Most Holy

I have to agree that the French pension system sucks in terms of return.  In particular comparing ANY state-run system versus a pension fund is going to be laughably in favor of the pension fund. I lack the expertise to compare the "lousiness factor" of the French state-run system versus that of any other country, but I suspect -- I could be wrong -- that if we stick to comparing apples and apples (and not oranges), they're roughly the same.  One point I was making -- or trying to make -- was in effect that it's not JUST France. En passant, one may also note that state-run systems are also worse for self-employed persons (as opposed to salaried employees). Let us note that the French system will allow you to make a lump sum contributions to in effect "purchase" the "missing years" of your pension plan at a discounted rate and still pay you the expected pension later on. A self-employed late entrant in the French system -- and possibly any other comparable countries' -- is indeed being grossly disadvanted, especially if he were to invest the same money privately.

Let me preface this by stating that while I have a background in legal/financial matters, my comments do not purport to be legal or tax advice and besides, there are several grey areas that largely depend on how things are represented and honest experts may disagree on the best way of handling things on a case by case basis and depending on how much is at stake. Devil, details, etc. In fact I'll welcome fact checking, additions and corrections. You all presumably know that you are considered a French resident for legal, tax, etc. purposes only if you spend more than 183 days (not necessarily in continuity) in France. If you spend less than that here, you may not have to be in the French system at all. In you are in the French system, I'm going to be simplifying a bit, but you can either be (a) employed by a company, (b) self-employed (commerçant, artisan, artist, etc.) or (c) rentier (ie: making money from dividends, royalties, etc. but not "working" - the devil here is in the definitation of "working"). There isn't really any other choice. If (a), you are either (a.i) working for a French company or the properly registered French-based subsidiary/branch, etc. of a foreign company, or (a.ii) working for a foreign company without any establishment in France while you yourself are living (and in effect working) in France. (a.i) is very simple, the entire French system is geared towards employees. The company is the one with all the headaches. Just watch the deductions on your payslip. Ouch! (a.ii) can be tricky and will lead to all kinds of arguments, possibly prosecutions, with the various French entities who will try to force you into (b) because they can't get at your employer but they can get you. Right now there is an interesting lawsuit pending where the French are trying to force French lawyers living in Paris but working for British lawfirms not registered in France to, in effect, become self-employed (ie: (b)) in order to pay all the social contributions etc. which currently no one is paying. I don't recommend a starring role in a David v. Goliath fight. So..... (b) if you are in effect self-employed (artisan, commerçant, artist) or small business owner (micro-entreprise), you will in effect have to pay all the social contributions that the company employing you would otherwise pay. Leaving aside income tax and VAT, there are really only three other types of payments that you incur when you run a business in France, and two of them would be roughly the same (although administered differently) in most western countries: 1) Retirement : the money that you pay will be accrued to you & your spouse (if registered as a conjoint collaborateur); yes, you would do better off if you invested it yourself on the stock market, and yes, you won't get as much as your French neighbor at age 65 because he/his employer contributed during his entire working life, BUT YOU WILL BE GETTING SOMETHING! It's not money being thrown away! Every country has a somewhat similar system. It is neither peculiarly French nor unfair. 2) National Health Insurance (what the French call Social Security): Ditto. The minimum payment for a year if you make no money is like 300 or 400 euro and it gives you access to a rather good system. The scale is proportional to your revenues and not unfair. Honestly, if you're whining about either of these two payments, it's likely because you're comparing apples and oranges and haven't quite grasped the full picture. 3) URSSAF: That, on the other hand, is totally weird and entirely French. In effect you're paying to subsidize other people's kids, even rich families'. If you do have children, take advantage of it; if you don't, tough luck. However, if you do not make much money, URSSAF will be prepared to negotiate a lower payment; go and talk to them. But that payment is basically pissing away money. The French system does grab a larger bite out of a business' revenues and they don't give you the choice to opt out, but for the two categories above, you get good value for your money, or at least comparable to what you would get elsewhere. Except for the URSSAF. The category we have not yet discussed here is (c) rentier. To be a "rentier" is like being retired, you must not "work" at all in the common usage of the word, but you can receive dividends, royalties, etc. (subject to French income tax, of course -- it gets complicated when it involves different countries with different rules about the taxation of dividends, royalties, etc. and even different definitions according to bilateral tax treaties.) If you own or have a stake in a foreign corporation, that corporation is not you; it can conduct its own business in the country where it's incorporated, and its profits will be taxed in that country. The French have nothing to do with this; this is perfectly legal and besides, they have no way of finding out. The tricky part comes in getting some of the money out of the corporation and into your pocket.  If you're paid a salary or a freelance fee etc. for any kind of "work" that you appear to be doing for said corporation, then the French will look at you as a (b) above and will try very hard to force you to pay the social contributions mentioned above. But if the corporation pays you dividends or royalties (this gets very complicated very quickly and that is where I must recommend a set of good tax advisors in both countries) then it becomes purely a matter of income tax. Obviously this last category, (c), is not accessible to a large number of people; only those already owning or partners in an ongoing business in Country A, but choosing to reside in Country B, need look into it. It's like relocating to Luxembourg or Andorra, not everyone can do it.

