Plus Values ..... Macron

[woolybanana]

Richard, France takes 45.3% of gdp in tax and rising. You cannot possibly wish an increase?

[YCCMB]

Surely, with very few exceptions, it is a choice to move to or live just about anywhere? I suspect very few people are living somewhere against their will...unless we include those detained in prison.

[EuroTrash]

Well, but if you need to work, your choice is limited by where you can get a job. If you can't drive / need to be near a hospital, those are your limits.

Then there's the ability to pay. I think there may be people living on sink estates in Marseilles and other inner cities who would very much prefer to be living somewhere nicer.

[richard51]

But they have benefited from not paying it.

Given it was Sarko the last motivation was to probably to increase the market for private landlords to make massive profits!

Must admit knew nothing about that idea.

[richard51]

WB

In terms of france I think I agreed with you.

Not in terms of the UK.

[YCCMB]

I certainly agree with that aspect of the argument, ET, and equally I'd say that there are some who are born in a city and would prefer to stay where they were born but are either priced out or forced out because they need to relocate in order to find work. I'm putting the counter-argument to the statement that "it's a choice" to live in a city. Basically, it's a choice to live anywhere. Of course, there are specific mitigating factors, but those same factors exist for those who live in the country, or in a regional town as opposed to a large city. Sure, you might wish to have nicer accommodation, but you weigh up all the options, costs, commuting issues etc., and then you choose. According to your means and according to the things upon which you place the most vale, such as commuting time, family time, cost, disposable income.......

[richard51]

ALBF was arguing (using what if) that people may have to move to a city.

I was merely pointing out the obvious that it it is a choice.

Shame irrelevant obvious arguments now appearing

[NormanH]

House or Home

Although some hold that property is theft

Apparently that doesn't count for houses,

Especially not the ones that have been left

By members of the family. Spouses

And Aunts three-times-removed are prey for deft

Solicitors. Inheritance arouses

Passions among the liberal élite,

Who otherwise could never make ends meet.

“Must keep it in the family”, they say

To justify their greed; so one presumes

They can't be asked to sell their house to pay

To have their bottoms wiped in sordid rooms

By staff on zero hours, who’ll find a way

to clean them up while waiting for their tombs.

Cash in their Capital? They’ve done their share!

Far better let those working pay their care.

[YCCMB]

Shame the usual backbiting now appearing too.

[nomoss]

People in general usually have really strong and convincing arguments in favour of new taxes which wouldn't actually apply to them.[:D]

However, I can understand, and tend to agree with the argument in favour of taxing notional rent, except that, in France, they are already collecting taxes based on notional rent.

As owners of our house, we already pay Taxes Fonçières of close to 2000€ p.a., at a rate of over 90%, based on its notional rent, which is probably more than any income tax we would pay on a similar figure.

Even if the figure were higher, I don't think we would pay as much in income tax as what the TF produces.

[woolybanana]

New tax should only be introduced when an old tax is abolished. And only in the context of a substantial reduction in State spending.

[EuroTrash]

Good poem Norman.

But as you no doubt know, verse 2 doesn't fit with France because there is no way there will be anything for your heirs to inherit unless all your nursing home bills have been paid in full. Your kids may even have to dip into their own bank accounts to pay the fees if there's nothing left in your own estate to pay for it.

And come to that, the staff here wouldn't be on zero hours.

[richard51]

OH at it again.

So much for the poor people in London/Paris she would like to point out that when she worked in London she tripled her salary for the same job she did out of the SE.

She also says that "why should people who have pi ssed their money up the wall get away with not paying for their care whilst those who have been sensible get asset stripped?"

Me now - its a bit of a dilemma. It does encourage spendthrift behaviour but nevertheless we both believe that good parenting is raising your child to earn their own wealth and not to be reliant on hand downs.

[richard51]

Talking of France, specifically concerning care, we know of someone who not only got paid for looking after her parents and in-laws, but when she put her mother into a "home" sued her mother for loss of income!!!

[YCCMB]

In a spooky coincidence, Norman, the first reaction of one of my former students the morning after the Brexit vote was "Who will wipe their bottoms now?".

(She's Hungarian, a fully qualified specialist nurse, been resident here now for around 15 years, works as a care worker visiting elderly patients daily in their own homes, and is on a permanent full-time contract. Very few of her peers are on zero hours contracts either, but never let the facts stand in the way of a mediocre pome)

ET: you get asset stripped by the government in the UK too, to pay for your care. I think the Govt did introduce a sort of cap, though, so your estate wouldn't be completely cleaned out. Otherwise it's an interesting scenario whereby someone whose home and other assets are worth a lot less than they rack up in care costs has their care (after their estate runs out) paid for by the state, but if your assets are greater, your estate will be stripped to reimburse the amount up to the ceiling. So I'm guessing the "tax the rich" side wins out in that scenario.

[EuroTrash]

I think the big difference is that in the UK, once your own estate is exhausted the buck stops there and the taxpayer pays the rest. In France, the children and/or parents of the person in care are obliged to pay what they can afford, and the taxpayer only pays when there are no direct relatives or if the judge decides they can't afford to pay any or all of the cost.

Of course if none of the family has any savings, inevitably they will end up being a burden but what can you do. There will always be people who can't pay their way but you can't use them as the benchmark and say OK so nobody has to pay. Using ability to pay is probably as fair as you can get, the problem is applying it so that no particular niche feels disadvantaged.