Pmlt

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:37:40 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

    >There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
    >healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about.


It's not free. But the comparison, being aftertax, already includes
these costs. At the end, the French get some "free" services, like
universal health care, universal education, etc. So if aftertax
incomes would be the same (hypothesis) in both countries, the French
would be better off.

Donna Evleth

Dans l'article <[email protected]>, 127.0.0.1
<[email protected]> a écrit :


    > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:00:11 +0000, "Donna Evleth"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Dans l'article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    >><[email protected]> a écrit :
    >>> Since being poor isn't a desirable state anywhere, that is scant
    >>> consolation. The unstated part is that it is much more difficult to
    >>> become rich in France--it is almost necessary to be born into it.
    >>The question is how rich do you have to be? We have a friend who arrived
    >>here as a poor Greek immigrant, became a university professor with a good
    >>salary, and now has a very comfortable retirement and owns two homes. We
    >>have another friend, Syrian, one of nine children, who came to France,
    >>got a research position, is also doing well enough to be a homeowner and
    >>support his two sons through college. Neither of these people are among the
    >>very rich, but they are certainly better off now than what they were born
    >>into.
    >>Donna Evleth
    > who cares?
    > this shit has nothing to do with travel, too bad you and you idiot
    > husband aren't rich enough to have a life!

I do not consider that money is a prerequisite for "having a life", as you
put it. Since you seem to want me to "have a life," I'll tell you about
what I did today. This morning I went to the Bibliotheque Nationale to do
research for a client. This is my profession, as in "professional life."
Then in the afternoon, I met with my colleague our condominium board (I am
the president) to discuss a serious problem in our building. That is my
"volunteerism life." You want me to have something more? If so, what?

You would be a lot more fun if you would do something more than just rude
and vulgar bellyaching

Donna Evleth

Mxsmanic

Donna Evleth writes:

    > I do not consider that money is a prerequisite for "having a life", as you
    > put it.

Then I presume you've never had to do without it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Marie Lewis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.

In that case, why, when temporarily they were without medical insurance, did
my American friends forbid their daughter to go horse riding, in case she
fell off and broke a limb?
    > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
    > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
    > daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)



But these benefits are available to those who pay no taxes, too!

    > and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
    > A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
    > free.
Ask the vast majority of people in countries which have these benefits if
they would like to be without them in return for lower taxes.

I would much rather pay the taxes and know that I have access to all the
benefits to which I am entitled (which include, as I am over 60, completely
free prescription medecines).

Marie Lewis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

    >> Rich to a socialist is everyone earning over 10 Euros a year

Reductio ad absurdum is never a strong way of argument.

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 19:02, in article [email protected],
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> What have you attained in life, by the way!
    >
    > Nothing. But only from lack of competence, not lack of aspiration.


Don`t forget luck. Who knows, so buy a lottery ticket.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 19:37, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:00:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house taxes
    >> but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food. Another
    >> factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is missing for
    >> a large portion of low income Americans.
    >
    > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.

To qualify for Medicaid you have to be in a special income category. Not
all low income people are. Moreover, it varies from state to state, so
is not authentically an "health care system", it is health care chaos.

And some US hospitals do not maintain emergency room services in the US.

Where in the US does there exist the equivalent of SOS medicins?
Can you easily get a house visit of a doctor?

The common opinion among the American middle and upper classes
is that poor or low income people can get free easily accessed
medical treatment like they do.

    >
    >> Take public transportation. A retired person, with an income tax lower
    >> than a certain threshold get a free yearly bus and metro pass.
    >> Those employed in the Parisian area have employer contributions to
    >> the purchase of a transportation card or carte orange. Likewise, lunch
    >> meals are partly subsidized in an amount which varies downward as one income
    >> rises.
    >
    > There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
    > healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about.

Who said they are generally free? The right to free transportation has
a means test. There is no means test at all to medical care, it is
built into the system. The US medical care system is now running 15%
of the GNP, most of that 15% does not show up in the tax system but
it does in Europe. People here are quite mindful that things are
not free, that that have to be paid for. The issue
is that necessary things not be denied people because they have no
money, others are asked to chip in.

