Carte Vitale, again....any faster under the new rules of Janvier dernier?

No CMU cotisations this year because it no longer exists. PUMA cotisations start next year.

See bottom of page

It still works out the same because if your spouse pays cotisations based upon income above the higher threshold then you do not pay.

This is misleading because the term 'minimum threshold' is used to refer to the level of earned income below which your other income or that of your partner will be checked to calculate if a supplementary PUMA cotisation is due. If this applies to you and your partner is already paying cotisations on an income above the higher threshold then you don't pay any extra cotisations. The higher threshold is currently 9611 euros. The lower threshold hasn't been published yet but MSA have it on their site at 3861 euros on their page here:

The level of income you need to be classed as 'regular' and able to join PUMA is the level of RSA for your family composition and that is not related to the PUMA income thresholds.

Did you actually use your wife's card? If so, then RSI will simply want to issue you with your own card under the existing arrangements as your wife's dependant. If you have no rights of your own, this situation will not change until after the end of 2019. Once you have your S1 you will be swapped to CPAM under your own rights.

Well yes, the term "minimum thresholds" could mean one of any number of minimum thresholds, depending on context. I didn't mean to imply that this particular minimum threshold was the new PUMA minimum threshold (re-reading my post, I don't see why it should imply this, but obviously it did, to you). Nor is it exactly the same as the minimum threshold for pension income etc for inactifs, below which no cotisations are due. I was just concerned that people didn't think they could arrive in France with no income and be eligible for healthcare.

To be clear, the minimum threshold in question is set out in the table here - click "ressources suffisantes".

You have to prove stable residence but also that you have enough income to not be a burden upon the state. You need at least the RSA level of income for your family composition (787.02 euros per month for a couple under 65 without children).

What would happen, Debra, in the case of a couple where one is a micro entrepreneur just starting up and still with a low income so basically living off savings - how would the other partner, who would presumably have to apply for PUMA on the grounds of residence, deal with the income requirement? There are various things about the new system that I don't completely get, and that's one of the things I have wondered about.

Confusing because the 'threshold' term is used for the PUMA cotisation thresholds and what you refer to as 'the minimum threshold for pension income etc for inactifs, below which no cotisations are due' is actually the higher threshold which applies to everyone.

The level of income required to be self sufficient differs by your status (EU citizen, RSA or not, SMIC) and family composition as well as age (ASPA if over 65 rather than RSA if under).

Sorry if my reply seemed terse but I am typing the least possible as my keyboard isn't working and I'm having to use a keyboard app to pick out half of the letters and numbers. :)

I think this is the "minimum threshold" you are referring to ?

gives a few examples of how it will be calculated - there seem to be 2 thresholds in fact, one very low one, below which the cotisations from your activity are effectively written off, and one slightly higher where the cotisations from your activity are offset against cotisations due on other income.

Ordinarily, working precludes the need for a minimum income so the worker would be covered, regardless. However, because 'ayant droit' status is now abolished the spouse could not now have a free ride on the worker's cover. Their income would have to be checked. However, even under the old system I believe people could prove self suffiency with savings by having enough put by to last until retirement for instance.

It's those who haven't savings who may now fail the residence criteria and be unable to get cover. It may be simpler for them to start their own business. With each spouse running a business earning below the minimum threshold with no other income, no cotisations would be due.

They may of course be awarded AME but that is a benefit and would mean they would not be clocking up time as a legal resident to count towards permanent residence rights.

Though the lower threshold is the same as MSA assumed, that seems to mention a different higher threshold to that the MSA and RSI published and also mentions yet another threshold within the lower threshold and is more complicated than what the other sites said it was going to be as far as working out whether the supplementary cotisations for working people will be due. Looks like the arrete promised in March has now been published and it's different to what the original law said.

The January law only mentioned the two thresholds but this mentions a separate one under the lower threshold mentioned in the January law.

At least all those currently operating a low income business with a spouse as ayant droit who has high other income will now be able to figure out what supplementary cotisations will be due. Good luck with that, whoever you are. I'm glad I don't have to - my brain is frazzled with the heat. :)

By the way Anna, it would be nice to see a picture......?

Thanks Debra,

Thankfully, my income is above this (very low, I think), threshold and will improve further when I can claim my New State Pension from the UK.....

It goes up to the ASPA level once you are over 65 (see link Anna put up with the tables)

Thanks for that, Debra! Another thing I'm not clear on - what exactly are these minimum earned incomes of 1,930 and 3,861, I presume they are taxable income as included in the RFR, ie profit, rather than turnover? So for instance, in the case of micro entrepreneurs, for a prof lib the second threshold would be 3861 + built-in expenses allowance of 34% = turnover of 5,174, and for a reseller it would be 3861 + 71% = turnover of 6,602. The figures may be wrong as the allowances are from memory, but is the theory correct as you understand it?

No idea, sorry. I thought they meant turnover for MEs (I read that on a French forum thread back in January) but that would seem unfair.