At the end of his presentation, finance minister Gilles Roth (CSV) called on MPs to vote for his budget. He will have the support of the CSV, as Marc Spautz, leader of the party’s faction in the Chamber of Deputies, confirmed. While he said he was satisfied with the policy pursued and the trajectory of public finances, Spautz called on the government to be careful about the non-recurring nature of certain tax revenues--the recovery of tax debts from companies in previous years and exceptionally high profits in various companies, which may not be repeated, partly explain the higher-than-expected level of revenues. He also believes that the structural decline in the social security surplus and in the pensions system calls for action. The “business as usual” policy, synonymous in his view with “après moi, le déluge,” is not an option. Finally, he advocates better governance of fiscal policy.

Unsurprisingly, the leader of the DP faction in the Chamber of Deputies, Gilles Baum, also approves of the draft budget. He pointed out that the previous DP-led majority had put the country on the right track. “Gilles Roth has found a clean slate.” Baum approves of a budget that will enable the country to meet future challenges by lowering the tax burden, helping households and investing in modern infrastructure, all of which will make the country more attractive. A budget that provides answers to the problems of poverty and housing. “It’s a budget that makes our country more resilient, fairer and more sustainable.”

However, the government will not find any support among the elected members of the opposition.

Sightseeing for the LSAP

For Taina Bofferding (LSAP), the government is “sailing in the dark.” For the Socialist fraction leader, the government’s text “lacks ambition in many areas,” particularly in terms of attracting talent and housing. She is critical of a budget whose philosophy is “business first.” It’s a philosophy that, in her view, puts social issues to one side in favour of competitiveness, a philosophy that in housing policy amounts to favouring investors. “An outdated liberal ideology.”

Referring to the cut in corporation tax, she criticised a political decision and pointed out that, according to the Court of Auditors, “this cut does not guarantee better tax revenues.” The increase in social spending? For her, it is more the consequence of a mechanical increase in spending than the demonstration of a political will. Bofferding regrets the multiplication of subsidies to the detriment of genuine structural measures such as raising the minimum wage to a level above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. “This budget has no direction and provides no clear response to the challenges of the future.”

ADR does not see change

The ADR will not be voting for the budget either. “This draft does not set a clear course and lacks courage,” laments Fred Keup, for whom “the promised change is not there.” For Keup, nothing has changed in terms of purchasing power, energy prices, crime, mobility, health, debt, the destruction of nature, the development of poverty, the exodus of Luxembourgers, the place of the Luxembourg language, the position of the family and quality of life. “Nobody can say what has changed compared to the previous government,” he insists, criticising the underlying theme of the government’s plan: economic growth based on demographic growth. Imported growth. “Do we want a Luxembourg with a million inhabitants and 400,000 cross-border commuters? And if that were feasible, would it be desirable?”

A budget against youth for déi Gréng

Déi Gréng has also seized on the allegory of the compass. For Sam Tanson, the budget presented is a weak one. “It’s a budget based on tax cuts that makes administrative simplification the solution to all problems. While there are some useful revenues in this draft, there are no clear choices for tackling the major environmental and social challenges. This budget is a burden on young people. It embodies a policy of regression to the detriment of the younger generations.” Under these conditions, the Greens will not be voting in favour of the budget.

A country is not a company: Pirates

It was Sven Clement who introduced the Pirate party to the discussion. In his view, the budget lacks direction and its content is disappointing. Clement criticised “the business approach of the prime minister, who sees himself as the CEO of Luxembourg. This approach is wrong: you don’t run a country like you run a business. The purpose of a country is to guarantee the prosperity and well-being of its citizens, not to pay dividends.” And this is not the way forward, says Clement. He deplores the fact that, faced with a lack of affordable housing and even jobs, more and more Luxembourgers are being forced to find accommodation in neighbouring countries. The Pirate MP is also critical of the lack of a revenue strategy. Revenues that he considers too dependent on the financial centre, tourism at the pumps and cigarette sales. “That’s not the way to secure the future.”

An unfair budget for Déi Lénk

Déi Lénk will not be voting for the budget either. For David Wagner, the budget “accentuates social injustice” and does not provide the means to improve people’s quality of life and prepare Luxembourgers for the challenges of the future. “It’s a junk budget that doesn’t invest as it should in mobility, housing, climate protection, schools and hospitals. By dint of tax giveaways to the rich, there’s not enough money for critical investments.” The government’s social policy? “Incentives and subsidies to prevent the situation from deteriorating. But people don’t want handouts, they want decent wages and affordable housing.” For the left, it’s not enough.

This article was originally published in French.