Jump to content

What do they mean by 'income'?


Recommended Posts

[:D]Beryl, you are definitely not doing anything wrong and nor are a lot of people who move to France. It's true the debat has shifted somewhat from the original post but that seems to be normal.

The bottom line is that the Health Service here worries those who have to deal with its financing and I suppose that also means that we should be concerned too if we live here. 

If they change the financing rules a little bit, the system may be better protected financially in the long run. It's a national debate so why not on this forum? Hope the original poster isn't upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Roughly speaking:

At the expiry of the E106, you're made to register for CMU at the CPAM.

If your income is above a ceratin ceiling, you're made to contribute 8% of

your RFR (Revenu Fiscal de Référence, shown on your latest income tax


If your income is below that ceiling, regardless of your capital or savings, you're entitled to free CMU cover and sometimes free or reduced top-up insurance too, whether you want to claim or not, because the system only takes income into consideration.

The ongoing debate asks if capital-rich but income-low claimants/beneficiaries should still be entitled to the help which was originally addressed to the capital-poor and low-income people.

A  2004 (?) EU ruling is apparently going to be applied in France to put some form of control on EU nationals wanting to settle in France: they'll be asked to apply for a form of residency card, which will only be offered provided the EU national in question can prove he/she has the means to support him/herself in order not to claim French poverty-related benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term CMU covers the whole heath  system, Couverture Medicale Universelle, for which French people contribute through their deductions. EU nationals also qualify if they become resident, and if they are not working pay 8% of their income in lieu of deductions. The perceived problem is that people with little or no income, but who are living on their capital, qualify for free health cover, and free complementaire, whether they want it or not.

People getting free or 8% cover are both benefiting from the CMU, but its the free sort that is under attack.

This is seen by the French, and many Brits, as being unfair. Some Brits think they ought to be able to contribute, and many French are convinced that they should!

It all came about because prior to the abolition of the Carte De Sejour, you had to prove that you could support yourself before you could take up residence. This requirement was abolished a few years ago when the borders were opened up.

In 2004 the EU modified its rules and once again allowed member states to require people coming from other states to register for a residence permit.

The French government will be reintroducing these permits, and this will put an end to people arriving and immediately qualifying for CMU, RMI, and family benefits.

I wouldn't be surprised if the cards were initially reintroduced with a light touch, so that if you are working, or not claiming anything they won't insist on you having a card, but they will certainly require one if you want to claim the benefits.

The prime qualification for getting a card is the ability to prove that you have income above the levels that would qualify you for benefits.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is precisely what I thought.  Thanks.  I absolutely agree and am happy to contribute, indeed believe I should.  However, as all our income is from a pension, not interest on capital, our contribution seems quite reasonable to me.  It certainly makes me grind my teeth too when people are deemed by the system to be poor when they certainly are not.  Welfare systems are designed to be just that - for the welfare of all.  Those of us in our happy position owe it to the rest of society to support those who are less well off, not more- and to help support an overstressed system.  I do feel great sympathy for many of our French (and indeed, Brit) friends over here who work their socks of day in and day out and feel that they are subsidising people who own often 2 properties and have large amounts of capital salted away and are still entitled to claim.  Hopefully the new rules will help to redress the balance.

Our OP (way back when) was of course, only asking how much he would have to pay, not if or how he could duck the system, and I believe he got the answer he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One argument often put forward by those who get free CMU cover through being income-poor yet capital-rich (and here I am not talking about those who say they would contribute if the system allowed) is that they have worked and paid in to the system for 30-odd years so are entitled to get something out in return.

While not denying that, the system they have paid in to is usually the British system, certainly not the French, and by moving to Fance they have voluntarily severed their ties with the British system beyond what the British system pays France under the E-form arragements.

Whatever form of residence permit may be reintroduced, it will have to be carefully arranged. Under the old titre de sejour one had to show the prefecture that one could support oneself, and this was not necessarily through income: capital too was usually taken into account. So maybe, as has been suggested elsewhere, there will have to be a more comprehensive 'means test' undertaken before people get benefits such as free CMU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it has been said before, but for any of you who didn't know. The CMU was the title given to the free health care to people in dire straights and it was about time and a good thing.

Why they called the whole system by this title at a later date beggar's belief. One 'got' from the CMU, one certainly didn't pay in to it, which is how the caisse de maladies now work.


As soon as I see CMU I always think of a benefit system, just my instant reaction.


This all needs sorting out that is for sure. And when someone pays into their own system for x number of years, then when they chose to move to another country, what on earth has that got to do with it. No one makes any of us move to France and the french shouldn't be paying for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi TU,

I suppose we all know that for many years, long before CMU, many countries had bilateral agreements with other countries concerning health care (as well as travel insurance of course).  With the advent of mas travel, I guess it seemed dumb that every time someone got ill or injured on holiday they would be flown home to get treatment.  So having benefits, health care in more than one country is not really that new.  It had to happen with mass tourism, when more than the "well off" began to travel far away.  I think your take in the first few lines makes more sense than seeing it as a "benefit".  It was invented specifically to include the poor, rather than to exclude them. I agree with our puzzlement about it covering all health care now.  Maybe there are people on the list who think that if somoene is poor they don't deserve medical care.  I don't know.  There was  guy on another list who would call the poor "losers", and be quite happy for them to just die.  Maybe there are poeple who think that water and air and health and education are something you should pay for individually, that they are not common goods.  I meet all kinds of wierdos who think that the market should rule everything, especially amongst well off Brit expat/immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...