RGA hits the middle class hardest — and the system makes them pay more

A flat surcharge on very unequal incomes

The natural disaster insurance scheme has rested on a principle of national solidarity since 1982. Every policyholder pays a mandatory surcharge, now set at 20% of home insurance premiums. That surcharge is flat: it depends neither on your income nor on your actual level of risk exposure.

Thomas Bézy, a doctoral researcher at the Paris School of Economics and author of a World Inequality Lab study on inequality in the face of natural disasters, has documented what this uniformity means in practice: 'The poorest 10% pay roughly three times more, as a share of their income, than the richest 10%.'

This isn't a value judgment — it's simple arithmetic. An annual surcharge of 40 euros represents a very different burden depending on whether you earn 15,000 euros a year or 150,000. And it is the poorest households who, proportionally, contribute the most to the system — while often being the least well covered by it.

In concrete terms, the surcharge amounts to roughly 0.45% of income for the poorest 10%, versus about 0.20% of income for the middle class and only 0.15% of income for the richest 10% — a relative burden that mechanically shrinks as income rises, even though the surcharge is identical in absolute euros for everyone.

The paradox: the biggest contributors get the least compensation

The injustice doesn't stop at funding. It extends to access to compensation.

The rate of Cat-Nat recognition varies widely by territory. Rural municipalities, where single-family homes — often older, more vulnerable, built without geotechnical studies — predominate, sometimes obtain recognition less easily than peri-urban municipalities with better administrative documentation.

Moreover, the ability to build a solid case file, appeal a refusal, or hire an independent expert is not equally distributed. Homeowners with fewer resources and connections statistically have less chance of successfully navigating the compensation process.

The result: some of the households who contribute the most to the scheme, as a share of their income, are also the ones who benefit the least from it — and who bear the harshest financial consequences of uncompensated claims.

80% of exposed homes are primary residences

The other dimension of this inequality concerns the nature of the properties at risk. Thomas Bézy's research shows that 80% of homes exposed to clay shrink-swell subsidence are primary residences occupied by their owners. These are not rental investments or second homes: they are houses where families live, and often the only asset those families own.

This profile contrasts with that of flood zones, where second homes and investment properties are more represented. For an owner-occupier in a clay-soil area, an uncompensated RGA claim is not just one loss among others — it is the devaluation of their entire capital.

80% of exposed homes are primary residences of owner-occupiers, often middle-class, versus only 20% of second homes or investment properties, a generally wealthier profile. Flood zones, by contrast, concentrate more second homes and assets held by wealthier households.

"These are often people with little or no other assets besides their primary home. Their entire real estate capital is devalued overnight." — Thomas Bézy, World Inequality Lab

12.1 million homes — and the number keeps rising

In January 2026, the Ministry of Ecological Transition updated the national map of exposure to clay shrink-swell subsidence. The result is striking: 12.1 million existing single-family homes are now located in zones of medium to high exposure — 61.5% of the housing stock.

This figure represents a significant increase compared to previous mappings. Millions of homeowners who believed they were outside the risk zone discovered that their home was now in a medium-exposure area. Among them, a majority are middle- and working-class owner-occupiers — exactly the profile that contributes the most to the system and benefits from it the least.

In total, 12.1 million homes are in medium- or high-risk zones, or 61.5% of the French single-family housing stock. The average cost of a drought-related claim reaches roughly €24,000, twice that of a flood claim.

What can be done when the system fails to protect?

Thomas Bézy frames the collective question clearly: "Are we collectively ready to show solidarity with drought victims? If so, there are several ways to do it, such as increasing the amounts reimbursed by the CCR, or setting up a system that avoids placing the burden of these costs on the most vulnerable households."

This is a political question with no immediate answer. Budget trade-offs, legislative reforms, and insurance decisions all take time.

In the meantime, the only protection that depends neither on Cat-Nat recognition, nor on income level, nor on the ability to build a compensation case, is structural prevention. A soil moisture regulation system installed on foundations that are still sound costs between 2,000 and 8,000 euros — a fraction of the cost of an uncompensated claim, and an investment that preserves property value regardless of administrative decisions.

"The system's funding relies on regressive Cat-Nat surcharges that weigh more heavily on disadvantaged households. The poorest 10% pay roughly three times more, as a share of their income, than the richest 10%." — Thomas Bézy, World Inequality Lab (2025)