The health crisis and the "whatever it costs" exploded the French debt by 400 billion euros additional.

The Minister of Finance, Bruno Le Maire, proposed this Monday in front of the deputies to reserve a part of the existing taxes to repay this additional debt.

Nicolas Barré takes stock of a current economic issue.

What to do with the Covid debt?

Pay it back?

Cancel it?

Bruno Le Maire wants to cut the debate short.

Everyone pretty much agrees on one point, the debt that we have accumulated during the health crisis can be set aside.

This crisis fell on our heads, we had to face it and this is what exploded our debt, from 100 to 120% of the GDP.

Basically, we end up with 400 billion euros of debt more, and this exceptional debt, we can put it aside.

The next question is what for?

Some want to set it aside to cancel it with the stroke of a pen.

Others say, on the contrary, that it must be repaid by creating a specific tax, as we did with the CRDS to repay the debt of the Social Security.

Bercy does not want either of these two solutions.

No, no new tax, Bruno Le Maire categorically excluded it, but no question of not reimbursing either, it would not be serious.

So what to do?

The Minister of Finance proposed this Monday before the deputies a third way which consists in reserving a share of the existing taxes to repay this additional debt.

But not right now.

Only when the economy is better, that growth will have returned and therefore that there will be more tax revenues.

This is the originality of the proposal.

Bercy's argument consists in saying that the recovery should not be knocked out with this burden of debt to be repaid.

But the burden is still there.

Yes, but the idea is to give a pledge of seriousness and credibility to investors around the world, whose confidence we must maintain in order to be able to continue financing under good conditions.

This debt "whatever the cost", we will repay it "whatever happens" since we are committed to devote to it a fraction defined in advance of our tax revenues.

More broadly, what we lack is to be able to program our public spending over several years: that too would be a guarantee of seriousness.

A sort of "golden rule" which would make it possible to avoid drifts in public accounts from year to year and to set the pace of expenditure growth for the duration of a five-year term, for example.

It remains to be seen whether a presidential candidate would be ready to commit to such a promise of budgetary seriousness.

And stick to it.

It has never been seen.