I personally pay for my yearly RATP transportation card, at about
45 euros a month for unlimited use. I also see a lot of old
people on the transportation system using their "carte emeralde" which
is the old folks card. Having that card tells me they pay less
that about 1200 euros in income tax a year. Not having such
a card means I pay more.

But do you see the social utility of this? The kindness of having such
a card available?? Or do you think "taxes", they are getting something
for nothing?

Sir, it is just an attitude problem. I feel a warm spot I my heart
when I see that old people can get around. Of course, at 72, I
identify with them and know, if I were in the same spot I
would also have a green card (Parisian style).

Earl

Keith Willshaw

"Marie Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.
    > In that case, why, when temporarily they were without medical insurance,
did
    > my American friends forbid their daughter to go horse riding, in case she
    > fell off and broke a limb?

Because while the hospital has to provide treatment it is allowed to
recover its costs from those who benefit. If you are indigent there's
nothing they can do but if you have savings, own a house or car
then you can expect them to pursue you for payment into the
bankruptcy court if necessary.

Keith

Earl Evleth

On 4/03/04 19:41, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:09:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 4/03/04 14:25, in article [email protected],
    >> "Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> The French tax "grandes fortunes", the threshold of the tax is around
    >> 700,000 euros. This is ironical because with a reasonable size
    >> 3 pieces in Paris, one is already wortht 400,000-500,000 euros
    >> and in the past number of years a number of people have ascended
    >> to the class of having a "grande fortune".
    >
    > Why is it ironical? It fits the standard definition of every
    > socialist I have ever known except they would like it to start around
    > 10 Euros if they could get away with it.

The name of the tax has changed, by the way. It now a solidarity tax
(l'impôt de solidarité sur la fortune).

Next, exaggeration will get you nowhere (10 euros!).

The socialists introduced the tax, the right when Chirac was Prime Minister
knocked it out, the socialists put it back in and the right has
not effectively touched it since. Why? The public is for it.

As I sometimes joke the French are capitalist with their own money
but socialist with other people`s money.

The tax has some negative aspects. A rich French person can pull up
stakes and go to a foreign country and avoid the tax by moving
his capital there. Ex-pat French are not required by the French fisc
to file a tax return of any kind except on investments or holdings
in France. An American does not have this right (speaking personally)
and the IRS has a long arm (part of "American Exceptionalism").

So some very rich people just moved, like to Belgium or England,
they domicile themselves elsewhere and as long as they pass
less than 6 months a year in France, they avoid taxes.

So this aspect of the ISF tax is "counterproductive" and the right
is searching for a way of not taking any business assets.

Even the socialists at the time decided not to tax works of art
and antiques because of the risk of their being spirited overseas.
So a Van Gogh worth millions is not taxed and one`s personal
residence is! So the tax has some exceptions and the easiest
thing to do is just tax people's estates. The ISF is a Rube Goldberg
tax which breaks the basic law of French taxation, it should be
an easy tax to apply and collect. The total revenues collected
are low, in the order of a couple of billion euros a year.

.
    >
    > Rich to a socialist is everyone earning over 10 Euros a year. Try
    > taking your 700,000 Euros and earn income off of it at 5% a year (if
    > you can get that) and see how richly you leave off of that income in
    > Paris.


I did not explain enough.

First the threshold is 700,000 one does not pay taxes on the first
700,000. Above that the tax is 1.5% until one reaches the truly
rich class. So if one is paying 1,500 euros tax per 100,000 in
excess of about 700,000. So on a million euros one is paying 4500
euros taxes, at 5% a million would yield 50,000 euros a year
income. So I would be a 10% tax on one`s income.

HOWEVER, since the French hold a lot of their wealth in "la pierre"
one`s personal residence produces no yearly revenues. Some people
holding large chateaux are land poor. So in effect, a
Parisian worth a million but having only 300,000 in financial assets
would only have 15,000 euros extra income to meet a 4500 euro tax
bill. (one gets to deduct income taxes paid from the asset value
but not the taxes unless the ISF tax exceeds the personal income tax).

In fact, a recent court decision challenges some of the confiscatory
aspect of the ISF for really large fortunes in which equity income
could not cover the tax.

