Balanced against the US 'compensation culture' is the fact that they enjoy a much greater freedom of expression compared to the UK, which has become a place for 'libel tourists' to sue publishers for defamation even if the book in question sold very few copies here. I'm aware that recent rulings may limit the more extreme examples of this, eg www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2013/oct/15/end-for-britain-libel-tourism

I would prefer the US approach, where the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the alleged defmatory statement was a) known by the publisher to be untrue b) was published without adequate research into its truthfulness and c) was published with the intent of harming the plaintiff. I think the UK law has been a factor in preventing the exposure of wrongdoings by the rich and powerful.

Are you sure you are not in Edinburgh?

An interesting cocktail, starting with pseuds corner.  My reference to "Suppers Ready" by Genesis was regarding it as the source of your wisdom on Narcissism.  The lyrics are identical in all versions.  But you are right - the original album version, on my original (american import) vinyl LP purchased from a record fair in my 4th year at Gravesend Grammar school features Gabriel on lyrics and Collins on drums.

Partly to draw out the pedant and pretentious pseud, and partly to emphasise free choice in a non-marxist world, I picked not the album version, nor the first live version I saw, but the last live version of Suppers Ready I saw, after PG had left, just before SH likewise defected, and featured PC on vocals and CT on the sticks.  Akin to specifying the Mariner / ASMF version of Vivaldi's 4 seasons when describing it as a piece which features "Autumn".  Tongue-in-cheek, but it elicited the expected response! 

"My raison d'etre..." - Astonishing bollocks.  Solicitors act to line their pockets.  These noble beings fight both sides of an argument - so one is backing the false claim.  They are paid by activity not achievement.  When I suggested to you (tongue-in-cheek) that you act for me against Marco for slander, you pointed out why you could not act "no win no fee".  My guess would be no more than 10% of your income is on that basis.  It plainly isnt a relevant basis for charging for accountancy services, which are in general more procedural than confrontational. 

Take my divorce - although I "won" all cases (there were at least 4 court decided issues) - and absolutely "won" them - with the decision being entirely my version, I was awarded costs only in the first.  And those were taxed - so the actual costs recovered were less than those expended (and we weren't talking London firm rates for this).  For the others - each side bore their own costs.  (The second matter - changing the childrens schools, I acted for myself, since it was a bloody farce, and didnt need a solicitor to act as a secretary  so there were no costs to recover in my case). 

However - the corrupt system allowed my ex to continue to pursue an entirely fatuous case on credit, only to lose over £50,000 of her eventual divorce settlement (about 80% of it) to her solicitors, who took their fee once they had successfully lost their case.  I declined to pay over £20,000 of the fee bill presented to me by my solicitors, who whined a lot, but declined to pursue me for recovery of the amount.  Why - RTFQ!  I had told them, I could not afford their services on an open ended cheque book, and only wished to pay for specific services where we were to agree the fee basis and amount in advance, or as work progressed, with a maximum unauthorised "float" of £1000.  Essentially the only services I wished to pay for were the taxation of their bloody fees for the first case, and the recovery of those, and matters which required a barrister to be briefed.  I wanted to pay for advice - not admin, and advised them of that specifically in writing.  They ignored me, and ran up a ledger regardless.  A noble profession indeed.

The confrontation - and absurd, disproportionate costs, arose because my ex was puppet to her new man - who she is now separated from, but unable to divorce, or pursue for ancillary relief because she is dependant on any financial handouts to her he is prepared to make.  Twice bankrupt, he has an estimated income of £500,000pa all of which is in cash, via nominees who act as shareholders and directors for his business, whilst he "has no money".  Accordingly, my ex cannot get a solicitor to act on a no win no fee basis, has no money herself (her  husband previously put things in her name by forging her signature, and bankrupted her by obtaining credit cards in her name and spending the money - she has an 8 year bankruptcy restriction undertaking as a result - he managed to escape scott free.

The legal system lined the pockets of two firms of solicitors by taking the money from my children.  Tell me about it DQ

In another case, a top london firm acting for my client, there was an earnout contract dispute over an interpretation of an accounting term.  The firms  partner charge out rate £500per hour - the barrister retained - £750 per hour - total legal costs of WINNING the point, which basically I did all the work for, £127000 - which, as a "strategy" recommended by the solicitors - was an agreement to follow the dispute resolution procedure set out in the original contract, on the basis each side bear their own costs.  So my client pays me £5,500 and solicitor and barrister combined £127,000 to successfully defend in a slam-dunk ruling by the agreed independant expert, because of a vexatious dispute engineered by the other side.  Costs borne by the loser - which Marxist fantasy planet do you practice law on?

The legal profession exists to benefit the very wealthy, and the solicitors - and some may question how I draw a distinction between those two groups.

Moreover - mine is not to diminish the Exchequer.  It is to enable individuals and businesses to structure their affairs in a way which, among other things, takes maximum advantage of the taxation alternatives offered.


As for tax planning, fiscal policy and the gloomily anticipated spiral of fiscal decline for the French government, I will leave that for a separate post.  Suffice to say for now that, as appears to be your forte, you didnt read my post.

It is not that I cannot live in France.  I can retire there, or live on rental income, pension income, dividends from my investment portfolio or other wealth, under a moderate and reasonable tax regime.  I cannot work there, and generate wealth for the benefit of the economy.  My choice of business structure and remuneration, using legitimate alternatives available to me, is akin to DQ saving for the chocolate-covered childs education using an ISA instead of a regular bank account.  Is that a sinful "diminishing of the exchequer" - or a legitimate use of a tax break?

