allanb

[quote user="Quillan"]If you're one of these 'experts' it would be easy enough for you to have worked out that I was talking about 5 year bonds.[/quote]No, sorry, I don't know how to work that out.  I'd be glad to learn how it's done.  Since you mention it, I think your rates are wrong, anyway: yields on ten-year Greek bonds are now around 15% and it doesn't seem possible that 5-year yields would be anything like the rates you quoted. It doesn't really matter, though; what I wrote is still true.  When bond yields rise, it's bad news for the bond issuer; his borrowing cost is higher.

[quote user="Quillan"]One strange thing I noticed (incidentally) was that Greek Treasury Bonds started at 3.64% yield and are expected now (according to Bloomberg) to give a 4.65% yield. I wonder how that fits in with the doom and gloom analysis given by the IMF.[/quote]It fits quite well.  I think you may be misunderstanding the bond market.  When yields increase, it's a sign that investors are willing to pay less for the bonds, i.e. they are demanding a higher return on their money to compensate for greater risk. I don't know which bond issue your numbers refer to, but as an example: yields on ten-year Greek bonds have recently been more than 10% higher than on similar German bonds (same currency, same maturity).  That's doom and gloom for Greece.  Their borrowing cost is that much higher; they can always issue more bonds, but they can't sell them at their face value.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]Perhaps they were replying specifically to John Ross who is a Britanique ,presumably and who has a Government pension. Under what circumstances can you envisage a British person completing Sec VII?[/quote] I already explained that... [quote user="allanb"]Section VII applies to anyone who has income which is not taxable in France because of a treaty; some British residents in France have income from countries other than the UK.[/quote] In any case the statement is plain wrong, no matter whether they think JR is British or Mexican.

I still haven't received anything resembling the "Parthenay letter."  Most of the tax office comments that have been quoted refer to pensions of various kinds, but I am wondering about other types of income.   Do we know yet whether the change in method applies to all income from the UK?  In other words, is it possible to say that so far as UK-source income is concerned, there is no longer such a thing as revenu exonéré?

Sorry, duplication.

[quote user="cooperlola"]If I were in the position of having UK taxable income to declare, I'm afraid that I would just follow the French language instructions on the tax form (ie do what I've always done!) and let them sort it... [/quote]I have a lot of sympathy with that view.  The trouble is that to make sure that you don't pay too much tax it isn't enough just to declare your income: you need to declare it in the right place on the form.  And there isn't always enough information on the form or the accompanying instructions to be sure about that. (Example, as already mentioned: what is a pension d'état?) "Letting them sort it" assumes that they will take the trouble to find out what each item is, check whether it's in the right place, and change it if it isn't.  I don't have nearly enough faith in them to rely on that. 

First comment: it doesn't really clarify anything unless they define what they mean by a pension d'état.  That would appear to include the UK state retirement pension, which as far as I know is still taxable only in France, and evidently doesn't belong in either section VI or section VII, only in section I. Second comment: maybe this doesn't affect many people, but the final sentence is badly stated; nationality has nothing to do with it.  Section VII applies to anyone who has income which is not taxable in France because of a treaty; some British residents in France have income from countries other than the UK.  And not all expatriates with UK income are British.  

[quote user="Pads"]...malgré les coups, cela ne passera jamais... [/quote]Difficult to answer without the context.  For instance, if you were trying to knock a peg through a hole that wasn't quite big enough, it could mean "It doesn't matter how often you hit it, it's not going to go through!"

[quote user="parsnips"]Has anyone got the Guide ? Does it cover the changes ? If not, advise all your friends not to waste 9.50€!     Would disappointed customers be justified in demanding their money back?[/quote] I haven't seen the Guide, but I wouldn't be surprised to find something like "correct at the time of going to press" in the small print. To be fair, I don't know whether anybody has enough information to report the supposed changes as a fact.  What do we have?  Two copies of a bad translation of a very unclear letter that has apparently been sent out by two local tax offices, and some notes apparently added to the declaration forms sent to one or two people.  Nothing from the national tax office, as far as I know. If I were the editor of the Guide I'm not sure I would announce anything on that basis.

Gardian, sorry, but that's not what the taux effectif is. The TE is the average rate of French tax that you would pay on your world-wide income if all of it was taxable in France, taking into account all the allowances and lower rate bands that would apply if it was all from French sources.  By definition, therefore, the TE is not affected by tax treaties.  The tax bands, etc, are not applied to your French taxable income.  They have already been taken into account in calculating the TE.  The tax you pay in France (subject to certain deductions, like charitable donations and perhaps the décôte for small amounts) is your French taxable income multiplied by the TE. What is affected by tax treaties is the amount of your income that is actually taxable in France, and the method of giving relief (if any) from foreign tax.  I think that's what has been thrown into confusion by the infamous Parthenay letter.

