3/ The tax base includes not only personal assets. But also corporate shares and professional assets. Taxing these may result in "double taxation" - since companies already pay corporate taxes on profits. This raises legal questions about fairness...

...And whether the tax violates constitutional protections against double taxation or undue burdens on entrepreneurship.

4/ Critics argue that the tax could drive capital flight or discourage investment. Impacting economic freedom. While these are political and economic concerns - they also influence constitutional interpretation. As laws that excessively restrict economic activity may be challenged.

5/Past decisions by the Council have set precedents for capping wealth tax rates or requiring proportionality with income. Complicating adoption of a flat two percent minimum rate without caps or income-related adjustments.

For exemple, the 2012 decision on the 75 percent income tax for millionaires. The Constitutional Council struck down the seventy-five percent income tax in incomes above 1 million euro. It did not reject it explicitly for confiscatory nature but for violating the principle of equality...

...Because the tax applied to individuals and not households. For example, a two earner household unter the threshold would escape the tax. Whereas a single earner household above it would it pay.

Consequence: This ruling established limits on very high tax rates in France. And underlined the need for proportionality and equality in tax design.

As well as a 1995 decision concerning the taxation of professional asset. The Council criticized a provision granting tax exemptions only on condition of managing received professional assets. Potentially creating inequality between heirs and beneficiaries.