The ONLY point I tried making earlier was that IF a country can regulate drinking & its resultant behaviors, as well as a whole range of other human activities (e.g.: urinating in public, etc) it sure can regulate smoking. That's what laws are all about. I find nothing wrong with anti-smoking laws.

[quote user="Deimos"]To me smoking seems only one of many habits that cause problems. At least with smoking the effects are limited to specific rooms and people who don't like it just don't go in those rooms !! As others have pointed out e.g. drinking can cause abusive behaviour outside the "room", driving dangers to others, etc. Ian[/quote] Actually, drinking is already controlled by a number of laws or regulations: you can't be drunk and drive, drunk and disorderly, etc. If you're drunk, for example, and you throw up on someone, or spit on them, you'll incur a fine (and possibly a punch on the nose). So your analogy doesn't quite work. Following your logic, I should be free to throw up on any smoker I meet without suffering the consequences.

[quote user="louweezel"] Problem is MH, how do we know what the truth is. How do we know that such things never happened? Just because the American government said so?? This is what made it interesting, seeing it from a different perspective. Louise [/quote] At the risk of being simplistic, we DO know because there was a commission that took testimonies under oath from a number of independent witnesses, etc. Now I'm not saying that we know what is NOT in the Official Commission's Report, but we certainly know what IS in it. The American Airlines vs US AIR confusion is just one of the many deplorable mistakes due to laziness and lack of adequate fact checking. To return to my earlier example, if I pen a docudrama on the death of Princess Di, one advertised as the "real truth" as it were, it is certainly okay, though controversial, to hint at a conspiracy (if I so choose), but it is NOT okay to show that her car crashed in Berlin, or to create a scene showing Tony Blair ordering her assassination. Or do you support that sort of rewriting of known facts?

[quote user="louweezel"]Yes but they would say that! It also had a disclaimer at the start and end of the film. It wasn't a documentary, so i wasn't taking it all as 100% accurate. It's was just interesting about how much we didnt know about, even if events were not entirely as shown, there was still a lot going on. Chances are we never will know the exact story. Too much propaganda going on, from all sides. Louise [/quote] I confess that I generally do NOT like "docudramas" because they blend fact and fiction and simply make up stuff. But PATH TO 9/11 was far worse than any docudrama in recent memory. For example, it shows a scene in which Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to capture or kill bin Laden, even though the spooks had him in their sights. Only problem: it never happened. Another example (of many): the movie blames American Airlines for ignoring a warning on their computers about Mohammad Atta boarding their flight. But in fact the warning came up on US Airways' computers for his Portland flight; American at Logan had nothing to do with it. There is "propaganda", yes. For example, Oliver Stone's JFK was clearly a docudrama with a strong point of view. But then there is sloppiness, which is inexcusable. And even more so when dealing with an event like 9/11. I'm afraid it was a piece of sorry tripe, on the level of, say, claiming that TonyBlair had personally ordered the assassination of Princess Di, and the BBC ought to be ashamed of having broadcast it.

Why would anyone chose to relocate to France? I would like to argue that one of the reasons should be that one is a Francophile, otherwise (if you allow me the analogy) the body will eventually reject the transplanted organ or vice-versa. I think foreigners who've moved to France and are not, at the start francophiles, are eventually bound to become alienated and whingers. This is, of course, also true of Frenchmen moving to America, England, etc. You must already know and love the local culture, warts and all, if you are to build a reasonably successful new life. That includes speaking the language, and more, sharing at least some cultural references in your hobbies; e.g. if you're into comics as I am, and you have fond memories of the Beano and 2000 AD, it would behoove you to have read some Tintin, Asterix, Lanfeust or Titeuf. I confess to being surprised by foreigners who move to a country with little or no knowledge of the local language and the culture and expect to live undisturbed. (This may be nuanced for nationalities with large migrant communities already present in the host country, such as Chinese, Hispanics in America, Turks in Germany, etc. though even then, I think speaking the language makes things immeasurably easier.)

