20% increase in T de Hab voted through yesterday


(John Withall) #1

In the ever failing ecomonmy of France and after Sarko failed they have found a way to tax non residents a bit more even though they are likely to use public services the least.


Voted through yesterday and applying from 2015.



(DAVID HUNT) #2

Me too !!


(Ian Cowburn) #3

That's what I personally suspected, Karen. Looking forward to the proof of the pudding !


(Tracy Thurling) #4

Karen, not sure where this reply is going to end up as that thread has got too long... but your reply for no photo has to be one of the best ever! Keep joining in :-)


(Karen Thomas) #5

The real reason I haven't put a photo up is that I'm that gorgeous I would stun you into silence and the forum would have to close....


(David GAY) #6

Please don't go Karen. Initially this awas rather a silly discussion because many people feared their little French hideaway was going to be subject to an hypothetical tax increase of 20%. So you get the people having little real contact or engagement with France maundering on about how useless Hollande is and how France is going down the tubes and so on and so on.It's really about the old joke about the Blackpool landlords charge for the cruet. The hapless client asks why he has been charged for the use of salt and pepper when he takes neither. The answer is that like the lanlord's wife it was always available. Seriously many French towns are cursed by maisons secondaires. Aside from the holiday season their proprietors contribute nothing to the local economy. So to give the local commune the opportunity to increase their revenue and to have that revenue ring - fenced for commune use which I believe is the intention is surely no bad thing.


(Peter Bird) #7

Just keep on posting Karen, I find your posts interesting and would miss them. It's good to hear from 'new' contributors whatever their point of view. that's what makes forums (fora ?) such as this irresistable. The photo really isn't a problem.


(Karen Thomas) #8

Hi James,

Give me the link for removal - let's put an end to this silliness once and for all.


(vic evans) #9

Well I don't think I could have asked any nicer but at least I tried. Thanks for the vote of confidence Brian.


(Brian Milne) #10

Stay and when you have a picture put it up. It's Vic's birthday, he is having a celebratory grumble :-(


(James Higginson) #11

Karen, it's not mandatory, just encouraged. Please don't go anywhere!


(Karen Thomas) #12

If you can point me in the right direction of which button to press to leave the forum, I'll do it.Sorry, I've looked but I can't find it.

I'm not spitting my dummy out, I just haven't got a way of putting a picture up and at this precise moment in my life, I've got a few more important things to sort.

I'll come back when I've got a photo I can keep everyone happy with.

Thanks.


(vic evans) #13

Karen . You have been asked to post a picture by quite a few people now & each time you seem to indicate your willingness to so do but always give a reason why you can't. I for one enjoy your stuff & as a prolific poster with an average of 10 posts a day you seem to enjoy it here. Most people show their mugs here & although the management don't insist it does show a commitment to the friendship engendered here. If you are genuinely having a problem posting a photo of yourself there are lots of people here who will help you if you tell us what area you live in . Could I therefore ask you to indicate your willingness or otherwise to post a picture so we can all draw a line under this as there is no point people flogging a black square. If you don't want to post a picture just please say so although I'm sure an intelligent lady like you can see the iniquity of others having to talk to a person they can't see. :-)


(Brian Milne) #14

Similar in a way. People die with no heirs, others owe taxes and so on thus it is public money, houses have simply been abandoned, owners are fugitive therefore houses confiscated and all manner of other reasons. the local authority has the right to possess them and can use them for public housing. They then have responsibility for structural maintenance although the rest of it falls into the hands of the occupiers, including upkeep and maintenance. So much the same.


(Brian Milne) #15

EDMOs are not working. As you say Debra, most councils are too nervous to do it most of the time. There are some where intestate owners have died, nobody found to take it over and things like that where they take control. I believe the uptake on possible properties is still less than 5% of eligible places. It was two years anyway, and I doubt much has improved.

They can sequester houses here in France, but it is also a last resort. Urban property is more likely to be taken than rural, so it does not help with the old farm houses and so on falling apart slowly.


(Karen Thomas) #16

I'm at a loss as to why you put that posting up?

As things go in my day, it is of no consequence.

If you knew what happened, why did you ask if the owner gets any income?If you ask a question, you get a response - if you're lucky. If you knew the answer, why ask the question?


(Karen Thomas) #17

Yes. so everyone keeps saying...


(Clare Smith) #18

I suspect most authorities would be nervous about enforcing it!

Would be nice to have a photo of you uploaded, so we can see who is participating in these forums :-)


(Karen Thomas) #19

Not exactly running around taking thousands back though, are they?

43.


(Clare Smith) #20

This gives a better explanation. I don't think it has anything to do with not being able to find the owners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_Dwelling_Management_Orders

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/empty-dwelling-managemen...