New Healthcare Rules

[Dave&Steph]

Does anyone know the definition of  'inactive' in these new regs.?

We live in France and have french rental income on which we pay 11% 'contribution sociale' .

The CPAM uses our French tax form (Avis d'Imposition) to assess our contribution to CMU, are we going to lose our carte vitale(s) as strictly speaking we do not work?

[Bertiebe]

Good question Dave&Steph.  I've been following the threads and waiting for the right one to ask my question, which is related and I hope not too naive.

I have Brit military pension and rental income from England and am well under retirement age.  This is our first year so we haven't filled in a tax form yet (covered by E106 until Jan 09 and therefore have some breathing space).  I understood that social contributions were on 'global' income and therefore we would be paying them (8% I thought) on our Brit earnings.  I assume we lose healthcare because we are 'inactifs' in 2009.  Do we still pay social contributions as well as having to take out private insurance and, if so what will we be getting for them?

Thanks to all for your hard work and good info so far.  (Depressed Smiley)

[cooperlola]

There would be no change to the "social charges" which you pay.  These are a tax, the money you contribute towards paying off the French national debt.  Your health contributions, for CMU cover will, I am sure, cease - if you're not getting something, you don't have to pay for it.

I have had no proper definition of "inactifs" but as M. Sarkozy's sound bites seem to be aimed precisely at those who have money coming in (from company pensions, and interest from assets) but who no longer work - I imagine the aim has always been to target these individuals and that inactifs will mean just that - doing nothing (not earning nothing).  But I am still asking the question to try to get a difinitive answer from somewhere.

[Clair]

I am no[quote user="cooperlola"]I have had no proper definition of "inactifs" but as M. Sarkozy's sound bites seem to be aimed precisely at those who have money coming in (from company pensions, and interest from assets) but who no longer work - I imagine the aim has always been to target these individuals and that inactifs will mean just that - doing nothing (not earning nothing).  But I am still asking the question to try to get a difinitive answer from somewhere.[/quote]

I am no expert, but I would say that inactif covers anyone under the retirement age, who is neither employed nor self-employed.

If your gite is registered with the Chambre de Commerce, you are self-employed.

If your gite income represents 50% or more of your total income, you should be registered wit the the CdC.

If your gite is registered with the préfecture (usually for rating purposes), you are inactif.

[Cat]

I have a good friend who used to hold a high position in the French tax office, and was also assistant mayor of a large french town.  I asked him this very question lunchtime.  His answer was that, for tax purposes, an inactif person was anyone, either temporarily or permanently, not in employment, not self-employed, and not seeking work.

He said that this included children, students, mothers caring for children (outside of the statutory maternity leave period), early retired, and also retired people.

Interestingly, he also thought that in a few years time, every french citizen would have to fund their health care by private insurance!  This was his personal view, as a socialist, rather than anything based on insider knowledge.

[Chassaing]

[quote user="Cat"]

I have a good friend who used to hold a high position in the French tax office, and was also assistant mayor of a large french town.  I asked him this very question lunchtime.  His answer was that, for tax purposes, an inactif person was anyone, either temporarily or permanently, not in employment, not self-employed, and not seeking work.

He said that this included children, students, mothers caring for children (outside of the statutory maternity leave period), early retired, and also retired people.

Interestingly, he also thought that in a few years time, every french citizen would have to fund their health care by private insurance!  This was his personal view, as a socialist, rather than anything based on insider knowledge.

[/quote]

Thanks Cat,  as I posted 'work makes you free'

The slogan 'work makes you free' has been used for centuries in various

forms to force the mechanics of 'society.'  It was 'abused' at the

gates of the concentration camps.

This is what is coming in for the French, they only haven't been told yet.  Remember, the deficits are their debts. 

Philosophic implications of individualism and collectivism

Both collectivism and individualism rest on certain values and

certain assumptions about the nature of man, which is what I want to

explore next.

Responsibility vs. the safety-net

I want to explore is responsibility versus the

social safety-net.

A primary element of individualism is individual responsibility.