And I suspect shocking hypocrisy - although because DQ hides his identity so coyly (just one of the reasons his threats of litigation are bullshit - since he would have to come out of the closet), I bet the legal firm he works for (I assume from his comments he is an oily rag and not an engine driver) "cheats the exchequer"

I bet that legal organisation is an LLP, with individual partners being limited companies owned by the solicitor "partners", and a separate limited company which is the admin service vehicle - a structure employed by nearly all firms of solicitors as a tax and NI avoidance vehicle.  Just possibly, the oily rags are also made "salaried partners" so that their remuneration is on a self-employed rather than and employed basis -  a loophole so widely exploited by solicitors that the government have introduced legislation which this year closes it (somewhat).

A noble profession indeed.  As far as I can determine, that is only the view of the profession itself. 

I know some good solicitors who are decent people.  There are good and bad in all.  And a bit like the barmy UK national insurance situation, the fault is as more the system than the individuals working within it - but the guys know how to charge, and I had a stinking ride in the divorce, and thought the contract dispute another example of how the system lines the pockets of solicitors and fails to protect those it should.  And the pious sanctimonious claims of DQ were manifestly false as his responses to posts on HFS attest.

I will do my little piece on the nutty french regressive tax system and why I think it risks France going down the pan later.  That frankly is my biggest worry about relocating - if it all goes tits up for France, and I am stuck there as a resident.  They are in a cleft stick, because whilst they can strangle entrepreneurialism in the country, they have open trade borders with lower tax states like the UK (and most of the rest of the EU), so any business with a choice locates outside France and sells into it.  It's not healthy to have a welfare state and taxation system that encourages EU citizens to earn wealth in EU states outside France, and return to France "pour la retraite"  to enjoy the benefits of its largesse when they retire and no longer contribute to the economy

One more silly example.  The man from Calais on the pitch next to us in the South of France, had a touring caravan, a small luggage trailer, and a 90HP RIB on a boat trailer.  All 3 trailers had different number plates.  The boat was a Belgian registration.  He tows the luggage trailer back and forth for his holiday, and leaves the caravan and boat in a storage facility near the camp site.  Why the Belgian registration for the boat?  Last year, the French introduced an E800 pa tax on jet-ski's in excess of a certain horsepower.  He fears they will do the same with power boats and so has registered in Belgium, where there is no tax.  As most Jet-ski owners do.  This is France's problem - unlike the main Marxist states of the past, like 20th century soviet russia, or communist china, the french not only cannot force its citizens to stay and suffer, they cannot control their borders for trade with low-tax regimes in the EU

And so when Ford builds a new plant in the EU it does it in Spain or Belgium.  When IBM locate a factory they do it in Livingstone.  The French are left with state industries and traditional french privatisations like Elf, Rhone-Poulenc and the like - who invest overseas.  With no entrepreneurial encouragement, they rely on state employment through local bureacracies to reduce unemployment, which in turn adds to the state expenditure and need for taxation.  It is a viscious circle of decline.

Thanks Paul

I've had that thought too.  We are certainly taking a break to take stock - the loss of the property we wanted and the mortality reminder have stopped us in our tracks.  However, beyond sunshine and french wine, I think there was an element of adventure.  We are both previously divorced, last child is 18 and off to Uni -this was the big "liberation" and adventure.

But it had always been a dream for "when we can afford it" and discussions with French businessmen and others, and the setbacks, have caused us to defer for now.  And when we do get round to wanting to move again we will take account of the UK-EU situation as well as tax and pensions.  At the moment the EU looks likely to become Western Ukraine - part of Adolf Putins empire for protection of Russisn speakers in adjacent territories.  There were at least 2 Russians round the pool this holiday - presumably 5th columnists.  The world isn't looking a safe place right now anywhere!

If the UK leave the EU the major direct consequence for me personally in France would be the loss of reciprical health care agreements.  I need to understand it properly, but since Sue is likely to be employed in France paying French NI, and I would have a small self-employed business there doing likewise, we should be covered as French resident taxpayers for health care, and I assume that subsequently retiring would leave us entitlted to the same benefits as any other resident in retirement who has been contributing social security contributions.  I can't see the UK declaring war when we leave Europe - we would have some sort of peripheral trade only relationship like Switzerland or the Scandanavian countries.

But for now - back to tax return season, sorting out some planning issues on our house, and we will revisit the French adventure in February 

Yup
It's different.  Maddening xenophobic bureacracy, but a nice pace of life, and great weather.  I speak fluent french, have worked their twice briefly, and this project has been rumbling pretty much since Sue and I met 7 years ago, and in a way was unfinished business for both of us.

I just take the view that we have further added to our knowledge, and the chances of success eventually are accordingly increased.

We may well now try to buy with a French mortgage and holiday there (in "our house") extensively before moving, instead of waiting to sell up in the UK and move in one step.  This is going to make the move a lot easier, and will give us a bit of a chance to "check it out" before finally committing.  We could take up to 12 weeks a year holiday there at the extreme, with Sue's job.

But we'll review in the new year, once the tax returns are all in, and there is a decent chance that both of our planning "unknowns" may have reached a conclusion

"Say Lavvy" I believe is the expression - or so Kenny Everett taught

Toe in the water and gradual change seems the perfect way to me.