Fake off In an intervention in the Senate, Gabriel Attal, the Minister of Public Accounts, launched into a violent diatribe against the financial management of the Town Hall of Paris
Gabriel Attal, the Minister of Public Accounts, took advantage of an intervention in the Senate, Wednesday, November 17, to attack the Paris City Hall, even if it means manipulating the facts. — AFP
- The increase in the property tax decided in early November by Anne Hidalgo was an opportunity for Gabriel Attal to denounce the expensive management of the Paris City Hall.
- In an intervention in the Senate, Wednesday, November 16, he quotes several examples in support of his demonstration.
- The Minister for Action and Public Accounts does not hesitate to play on words or take figures out of context to hit on the Town Hall.
The occasion was too good. After the announcement, Monday, November 7, by Anne Hidalgo, of the sharp increase (+52 % approx.) in the property tax at Paris, his political adversaries took out the knives. And that’s what Gabriel Attal, the Minister of Public Accounts, yet a former insider, did. PS. In an intervention in the Senate on Wednesday, November 16, he launched a violent charge against the municipality and its budgetary management. “Reality it’s that Mrs. Hidalgo considers that she is condemned to tax more because it refuses to spend less,” he commented.
Access to this content has been blocked in order to respect your choice of consent
I ACCEPT
More information on the Cookie Management Policy page.
But the different examples advanced to the support of his demonstration are either misleading or deceptive. Three points pose a problem. We unravel them for you.
FAKE OFF
Capitalized rents are the hobbyhorse of the opposition to Anne Hidalgo. And Gabriel Attal takes it up again. his account at the beginning of his intervention. As he is clever, nothing he says is inaccurate, but the construction of his sentence tends to deceive the listener. Here is what it says:
The city of Paris benefited from an arrangement with the accounts department. public negotiated at at the time with François Hollande called; system of capitalized rents. […] Ça means that the city of Paris had obtained in 2015 the right to indebt the city by buying housing by entrusting them to the public. social landlords so that they transform and maintain them into social housing and by asking landlords to pay him several decades of rent; come at once to balance its operating budget.
His definition of capitalized rents is perfectly accurate. However, the derogation obtained from the government concerns the possibility of to enter the receipts in operation and not in investment. This facility accounting entry can be useful because the operating section of a community Territorial must be compulsorily at balance, without resorting to the loan. Under no circumstances is there a need for a waiver to claim capitalized rents from social landlords. Moreover, in its latest report on Parisian public finances, the Regional Chamber of Accounts notes that “this system is adapted to to the development of social housing”.
And there where Gabriel Attal shows mischief, it’s when he adds to; the very end of his sentence “to balance his operating budget”. What he asserts is therefore not false even if, listening, the listener is persuaded that the derogation concerns the possibility of to have recourse to capitalized rents and not the simple possibility of to register it in operation.
He goes on to say that he “decided to to put an end to this system which is a real bomb; delay for Parisians”. Severe; again, he plays with words because according to Paul Simondon, finance assistant at; Paris, “we built our 2023 budget without derogation”. So, unlike what the local elected official says, Gabriel Attal does “lie” not since’” at no time does he say he refused. a waiver, but he also didn’t put an end to the system since he didn’t have to take care of it. However, his cabinet did not respond to us on a possible derogation requested for 2023.
The Minister for Action and Public Accounts continues with the aid of the ;State.
The reality it’s that the State is alongside the city of Paris, that there have been exceptional receipts in taxation; this year, an exceptional payment of 50 million euros in VAT receipts, a few weeks ago that the city of Paris is also eligible for the safety net. […], it can benefit from a down payment of 15 million euros.
Obviously, in absolute terms, these are huge figures, but they deserve to be put into perspective, which Gabriel Attal obviously fails to do. Here is what the CRC writes in the above-quoted report: “In total, the cumulative effect the reduction in the overall operating grant (610 million euros), the increase in equalization (384 million euros) and the shortfall; winning on the evolution of the CVAE (190 million euros) represented for the City a loss of revenue of 1.184 billion euros in 2020.” Each loss of revenue has been decided by the government. The 65 million euros therefore seem derisory compared to the 1.2 billion euros in less than 2020.
Finally, at Regarding the transition to thirty-five hours, Gabriel Attal suggests this as a way of saving money for the City of Paris :
Really apply the 35 hours for officials of the city of Paris, the city has been sentenced to apply the 35 hours, she finds all the means to circumvent the legal obligation of 35 hours.
Admittedly, the Paris City Hall has been condemned by the administrative judge on the subject but her last regulation of working time was validated on November 2 by the prefecture of Ile-de-France, the same one that had attacked the previous regulation. Thus “the regulations on working time for City of Paris staff now seem to me to be able to be interpreted; in a way that complies with the legal and regulatory provisions to which it is subject,” writes the prefect Marc Guillaume in a letter of which AFP obtained a copy. In this case, it is difficult to reproach àgrave; the City of Paris not to apply the law. Or else, you have to know what is hidden behind the “really”.
As a bonus, the minister offers himself a final accusation on subsidies to associations.
Stop with an explosion of discretionary spending on subsidizing sometimes starving associations.
Gabriel Attal takes up here a classic of the municipal opposition to the government. Anne Hidalgo who already lamented in September 2020 “ever more darkness” in allocations, with the henceforth regular grouping of subsidies, grouped and “to be voted by package”, bringing together dozens of associations, some well-known, to utility indisputable public and others, much less” However, it is difficult to know whether these accusations are justified or not, given the number of grants, which may however raise questions.