Glyn

I have received similar replys as the following from several MEP's that I have written to:- Thank you for your e-mail regarding health coverage for British citizens resident in France.   You may not be aware that European constituencies were reorganised following the 1999 European elections, and MEPs were elected under a proportional representation system. Having opposed the proportional system, the four Conservative MEPS in the South East region have divided the area into four sub-constituencies, to guarantee a more direct representation for the people of the South East region. This decision means that James Elles represents the Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire area for the party. Daniel Hannan MEP is the Conservative representative for West Sussex.  I have, therefore, forwarded your correspondence to him for his information. It is interesting that even though they were opposed to the electorial changes that they mention they still felt that they should be elected under it in 2004. Does anyone know if there is some sort of European Parliament Ombudsman that their actions can be reported to as I really believe that it is unconstututional and immoral. Par for the course really[;-)]

Deimos, That is very interesting about your French friend as if there is some hope that after 5 years of residency British inactifs must be treated in the same way as French inactifs we must be sure we understand what French inactifs are entitled to. Is there any way of finding out if your friend gets her state health cover by contributing to the CMU. Glyn

rothrugby, I notice that in the link you provided it states:- 'However, until the right permanent residence has been aquired, the host member state is not obliged to grant entitlement to social security to persons other than employed or self-employed...' I think that we are hoping that this means that once aquiring permanent residence (ie after 5 years) we would be entitled to social security. My question is do we know that when the directive mentions 'Social Security' this includes health cover and not just things like unemployment. Glyn

At the moment I am using a scatter gun approach with my lobying. Writing e-mails to MP's and MEP's listing all the areas of the changes that I feel that are unjust. However I am wondering if we should be concentrating on those areas that we have the best chance of changing. I think it is highly unlikely that the changes will be dropped completely so perhaps we have the best chance of changing the legislation so that it is not applied retrospectively to existing residents. To achieve this it is likely going to require the EU to put pressure on the French government. Secondly we need to ensure that the 5 year residency rule is confirmed together with clear rules as to how it will be implemented. In the longer term the UK government needs to ensure reciprocal arrangements are made for its citizens to receive healthcare wherever they reside within the EU.  I know that I may be rambling a bit but I find that in these times just putting my thoughts down in words seems to relieve the stress slightly[:D]

As expected I have just recieved an anti EU tirade from the assistant of Nigel Farage (Leader of the UK Independence Party) in response to my e-mail outlining the health system changes. Interesting that it was automatically moved to my Junk mail folder[:D]

Nickel, I tend to agree with you. It would seem that if the 5 year rule applies we are only talking about having to 'go private' for 3 years. Seems to be a lot of work for nothing, which makes me think that maybe the '5 year' rule is just a smoke screen to calm things down a bit. Just like the other message from the British Embassy about the changes not applying to existing residents[;-)] I also think that the changes make the cover provided by the E106 a bit of a risk. OK so you will get free membership to the health system for up to 2 years but what happens if you contract a long term illness during this period and are then forced to find private cover when the E106 expires. It seems that there could be an argument for not getting an E106 and taking out private insurance from day 1. At least then you know that anhything you contract from then on wil be covered. It feels like sorting out your healthcare cover is like going to the casino or races. Just one big gamble[:)]

It would appear that when I moved to France I would have been better off keeping a notional UK address and maintaining a charade of having a 'holiday' home in France as I know many Brits living here do. I could have used my UK sourced EHIC to obtain emergency treatment in France and used the UK health system for any non emergency treatment. OK so I may have got found out sometime in the future but that may have been a risk worth taking. What is the worst the authorities could do.[;-)] As usual it is those that try and do things by the rules that get affected.[:@]

I seem to remember that when similar changes were implemented in Spain there was a program on UK television highlighting the plight of those affected. I cannot remember what channel it was on and who presented it but maybe someone else can. If so perhaps they can post the details and it might be worth contacting the production company to see if they would be interested on a follow up program from France.  

I think that there are two situations regarding the '5 year' rule. 1. Those people that have already been resident for 5 years being allowed to continue in the CMU. 2. Those people who will become resident for 5 years at some point in the future being allowed to join the CMU. Both of these really need to be clarified. It looks like this will only become clear when the first person in each of these groups applies to stay in/join the CMU.