Basically the right lacks to courage to junk the ISF law as
basically impracticable. As in the US, the right-left split
is about 50/50, so they can't give the left any edge in polemics.
The vast majority of the people are for it and that is just
the way it is. The right will shave it a bit.

Earl

Mxsmanic

Earl Evleth writes:

    > Don`t forget luck. Who knows, so buy a lottery ticket.

I tried that, in case Destiny planned to favor me through sheer chance.
But that didn't work, so apparently Destiny has other plans.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Earl Evleth

On 5/03/04 9:31, in article [email protected], "Marie Lewis"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    >> room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.
    >
    > In that case, why, when temporarily they were without medical insurance, did
    > my American friends forbid their daughter to go horse riding, in case she
    > fell off and broke a limb?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> There is absolutely nothing free about these benefits or others like
    >> healthcare that Europeans are always crowing about. You pay for them
    >> daily in all the taxes you pay over there (much higher than in the US)
    >
    >
    >
    > But these benefits are available to those who pay no taxes, too!
    >
    >> and then make the completely false claim that they are somehow free.
    >> A completely ridiculous argument. Prepaying through taxes is hardly
    >> free.
    >>
    >>
    > Ask the vast majority of people in countries which have these benefits if
    > they would like to be without them in return for lower taxes.
    >
    > I would much rather pay the taxes and know that I have access to all the
    > benefits to which I am entitled (which include, as I am over 60, completely
    > free prescription medecines).

The American and European mentalities differ a great deal on this point.

The American Revolution, at least, got part of its start on "taxes" and
it has been an obsession ever since. They felt they were not being
represented (like us American ex-pats today whom the IRS still
hits up).

In part, the French revolution had a tax element too, after all the
upper classes then also paid no taxes but the poor did! The
French nobility had dodging down to a fine art, the ³sans ­culottes²
were poor at tax dodging. Sounds like America today.


The Americans did not like the British throne taxing things like tea
(they eventually gave the stuff up anyway).

This was done in order to offset part of the costs of protecting the
colonialists from the French and Indian incursions on --- what was
formerly Indian land but stolen from them by the ---- English colonial
settlers (sounds a bit like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict).
So the thieving revolutionaries did not like a thieving British Crown. A
³falling² out, so to speak.

It is ironical that the French then came to the aid of the colonials!
This was done just to emmerdé the English, however.

Well, now we are two centuries down stream and taxes are still with us.
The difference between France and the USA lies in where the tax revenues
to. In France they are recycled back and in the US they are handed over
to --- Halliburton!

So if Americans feel robbed by their taxation system, they are. The
French are not.

Earl

PS agreed this is a overly simple explanation but I am thinking of the
privative level of the anti-tax mentalities. Keep it simple.

Earl Evleth

On 5/03/04 10:27, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> In that case, why, when temporarily they were without medical insurance,
    >> did my American friends forbid their daughter to go horse riding, in case she
    >> fell off and broke a limb?
    >
    > Because while the hospital has to provide treatment it is allowed to
    > recover its costs from those who benefit. If you are indigent there's
    > nothing they can do but if you have savings, own a house or car
    > then you can expect them to pursue you for payment into the
    > bankruptcy court if necessary.


The issue of accidents that occur during sports activity comes up
here and the French Social Security does try and recover costs.

Who should pay for an broken leg while skiing. Should not insurance
be required? How about mountain climbing or cave exploring
for which rescue efforts are expensive. The French do try and
recover these costs.

The French public is not supportive of paying for injuries
occurring with at risk activities. These should be separately
insured.

Now if somebody has such an injury, care is not denied. The
French do not imposed proof of eventual payment for
emergency care, the care decision is up to the doctors,
they do not control the financial health of the patient.

So as with car insurance, imposition of insurances on risk
activities will occur. The system is also trying to recover
some of the cost of treating tobacco related diseases by
taxing tobacco. Alcoholims is a problem in many nations
and its consumption should be taxed to cover medical costs.
The Social Security system should not be liable to pay
for road injuries and deaths, that also should be autofinanced.

In the US, the cost of fire arm deaths and injuries is estimated
at 100 billion dollars a year (Cook and Ludwig`s study published
in a peer review journals and detailed in their book "Gun Violence,
the real costs"). Yet I know of no taxation scheme which attempts
to recover any portion of this cost. How about higher health risks
of consuming junk food? Should these be taxed?