I've been reading the sales brochure offered with a solar cover (the plastic "bubble" type - bache à bulles) and I'd like to know whether I can believe everything in it. I can understand that the cover will reduce evaporation, and retain heat during the night that would otherwise be lost.  Maybe that's enough to justify it.  But the brochure goes further than that and claims that in full sunlight the cover actually makes the pool warmer than it would otherwise be (a gain of 8ºC is mentioned).  Is that believable? I think that the amount of heat radiated by the sun and falling on a given area (the pool surface) is fixed.  A few people have suggested that each little bubble acts like a lens and concentrates the sun's energy; that may be true, but I don't think it's a plausible explanation.  I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that if you focus radiation on a small point, you will make that point very hot, but the rest of the area will be slightly cooler - you aren't generating any additional heat. On the other hand, it's in the sales brochure, so it must be true - right?

[quote user="parsnips"][quote user="Patf"]What do you think they mean by "tax credit"?[/quote]This is all set out in the "new" DTT which is available on line. "The taux effectif" has been superseded.[/quote] I am now quite sure that the taux effectif method has not been superseded or even modified by the new DTT.  As a matter of fact it couldn't be.  When the calculation is necessary, it's a single calculation based on all of your income, even if some of it comes from countries with a different DTT with France, or no DTT at all. I have now received my declaration forms, but no letter.  Just in case there's any confusion over the forms themselves, the ones I received are nº 2042-K (blue) and nº 2047-K (pink).  There are certainly a few changes in the forms compared with 2009, and I don't pretend to have studied them all, but so far as the famous box TI is concerned: - the heading of section VII of 2042-K has not changed (revenus exonérés pris en compte pour le calcul du taux effectif) - the advice on page 1 of the Notice Explicative has not changed (n'oubliez pas ... de reporter ligne 8TI ... les revenus qui ne sont pas imposables en France mais qui doivent être pris en compte pour le calcul du taux effectif). Of course the treatment of specific kinds of income may have been changed by the DTT, but the notes referred to in Parsnips' first post are nowhere to be seen on the forms that I received.  It will be interesting to see whether all tax offices send out their own version of the explanation.  If so, let's hope it gets clearer as time goes by.

[quote user="parsnips"]The changes only affect income which by the new (and old ) treaty are only taxable by the country in which they arise ie; rents and government pensions(civil service, teachers etc).  Under the new system ALL income becomes taxable in France...[/quote]Sorry but I don't understand that statement. Article 20(2) of the previous treaty, under the heading "Government Service", contains this: Any pension paid by, or out of funds created by, a Contracting State or a local authority thereof, or by a statutory body of either, to an individual in respect of services rendered to that State, authority or statutory body shall be taxable only in that State. The numbering has shifted, but article 19(2) of the new treaty (under the same heading) contains this: Pensions and other similar remuneration paid by, or out of funds created by, a Contracting State or a local authority thereof, or, in the case of France, a statutory body, to an individual in respect of services rendered to that State, authority or statutory body shall be taxable only in that State. There are a couple of changes whose significance I don't know, but it seems to me that the later version repeats the principle that a pension from national or local government service in the UK is taxable only in the UK.  Second question: can you tell me where the taux effectif system is described (ambiguously or not) in the old treaty?

I don't yet claim to understand the change in the tax credit system, but so far as the UK state retirement pension is concerned, I don't see that the new treaty changes anything for a French resident. [quote user="parsnips"]The ambiguity arises from the fact that the new DTT provides for relief from double taxation by tax credit...[/quote]Yes, but surely only where there is double taxation.  Article 18 of the new treaty appears to be unchanged: a UK pension is taxable only in France unless it falls within one of the exceptions in article 19, the main one being (as before) a pension from government service.  So there is no double taxation of the state pension. [quote]... and not by the taux effectif method.[/quote]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the taux effectif method of calculation was ever specified in the treaty: I think it was purely a matter of French tax law.  If I'm right, it would still apply to revenu exonéré, wouldn't it?

[quote user="woolybanana"]You can only be resident in one place... [/quote] Not exactly.  You can be resident in both countries, but if you are, there are rules in the tax treaty to decide which one will be presumed to be your country of residence for tax purposes. But in any case I agree with woolybanana that the law doesn't give you any choice: each piece of your income is taxable wherever the law says it's taxable.