[quote user="SaligoBay"]I just don't see the point of quoting statistics to say that this is better than that, or there are two points of difference between x in Thailand and x in France. It doesn't help anyone, and is just a way of avoiding the real discussion.  You know, like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while people are starving outside your door. I haven't run out of arguments because I was never arguing! [;-)] [/quote] My humble suggestion would then be either to not post at all (there are a number of things I read here that I disagree with, but I don't feel I have enough of an interest in the matter or an expertise to contribute to warrant a post) or post something personal, and therefore unarguable. For example, instead of saying: "it's interesting that electricity is so expensive in France" which was a general statement which begged the reply "no more than in the UK", a more challenging contribution would have been: "I'm on a fixed income and I find electricity very expensive" or "electricity is major % of my budget" which would have hopefully elicited  thoughts on  how  you could reduce your bill, save power,  etc. For example I've heard about these blue days, red days, white days that EDF has. I don't know if it saves money or not. There's plenty to talk about when discussing the cost & consumption of power. In any event, no offense taken here. Let's all strive to remain civil.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]Sorry, I thought we were talking about ordinary people. It must be nice to live in the protected world of ivory towers, where everyone spends their days quoting statistics and saying how lovely everything is.  If I had the money, I'd love to join you! [/quote] Don't be bitter. I'm comparing apples and apples; you're comparing apples and oranges. In fact you haven't compared anything, you just made a blanket statement. As to the statistics, I'm doing it on the spot, using google. You could do the same. It takes maybe 15 minutes. It's uncivil for one who has run out of arguments to turn to personal attacks. I would hope that you wouldn't want to lower the standards of discussion of this thread.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]It's interesting that electricity (overall, including the abonnement) is so expensive in France. [/quote] According to NUS Consulting (NUSINC.COM - a professional cost management and recovery company specializing in solutions to reduce electricity, gas, oil, petroleum costs) (via the old reliable ECONOMIST), I found a table that spells out energy costs in Europe. (I don't know how to post images so I'll type it out): First, the price of electricity expressed in Euro Cents / KWH in April 2005, for the supply of 1000 KW for a business with a monthly usage of 450 KKWH (excluding VAT): - France: the graph bar looks like it's near 5.2 - Britain: 6.3 - Netherlands: 7 - Belgium: almost 8 Only Finland and Sweden have prices below below France; Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc. are all more expensive. Now, the prices of natural gas taken in September 2005 for an annual supply of 2.9 MKWH, (excluding VAT): - France, Belgium and Britain are about the same, around 2.8 cents, though I understand there was a sharp increase in the UK recently; Spain, Finland are below that; the most expensive country is Denmark with 8 cents. As a rule, countries with political control over their energy policies (France, Germany, Spain, in particular) deliver better prices to their citizenry. More than 3/4 of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power; is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. I think it depends on who you talk to and what factors are taken into consideration.

[quote user="WJT"]Good point Most Holy, but still have to put my resources in the UK not France. But as I said will reap all of my rewards in a country that I could not work in or contribute to. Just my experience.  [/quote] I completely agree with you - my point was never to put down the UK though I am very "bearish" about the US economy (another discussion), only to point out that gap between France and the UK wasn't as wide as occasionally perceived. There are many features, including employment, where the UK, at a price, is better off than France, indisputably; there are others, such as energy, where it is (IMHO) on shakier grounds (another discussion as well).