Framboise, Like you, when we decided to move to France we 'fully accepted that we must join the system' and were prepared to pay what was necessary for this. However we like many others are now being told that we cannot join. I only hope you have budgeted for any unforseen changes that may arise after you have emigrated next year. Having the prospect of you health contributions increase by 400% is not fun.    

I'm Glyn! Not sure who Glynn is though[:)] At the end of the day I dont think it matters how the British Embassy or DWP think the new rules will be implemented, it is just down to how they will be interpreted by the French authorities and at the moment they seem to be saying very little about things. I just hope it turns out OK for as many people as possible.  

cooperlola Not sure if it is becoming clearer. The following post suggests that even if you have had 2 years stable residence you will not be able to get cover when you come of your E106. http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1020177/ShowPost.aspx I think the problem is the authorities definition of terms like 'already in the system' and 'existing resident'.  

Russethouse I think that is still the big question. I have seen other posts saying that if you are already 'in the system' then you will be ok but nobody seems know if this only includes those who are 'in the system' by virtue of their 8% CMU contribtions or also those that are 'in the system' by virtue of their E106. I suppose I will just have to wait and see what happens when my E106 runs out in January.  

Nick, Thanks again for that. Just one more question. If I register as a "conjoint collabarateur" will that increase the standard cotistations that one has to pay? Glyn

Thanks for that. Will this be automatic or do we need to inform anyone when we submit all the necessary forms for establishing the enterprise individuelle? Glyn

My wife is planning to set up an Enterprise Individuelle under the Micro-BIC tax regime. She will therefore pay all the required cotistations to the URSSAF and appropriate caisse, which will entitle her to a Carte Vitale. Will I be included for health cover under her Carte Vitale as a dependant? Thanks Glyn

Ron, You state that 'the value of many funds deteriorated not because of the removal of the tax concession but because the stock market that was by all measures overheated, (over valued) crashed and severely reduced the "nominal" value of many funds.' If Gordon Brown had not removed the tax concessions, the pension funds would have been able to better cope with any crash in the stock market. It was for this sort of volatility that the then pension fund surplus was intended to cater for. The problem with pension funds was due to 3 major events (stock market crash, contributions holiday and the removal of tax concessions by Gordon Brown). To think otherwise is to deny the facts. Glyn  

leslauriers, If you take a regular annual income from your assurance vie are you limited to withdrawing the interest only or can you also withdraw part of the capital as well? Thanks, Glyn

Leslauriers, Some useful information there. Can you explain what you mean by 'If at any time you withdraw all of the investment the total interest is then taxed'.  If you had 300000 currently invested and wanted to withdraw it all how would tax be calculated? Are you able to add additional funds one an AV has been opened? Thanks, Glyn

avinalarf, Thanks for the detail you have provided. It is very interesting that you have said that revenue not taxable in France is not subject to contributions sociales. As you say this is contrary to some of the other replies. I wonder if anyone else would like to comment?

Ron, Thanks for your invaluable information but yesterday I believe you mentioned that CSG, CRDS and PS were payable on UK 'unearned income'. I posted this topic as I was unaware that rental income was classified as unearned income! Now this has been clarified I now understand that social contributions would be payable. Just because I did not declare my total financial situation in the question I asked yesterday does not negate the relevance of the questions asked or the replies received. Thanks to everyone for there input.[:)] Glyn  

Patf, Do you know how the French social security contributions are calculated on your UK rental income Thanks

Patf Thanks for that. Glyn

I filled in form NRL1 from the inland revenue which allows the rent to be paid without UK tax being deducted. I assumed this meant that I would actually pay any liability in France. However having just read the form again it looks like this mat not be the case and that the tax should be declared and paid in the UK. Even so I would still imagine it would have to be declared in France. If so, where would this be entered? Thanks, Glyn

I have rental income for 2006 from a property in the UK from which no UK tax is being deducted. I am also covered by a E106 which I understand to mean that no CSG, CRDS or PS should be payable on the rental income. I am using the French Online Tax simultaion to determine how I should be filling up my tax return when I recieve it and have two questions related to this. From previous posts I understood that the gross rental income should go in box BE (Revenue fonciers). However when I do this the simulation calculates that I should be paying CSG, CRDS and PS. I expected this when my E106 expires but not before. I understand that to have rental income assessed under the Micro foncier regime it must be less that 15000 euros per annum. If it is more that this, how should the tax form be completed? Thanks Glyn