For example, when people talk about the "asset rich, cash poor" in the context of tax and health system they refer to those whose lifestyle way exceeds their declared income.
Are you sure? Doesn't this apply to people who have their own property, probably quite nice, but just live off interest on savings - I don't personally see it as having anything to do with declared income, thats a different category
RE : the French have effectively covered their backs by including their own
national inactifs in this as well so they will be treated in exactly
the same way.
I have not seen any evidence so far that the French inactifs cannot join CMU. I have read that Sarkosy wants to increase taxation on pre-retirement packages from private businesses.
Is not an "inactif" person someone who does not work AND is not registered as unemployed and looking for work ?
For example, when people talk about the "asset rich, cash poor" in the context of tax and health system they refer to those whose lifestyle way exceeds their declared income.
Are you sure? Doesn't this apply to people who have their own property, probably quite nice, but just live off interest on savings - I don't personally see it as having anything to do with declared income, thats a different category
You are right and there are alternatives (or variants). The income you can generate from your capital will depend on how risk averse you are. Depending on what age people give up work, some might live of interest and spending some of the capital slowly (i.e. the capital gradually gets smaller). This is where the comment about "declared income" comes in. Rumour (e.g. on this forum) is that a few people are starting to be investigated by the authorities as they appear to be living beyond the income they declare (on tax returns). This is quite possible if you spend the capital as well as the interest. When people comment on the "asset rich, income poor" (in this context) they tend to be referring to the group who appear to have very low income (low tax and low CMU contributions) yet live fabulously - because they are spending their capital. And this is where the equation breaks down because, for "inactifs" to have enough capital to last there has to be a lot and that will generate a lot of interest so they would no longer be considered "cash poor".
For most people who give up work before retirement age ("inactifs"), the money they spend in Super U has to come from somewhere. Most people cannot start drawing their pensions early (military people being one exception). Thus, for others the cash has to come from somewhere. Given that you are "inactif" and thus not employed that leaves things like running gites/B&B and similar or having savings and interest.
Savings and interest is a challenging one for people to calculate as most people will not have inflation adjusted pensions so have to make allowances for their income requirement and effective capital depreciation for inflation.
Joined on 10/04/2005
Small village in the Dordogne, near St Cyprien
Posts 2,121
Re: Health Care reforms!
Trying to clarify this about Sarkosy and French inactifs.
I followed the French Presidential quite closely and saw quotes from Sarkosy and/or his UMP team about French inactifs and the belief that if the French inactifs chose to be that - retired early, not working and not looking for work - that their access to the CMU was going to be/may be restricted. It may not be that the French who are already in the system will be excluded but those looking to take early retirement in the future are in Sarkosy's sights, that's why he and his party have raised the issue.
Several people here have said that what the French Government is saying it will do the non-French national inactifs is discriminatory. What I've been saying is that if Sarkosy brings in the same legislation for the French, it's not discriminatory because the Brits affected will be being treated the same way as the French inactifs.
Dominique, you're right, inactifs are people who are early-retired and not looking for work - seems to cover many of the early-retired people on here who are living off their assets or pensions prior to statutory retirement age without registering for work here, or those people who have businesses, gites etc, which for their own reasons they have chosen not to register so they appear to be inactif to the State.
Somebody on here raised this French inactif issue prior to me but I don't have the time or inclination to go through every thread to find where it originated from a Brit poster.
And it doesn't detract from my general piont - we need to get the French on-side with this campaign, regardless of what the Government does or doesn't do for the French inactifs.
Joined on 05/05/2006
72 - Sarthe - home of les 24 heures du Mans
Posts 8,270
Re: Health Care reforms!
Dominique wrote:
Hello Tony F,
RE : the French have effectively covered their backs by including their own national inactifs in this as well so they will be treated in exactly the same way.
I have not seen any evidence so far that the French inactifs cannot join CMU. I have read that Sarkosy wants to increase taxation on pre-retirement packages from private businesses.
Is not an "inactif" person someone who does not work AND is not registered as unemployed and looking for work ?
Dominique
I, like you, have seen nothing which suggests that French "inactifs" are being ejected from the CMU. The thing is that there probably aren't so many of them, in the same circumstances as non-EUs. They are more likely to be "signed on" (without prospects of employment), or are covered by employment schemes with long payment histories within France. What happens to French nationals who have made their careers elsewhere (200,000+ in London alone) if they return here to retire, nobody seems to know. One assumes that the CMU would be their only way of getting medical cover too?
Ian, I suspect that there are rather more people who have pensions which are available to them before state retirement age than you think - police, services, civil servants, railway workers (that includes me and my o/h - both able to take early retirement.) Also, I take issue with the amounts of capital those who sold up may have left - are we untypical? By the time we sold and paid off our mortgage, paid removal expenses etc, did a few renovation jobs on our property (which now will have to go on hold until we get back into the CMU at whatever date), there is no capital left. Like Maricopa, we live on our pensions - private healthcare, plus paying for asthma drugs out of our pockets, is going to make a massive dent in them! And if the o/h gets another bout of pneumonia - as has happened - we'll probably need to mortgage the house to pay for hospital treatment. Not what we envisaged when we moved!
Edit (simultaneous posting) : And Tony is right - we need to work on the French (particularly the opposition) too.
btw, this was the thread about the disbanding of the CMU
As I see it, there will be no 'winners' if these proposals go through unreformed. No one will be 'better off', certainly not in the true sense of the words. OK, some folk who are in good health, and have healthy incomes to boot, may save a few hundred Euros by 'going private' but whatever they save in the short-term will be outweighed a hundred times if they become chronically sick. Who in their right mind wants to take that sort of gamble - with their health??!! This is not like 'going private' in the UK where, if your insurer won't pay, you can always fall back on the NHS. Here there will be no fall-back, no catch-all. If your insurer won't pay and you CAN'T pay, that's it. Tough luck, ring the undertaker!! Losing the right to access the state health service is a massive blow to everyone concerned and shouldn't be viewed in terms of winners and losers. Everyone is a loser when healthcare becomes dependent upon the say-so of a money-making enterprise, more interested in profits than people. Is it really a myth that these companies employ more people to invesigate ways of avoiding making payment than they do to settle claims?? They are not benevolent societies - they will not pay unless they HAVE to, and they will explore any and every avenue that might allow them to avoid making payment. On top of which, with typical excesses of €120 Euros per claim, what are you actually getting for your money? Visits to the doctor won't be covered, nor the dentist, routine x-rays, scans. How ill do you want to be before you start to get something back? For any kind of peace of mind there is absolutely no alternative but to remain in the State system - at almost any price. The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Ghandi
Joined on 10/04/2005
Small village in the Dordogne, near St Cyprien
Posts 2,121
Re: Health Care reforms!
Cooperlola, could I suggest that all French MPs and Senators are included in the contact list, if we target just the opposition we'll make it a partisan issue and we need to try to get as many people on board as possible.
And of course, rather than keep playing the poor us card, we need to be talking about the economic impact that a loss of British residents would be, especially in rural areas. Down here in Acquitaine, it's mainly socialist so we'd be speaking to the opposition anyway, but we need to spread our net as widely as possible, at every level, national, departmental, canton and commune.