Earl

Keith Willshaw

"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BC6E2AF4.28C99%[email protected]...
    > On 5/03/04 10:27, in article [email protected], "Keith
    > Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> In that case, why, when temporarily they were without medical
insurance,
    > >> did my American friends forbid their daughter to go horse riding, in
case she
    > >> fell off and broke a limb?
    > >
    > > Because while the hospital has to provide treatment it is allowed to
    > > recover its costs from those who benefit. If you are indigent there's
    > > nothing they can do but if you have savings, own a house or car
    > > then you can expect them to pursue you for payment into the
    > > bankruptcy court if necessary.
    > The issue of accidents that occur during sports activity comes up
    > here and the French Social Security does try and recover costs.
    > Who should pay for an broken leg while skiing. Should not insurance
    > be required? How about mountain climbing or cave exploring
    > for which rescue efforts are expensive. The French do try and
    > recover these costs.

Trouble is one can take the view that what we pay the state
IS INSURANCE, certainly in the UK citizens are entitled
to NHS treatment on such injuries. Where do you draw the line ?

Do you propose that people who ride bicycles be charged extra ?

How about playing soccer or hockey ?

If your kid breaks a leg playing football in the park would
the average French citizen be happy to pay for the
medical treament ?

I think not and once you start introducing such limits
on cover they have a way of spreading.

    > The French public is not supportive of paying for injuries
    > occurring with at risk activities. These should be separately
    > insured.
    > Now if somebody has such an injury, care is not denied. The
    > French do not imposed proof of eventual payment for
    > emergency care, the care decision is up to the doctors,
    > they do not control the financial health of the patient.
    > So as with car insurance, imposition of insurances on risk
    > activities will occur. The system is also trying to recover
    > some of the cost of treating tobacco related diseases by
    > taxing tobacco. Alcoholims is a problem in many nations
    > and its consumption should be taxed to cover medical costs.

Alcohol is rather heavily taxed in many countries and I'll
bet even in France that tax revenue exceeds the costs
of treating alcohol related diseases

    > The Social Security system should not be liable to pay
    > for road injuries and deaths, that also should be autofinanced.

I disagree, in the UK the NHS can pursue the driver and his/her
insurance to recover costs when someone is injured, this seems
more equitable than charging the injured person.


    > In the US, the cost of fire arm deaths and injuries is estimated
    > at 100 billion dollars a year (Cook and Ludwig`s study published
    > in a peer review journals and detailed in their book "Gun Violence,
    > the real costs"). Yet I know of no taxation scheme which attempts
    > to recover any portion of this cost. How about higher health risks
    > of consuming junk food? Should these be taxed?

If you pursue this line of argument to its logical conclusion you
end up with the US system. The basic premise of the UK
system is that every wage earner pays a National Insurance Premium
that pays for a health system that is free at the point of delivery.

Keith

PJ O'Donovan

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:00:31 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On 4/03/04 14:01, in article [email protected], "John
    > >Walton" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> It is also necessary to compare incomes on an after-tax basis. The lowest
    > >> deciles in the US pay virtually no income tax, have very little withheld
    > >> from their wages except for social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%).
    > >> Sales tax in the US averages 6% to 8% -- how does that stack up with VAT?
    > >
    > >The standard of living data presented INSEE is after income and house taxes
    > >but not VAT. VAT is not large for the essentials, like food. Another
    > >factor in France is the universal health coverage, which is missing for
    > >a large portion of low income Americans.
    >
    > Wrong. They can all get it for free by simply going to the emergency
    > room of any hospital that gets Federal funds. Which is all of them.
    >
    >

Yep. I thought it was a state law here in Georgia and other states.

My wife had to have some lab tests here at the local hospital prior to
a preventative one day procedure. We went for the lab test when the
lab opened at 7:00 am to get it over with first thing. When we
registered at the outpatient/ emergency room window, I noticed a large
sign indicating that it was a violation of Federal law for those
requiring treatment to be refused
because of inability to pay and indicated an address and 800 number
to report violations of that Federal law.