Being responsible is being pro-active, making one's choices

consciously and carefully, and accepting accountability for everything

one does---or fails to do. An integral part of responsibility is

productivity. The individualist recognizes that nothing nature gives

men is entirely suited to their survival; rather, humans must work to

transform their environment to meet their needs. This is the essence

of production. The individualist takes responsibility for his own

production; he seeks to ``earn his own way,'' to ``pull his own

weight.''

Collectivism doesn't disparage responsibility; but ultimately,

collectivism does not hold individuals accountable for the choices

they make. Failing to save for retirement, having children one can't

afford, making bad investments, becoming addicted to drugs or

smoking---these actions are called ``social problems'' that

``society'' has to deal with. Thus, collectivists seek to build a

social ``safety-net'' to protect individuals from the choices they

make. To collectivism, responsibility is only to be expected of the

productive, and consists of doing one's part in keeping the social

``safety-net'' in tact.

Regarding production, collectivism sees society, not individuals,

as the agent of production. As a result, wealth belongs to

``society,'' so collectivists have no trouble dreaming up schemes to

redistribute wealth according to their visions of ``social justice.''

This is happening in UK as well.

[rothrugby]

[quote user="Clair"]I am no[quote user="cooperlola"]I have had no proper definition of "inactifs" but as M. Sarkozy's sound bites seem to be aimed precisely at those who have money coming in (from company pensions, and interest from assets) but who no longer work - I imagine the aim has always been to target these individuals and that inactifs will mean just that - doing nothing (not earning nothing).  But I am still asking the question to try to get a difinitive answer from somewhere.[/quote]
I am no expert, but I would say that inactif covers anyone under the retirement age, who is neither employed nor self-employed.

If your gite is registered with the Chambre de Commerce, you are self-employed.
If your gite income represents 50% or more of your total income, you should be registered wit the the CdC.
If your gite is registered with the préfecture (usually for rating purposes), you are inactif.[/quote]

 

Can you tell me where you got this information, is it reliable, as I know several people who this would affect.

 

Thanks Rothrugby

[Clair]

Info specifically concerning gites and chambres d'hotes:

[quote]Qui sont les loueurs en meublé non professionnels ?

Ce sont les personnes qui donnent en location meublée :

• soit des locaux spécialement destinés à la location ;
• soit une ou plusieurs pièces de leur habitation personnelle ;

Entrent notamment dans cette catégorie les loueurs de chambres d'hôtes,

de meublés de tourisme ou de gîtes ruraux (collectivités locales et

agriculteurs).Dans la majorité des cas, les locations en meublé

saisonnières sont considérées comme des locations non professionnelles

parce qu'elles concernent :

• des loueurs qui ne sont pas inscrits au registre du commerce et des sociétés (RCS) en qualité de loueurs en meublé ;
• des loueurs qui, bien qu'inscrits au registre du commerce, retirent
  de cette activité à la fois un montant de recettes inférieur ou égal à
  23 000 € TTC et moins de 50% de leur revenu global.

Les mises à disposition de caravanes, mobil-homes et habitations

légères de loisirs réalisées dans les terrains de camping sont

assimilées à la fourniture de logements meublés lorsque ces biens

constituent de véritables installations fixes.

source: http://www.impots.gouv.fr/

Quand devient-on loueur professionnel ?

Il faut être inscrit au registre du commerce et des sociétés (RCS) et avoir des recettes :

• soit supérieures à 23 000 €,

• soit inférieures à 23 000 € si les revenus tirés des meublés sont supérieurs ou égaux à 50% du revenu global.

Le montant des recettes brutes à prendre en considération s'entend du total des loyers courus taxes comprises.

Le seuil de 50% du revenu global est apprécié en comparant le

montant net des revenus de la location au total des revenus nets

catégoriels de l'ensemble du foyer fiscal (avant déduction des charges

du revenu global et des déficits des années antérieures) y compris les

revenus provenant de la location et, le cas échéant, ceux taxables à un

taux proportionnel.

source: http://www.impots.gouv.fr/

[/quote]

[rothrugby]

Thanks Clair, I will pass this onto my friends