchase of ZEVs for state fleets and support for doing so in local governments, according to the report. The recommendations, Randolph said, serve to steer near-term actions and 'ensure the state stays on track to meet its air quality and climate goals.' Newsom's June executive order — which mandated the CARB report — occurred after President Trump signed three congressional resolutions revoking California's previously approved emissions rules. That approval had come from the Biden administration, which granted California a waiver to set stricter-than-federal rules via the 1970 Clean Air Act. One such rule was the Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which sought to require that all cars sold in California would be zero-emissions by 2035. A second was the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, requiring 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A third, the Omnibus Regulation, focused on slashing nitrogen oxide releases. Just last week — in an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's standards — four major truck manufacturers sued California regulators over the latter two rules. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Then, Friday, the Department of Justice declared its intent to sue California about the same partnership, in a bid to 'advance President Donald J. Trump's commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' Later that day, CARB only said that it would not comment on pending litigation. On Tuesday, however, Randolph said that regardless of federal government's waiver revocation, California is continuing 'to fight hard for the emissions reductions that can easily be achieved in the heavy-duty sector and are already being achieved.' Referring specifically to the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, she noted that 'the actual adoption is way ahead of the compliance obligation in that regulation.' 'The market is there, and the market is moving,' she said. Randolph also told reporters that CARB is already working on updating Advanced Clean Cars, with the idea that rulemaking processes can take two to four years. By starting now, she explained, the rule might 'be ready, ideally, for a more receptive U.S. EPA.' Slamming the current federal administration for 'choosing to quit the race,' she stressed that 'California is still in.' 'The world is accelerating forward toward cleaner vehicle technologies and is going to watch the U.S. fade into the rearview mirror,' Randolph added.


Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
Debate Over Banning Social Media For Kids Under 14
Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that he plans to ban social media in France for people under the age of 15. "We cannot wait," he said of the ban. In France, it's a pressing issue: Macron's announcement comes in the wake of the murder of a high school teaching assistant who was stabbed to death by a 14-year-old student, which has stirred up a conversation about the radicalization of children online. His plans involve adding age verification to some sites. Online age verification is a big topic in itself at the moment, with the swift implementation of the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act being implemented across the web. These age checks are ostensibly meant to protect minors from pornographic content and other harmful material, and of course apply to websites such as PornHub; however, the law also includes social media sites like X (Twitter), Reddit, Discord, and Bluesky, as well as sites such as Spotify and YouTube. Sites use methods like ID scanning and "AI" facial recognition software to "verify" users' age. In the wake of the implementation of the OSA in the UK, Americans are growing concerned that age verification will soon be implemented in the US, too. Critics worry that "age verification" is a path to censorship, surveillance, and even broader data harvesting than we have now. ...Which brings us to this little tidbit: in Florida this year, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of a state law that banned social media accounts for children under 14. While the judge appreciated concerns about the effect of social media on kids, he stated that the 2024 law was "likely unconstitutional." tuned in to this general conversation, when I saw this post on the popular Ask Reddit page from user Lola_girl_10 asking, "Do you support banning social media for anyone under 14 years old? Why?" I had to know what people had to say. Here are the best comments from the conversation: "I support it in theory, but how do you implement it? Does it require me to use my government ID to use the internet? I want less surveillance, not more…" "Yes. I mean, most platforms require users to be over 13, but kids half that age are addicted to them. But the Online Safety Act isn't the way to do it." "Let's start with the basics. How do you define social media? Is YouTube social media? Is Reddit? Are forums like Stack Exchange or GitHub social media? How about online video games? Niche platforms for marginalized and vulnerable populations?" "No, because we don't live in a world where anyone proposing this type of legislation cares about protecting children. Every single one of these proposals is nothing but a power grab that will be used to further eliminate privacy and control free speech." "Parental controls are available for things like this." "I don't support it because that requires age verification, and that makes it impossible to be anonymous." "In theory, yes. Social media, in my opinion, is like a drug, one to be used responsibly when you have a level of brain development that understands the impact it's having." "Yes, and I think we should also ban online gaming for young children." "Ban phones from schools and classrooms; otherwise, it'll take a cultural shift of parents actually parenting instead of handing their toddler a tablet as soon as they can be entertained by it. Any laws requiring ID or verification should be avoided." "Honestly? I support torching all 'social' media to the ground and salting the earth. They are evil. Facebook and Twitter data centers ought to be nuked." "Not at the expense of my privacy or risking my identity." "I don't support it in the way the UK has just done it. Neither the government nor corporations should be invading the privacy of citizens to make up for the failures of bad parents." "Probably. I listened to a podcast once that made the point that we massively restrict all these things that we know are bad for kids — alcohol, tobacco, etc. — but when it comes to social media, we do nothing, despite research showing a clear link between social media use and child/adolescent suicide." "Yes. But my kids are already banned. If you let your kids loose on the internet, then you're a bad parent." "I have two 13-year-olds and we have explained to them in great detail why they are not allowed to use social media. They. Do. Not. Need. It." "Yes, 100%. But 18 would be better. 'Social'-focused media like Instagram and Facebook are a societal cancer." "Yes, I support banning social media for kids under 14 — and not in a 'boomer killjoy' way, but a protect-your-brain-before-it's-fried kinda way." "No. And I'm not falling into the 'but it's the children!' trap either. The current actions are to establish control, and I feel like it's happening everywhere at the same time, from Australia to the EU and the UK to the US, as if it is a coordinated thing." "Yeah, I support banning social media for anyone under 14 because at that age, kids often aren't emotionally ready to handle the pressure, comparison, and potential dangers online. Giving them more time to develop offline social skills and confidence can help protect their mental health." And finally: "I'm just glad I grew up on the net before all this." So, what do you think about curbing kids' access to social media? Is it a terrible idea, a great idea, or perhaps a good idea that's pretty much unenforceable? I want to hear all your thoughts and opinions in the comments below — or, if you want to write in but you prefer to stay anonymous, you can check out this anonymous form: Who knows — your comment could be included in a future BuzzFeed article. Please note: some comments have been edited for length and/or clarity.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New pics of Trump holding court in Oval Office branded ‘embarrassing' as world leaders sit around his desk: ‘Like schoolchildren'
New pictures showing Donald Trump sitting in the Oval Office in front of major world leaders has been criticized as an "embarrassing" power play by the president, in what should have been a display of global unity. Some on social media noted that the set up, with Trump behind the Resolute Desk and his European counterparts on chairs opposite him, presented the president as hosting a bunch of 'unruly schoolchildren.' The president was joined for the photo-op by leaders including British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, French president Emmanual Macron, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb. Also in attendance were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Another photo showed a smiling Trump posing with a new golf club, gifted to him by Zelensky. However, the meeting of the circled leaders drew the ire of social media users, with some commenting that the staging and White House mantra of of 'peace through strength' was 'deeply disrespectful to U.S. history itself.' 'Permenant peace is never truly obtained through strength. It may hold for a while under pressure, but it won't last,' wrote one user. 'What a breathtakingly rude, narcissistic asshole,' another said. 'Instead of a conference table where everyone can meet equally, Chump lined them up like unruly school children in a row with himself as the authority figure. Chump can just f*** all the way off.' Others questioned how the leaders, who came to Washington D.C. as 'equals' had allowed such a belittling set up. 'Embarrassing,' wrote one user, with another going further, writing 'I cannot believe they let Trump seat them like a bunch of schoolchildren. 'Do none of these 'leaders' have any testosterone whatsoever or PR teams that can approve/reject seating arrangements. Most embarrassing thing I've ever seen for the EU.'