[quote user="WJT"]Wow, well, I for one am a bit shocked and disappointed as well, I guess mob rules well in France. I too have to agree with Deby, SB and Hastobe and also have to admit that I personally believe that Socialism just doesn't work. [/quote] Regarding your first point, I read somewhere that in a recent poll, 80% if the French disapproved of the CPE. It doesn't seem untoward for a government elected with a dubious mandate (Chirac/Le Pen) to withdraw a law passed by a minority of MPs (51 vs 23 on a Sunday night).  Right now, in the U.S., 66% of Americans are against the Iraq War; yet the Government continues steadfastly its failed policies. Of the two, I think the French Government is the wiser. As to "Socialism doesn't work," it depends how you define "socialism".  Certainly, the totalitarian travesty that was the USSR didn't work, in the long-term. Is China today more or less Socialist than, say, Sweden or Denmark? Is China an economic miracle or not? Are you saying that our friends the Danes and the Swedes have been living in abject failures since the War?  What about the NHS in the UK? Total and  EDF in France? Airbus?  In America, certain industries such as Boeing, the major airlines, the entire aerospace industry, only survive because of Government help... Such labels can be quite meaningless, like the word "liberal" which has one meaning in the US and another in France.

For those who wonder about my "Most Holy" pseudonym it is a reference to the Canadian comic book CEREBUS, most particularly this passage. http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/freecerebus/page19.html

[quote user="Gluestick"]I do agree with most of your post: there is a sort of economic envy, which causes many analysts to rubbish France and it is anecdotal rather than factually based. [/quote] Actually, my own experience is that the real pros, the MONOPOLY men with money bags, are not fooled at all; the media and the public might be, but they're not, they know pretty much what France is worth; what they do NOT like is the "message" that -- unwittingly -- France has come to embody, which is its stand in the age-old conflict between labor and capital. Too much "common wisdom" nowadays equate labor with costs, which are "bad" and must be reduced, in order to maximize profits, that will go and enrich a minority. The price paid by society overall for such a transfer of wealth is never taken into account. For better or worse, the French -- I'm not even sure most realize that is what they're doing -- "smell" that transfer of wealth -- the French economic elites would certainly be happy to do to France what their counterparts have done elsewhere -- and fight desperately to block it. Despite the propaganda you hear and read about, there's nothing intrinsically unavoidable about such a transfer of wealth from the middle to the upper classes. Let us remember that even a Hight Priest of Capitalism such as Henry Ford though that the Middle Class should be driving the economy. Mr Ford would likely be appalled by the economic picture in the US today. I'll spare you the data but in the last decade, the middle classes has seen its wages (and wealth) stagnate, while the rich have indulged in an orgy of consumption that makes it appear that the country's economy is doing great. But that orgy of consumption is not sustainable, especially if it is paid by debt. If you take out debt, GDP growth looks less perky. On most cases GDP Grown less Net Borrowing is actually negative. These are problems that go beyond France and, differently but not unlike the 1920s, threaten all of our societies.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]  This forum (not run by French people) is the only place I've seen anyone trying to say that France doesn't have an unemployment problem. [/quote] If we're going to discuss this seriously, one must really make an effort to be more precise. No one here has claimed that France does not have an unemployment problem. At best, one might have inferred from the stats posted that France has an unemployment problem that is reasonably similar (a little worse, not very much worse, depending on countries) to that of its neighbors, which is a vastly different thing. One might argue that France has chosen to have more unemployment in exchange for better working conditions for those who are employed. One might also conclude that the French are more sensitive to the unemployment problem, OR alternatively, that the non-French are more insensitive to it. Finally, what was specificially discussed (by me, at least) was the employment of the 15-to-24-year-olds in the EU as a ration of the overall youth population. That is a quantifiable figure. The unemployment rate for the under 24s in France has often been quoted by the media as being around 23%. My my OECD/INSEE sources quote the rate of employment, the proportion of 15-to-24 youth that actually  work, at only 30.4% in 2004! Not good at first sight, especially against 55.4% in the UK! Note that it is 27.6% in Italy and only 21.7% in Poland, the darling of "reformers" but no one writes editorials about it. But you have to remember that the unemployment rate is always calculated as the ratio of unemployed to active population (i.e. those working or seeking work). Now, using that traditional ratio, French unemployment among the youth drops to 8.1%, against 7.6% in the UK. A very different picture. I would explain the high overall French figure by the fact that a lot of French youths are students, and unlike in America, for example, they do not need to work to pay for their studies. For instance, in the UK, 42% of youth have to work while being students; in France that % is only 6.8% (and 1% in Italy! gadzooks!). That is bound to impact the overall statistic. What conclusions can one draw from this: (a) that the media through ignorance or incompetence generally follows a narrative that is simple to understand (and colorful to write about, lazy frogs, etc.) yet misleading; (b) the ones in the know (bankers etc) are not fooled but the streets are.