When we arrived, a woman who appeared to be one of our poor, arrived
at the same time carrying a toddler wrapped in a blanket. I noticed
the toddler appeared to have some fever and sniffles as I held the
door to let her in the
emergency room as my wife and I were entering. We allowed her to
approach the outpatient registration window first and she and her
child were ushered into the emergency room immediately.

We have raised 3 kids and have 6 grandchildren aged 1 year to 15 and
know a case of sniffles and fever in a kid when we see it.

The next day when my wife had her procedure, I noticed the same sign
in the elevator as we going up to the outpatient area. The sign was
also placed in the outpatient procedure waiting area.

I am getting sick and tired of attempting to convince these socialist
nabobs of negativity that because we have numbers of uninsured, it
does not mean that the uninsured do not have access to health care
here as required by law.

Earl Evleth

On 5/03/04 13:32, in article [email protected], "Keith
Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:BC6E2AF4.28C99%[email protected]...
    >

    >> Who should pay for an broken leg while skiing. Should not insurance
    >> be required? How about mountain climbing or cave exploring
    >> for which rescue efforts are expensive. The French do try and
    >> recover these costs.
    >>
    >
    > Trouble is one can take the view that what we pay the state
    > IS INSURANCE, certainly in the UK citizens are entitled
    > to NHS treatment on such injuries. Where do you draw the line ?

One draws the line progressively, it is a moving line! One decides
on a case by case basis.

With regular, non-social insurance, one pays as a function of risk.
So high risks, high premiums.

    > Do you propose that people who ride bicycles be charged extra ?

    > How about playing soccer or hockey ?
    >
    > If your kid breaks a leg playing football in the park would
    > the average French citizen be happy to pay for the
    > medical treament ?

I seem to remember our daughter having a school insurance policy
for injuries at sports. It was not much. However, I think that
with reguired school sports that the insurance should be social,
covered without increased payments.

I think that extraordinary activity requires extraordinary coverage.

    > I think not and once you start introducing such limits
    > on cover they have a way of spreading.

All the health care systems are looking for ways of saving money.
The risk of general reduced coverage is real.

The idea of making people more responsible for their acts, including
overeating and overdrinking, taking dangerous substances will
certainly be invoked.


    > Alcohol is rather heavily taxed in many countries and I'll
    > bet even in France that tax revenue exceeds the costs
    > of treating alcohol related diseases.

I have not studied this part I detail. The tax revenues
are easy to compute, total costs estimates take in every
thing and the kitchen sink (like lower lifetime and lost
income estimates) besides the direct costs of treatment.

    >> In the US, the cost of fire arm deaths and injuries is estimated
    >> at 100 billion dollars a year (Cook and Ludwig`s study published
    >> in a peer review journals and detailed in their book "Gun Violence,
    >> the real costs"). Yet I know of no taxation scheme which attempts
    >> to recover any portion of this cost. How about higher health risks
    >> of consuming junk food? Should these be taxed?
    >>

    > If you pursue this line of argument to its logical conclusion you
    > end up with the US system. The basic premise of the UK
    > system is that every wage earner pays a National Insurance Premium
    > that pays for a health system that is free at the point of delivery.

I don`t think any European system will evolve to the American chaotic
mess! The UK system has been criticized for not investing enough,
the % of the GNP is too low (7-8%). The US % is rising the most rapidly,
having moved out of the 13-14% into the 15-18% region in the foreseeable
future.

The ageing of the population will produce increasing pressure on all
these systems. So it is essential to create special catagories in
which general health care, prevention, etc is covered for everybody
and within the social insurance model.

However, I don`t see high risk motorcyclists thinking they
are covered, by right, for an risk activity most of us avoid.
They have to pay higher accident insurance and so why not higher
medical coverage for their bêtises? Some of course go uninsured
but that can be covered by an "uninsured" provision in which
other motorcyclists pay insurances which cover than fund.

Basically, most of us want quality medical coverage for things
like cancer or heart disease. My older brother's kidney disease
brought him to needing three times a week dialyses. I see no
risk cause and in any case would not deny him treatment for
a problem some people get almost by chance. Falling off a mountain
is a choice activity. I don`t see the taxpayers paying for
helicopter rescues, often of tourists, in France.

Earl