[quote user="debbie"] I'm thinking I should contact the person at GEFI who has prepared our French taxes for us before.[/quote] Definitely.  If you have a professional preparing your tax returns, you should send him anything you get from the tax authority - or, at least, tell him about it.

[quote user="bubbles"]Pity they don't make a reduction in charges for those of us who have e-Releves.[/quote] ASF (my local télépéage company) are proposing to do this, in a way.  First they say that their charge is going from €20 per year to €2.70 per month.  I make this an increase of 62%, and there's no trace of explanation or apology.  They don't say it is increasing, by the way; they say it is "evolving" - do they think we won't notice?  But if you sign up for paperless invoicing, it will be 'only' €2 per month.  What a deal! I'll probably sign up, because I like the convenience of the télépéage.  But I don't like being treated like an idiot.

[quote user="Chancer"]I disagree...   Nowhere anywhere is there a law stating that ride on mowers have to carry their own insurance  it is just extrapolation by forum legal experts and greedy insurance companies...[/quote] Sorry, but I'm quite sure you're wrong.  The law consists not only of statutes, but also of decisions and regulations referring to those statutes.  In this case I don't think any legal training is needed: - the 1985 law says that a motor vehicle ("VTM") must be insured against third-party liability; - the court decision was that a ride-on mower is a VTM; - therefore a ride-on mower must be insured against third-party liability. Which part of that do you disagree with? If you still need convincing, this was part of the report, showing that the court was fully aware of the effect of its decision: Il n'a pas échappé à la deuxième chambre civile que la soumission d'un engin de cette nature à la loi du 5 juillet 1985 aurait pour conséquence inévitable de l'assujettir à l'assurance automobile obligatoire.

The 1985 law may not mention ride-on mowers, but that's not the point.  It does mention motor vehicles (véhicules terrestres à moteur, or "VTM"), and the decision of the court was that a ride-on mower is a VTM for this purpose; so it is subject to the same insurance requirement as any other VTM, i.e. compulsory insurance against third-party liability resulting from its operation. As always, it's useful to distinguish between compulsory and optional insurance.  The law says nothing at all about insuring your mower against loss, theft, damage, etc: that's up to you.  (edited) PS: the cover may already be provided in your household policy.  It is in mine, under the heading Responsabilité Civile Vie Privée, as long as the mower isn't more powerful than 20 CV.

Sorry, Cathy, but nobody knows, not even Moneycorp.  Whatever the rate is now is the combined effect of the opinions of everybody in the market.  If there's anyone who knows better than the market, he won't waste time talking to people like us: he'll be on the phone to dealers, getting rich. I think it's worth remembering that Moneycorp and their competitors do not make money by forecasting rates.  They make money by providing a transaction service, for a fee (and there's nothing wrong with that). 

Thank you all for the suggestions.  It will take some time to try them all, but if one of them works I will post the result.

We have been trying to remove stains from the inside of a glass decanter that has been in use, off and on, for forty years or so (not cut glass, and not an antique).  It's been used mostly for red wine but the stains show no trace of red; in fact they're really colourless. We have tried soaking it in (a) vinegar; (b) Steradent; (3) Calgon washing machine water softener; (4) a "Finish" dishwasher tablet in water (not all at the same time!)  None of them has made any visible difference. Does anyone have any suggestions?  It's quite a pretty decanter and it has some sentimental value, otherwise we wouldn't bother.  

[quote user="idun"]I do not want a united states of europe. Never have never will. Nonsensical to me.[/quote] Amen.

[quote user="NickP"]I don't think there will be a two tier Euro it would never work and it would destroy the concept of "The Common Market"[/quote] I think this is one of the fallacies that's keeping the euro alive (just).  You can have a common market without having a common currency.  Of course, the people who believe in concentrating power in Brussels or Frankfurt don't want us to think like that. But in any case, if you believe that a group of countries can successfully have a common currency - which you obviously do - then I can't see why you couldn't have two smaller groups, each with its own common currency.  It surely doesn't matter whether you call them the "EuroA" and the "EuroB", or the "acorn" and the "peanut". As it happens, I also don't think a two-tier euro will work, but for a different reason.  I believe that when the costs of being tied to one  currency zone are more widely understood, people will realize that having two currency zones will not be any better.

Perhaps ppp is dreaming of a Ferrari lorry.