This is just like two weeks after she stated that wealthy Fwench should set an examply by paying their taxes and not complaining. 

When the really wealthy, throw the rich and sucessful workers under the bus of taxation.  Then drive the bus over them.

The worst part is they get away with it by shouting their disgust for the rich.

That 's her name, Segolene Royal. Belonging to the same family as Napoleon. Both four-legged pigs living in the farm.

It's ironic to see that Segolène Royal and her companion Hollande voted with their feet (sort of) for less tax pressure on well-off people...
The SCI (Societé Civile Immobilière) that they set up to manage their real estate belongings (several appartments and buildings) is the typical thing to do in France to evade the punitive tax system. The SCI is used as a sort of front company, allowing you not to be officially traced as the owner of the appartments or buildings, thus avoiding the heat of the tax.
Even if this scheme is totally legal (and even necessary in France where the tax pressure has gone awry), it is of the utmost comic to see socialists (and a president contender for this one !) doing this sort of finacial acrobacy and thinking it would go unnoticed...
Her voters will not forget that, especially if they remember her recent morality lessons about people who leave France to avoid the tax pressure....;-)

from the boyfriend....

Mr. Hollande last week risked alienating the middle classes even further by proposing raising taxes on salaries above about $5,000 a month. Last year, he famously told a television chat show audience: "I do not like the rich."

"I do not like the rich"....????...yeah, unless it's yourself, huh, you and your pampered girlfriend, elitist leftist swine!....

"There is no such thing as a wealthy socialist."

The leaders of movements whose aims purport to be socio-economic equity and the liberation or emancipation of the low class (approx. 80% of any given population), are always elitist hypocrits themselves because:

1. These self-appointed leaders always have the wealth, standard of living, and/or annual income of an upper middle-class or high class individual
2. These people will not redistribute their income or live an austere life in order to lead by example
3. These people will not advocate a socialist society unless they are ensconced in the governing establishment or 'dictatorship of the proletariat'
4. Essentially, wealthy socialists will not make personal concessions even to achieve that which they hold as the ideal utopia for everyone else

Furthermore, in a point that was echoed by Orwell, every revolution is led by the middle class using the low to usurp the position of the high; so long as the middle class is contented with the opportunity allotted to it, the low will never rebel. After the Black Death in medieval Europe, there were less people but more of them were educated, the latter with little chance to succeed; this glut of educated bourgeois' sons correlates directly with an increase in revolutionary activity (so-called Peasants' Revolts).

....this notion of the Political Left being for the working class, the oppressed, the minorities and the downtrodden is a load of BULL SCHIZEN!!!...Always has been, and always will be...."Oh, huh huh huh huh(uppity snobby, pu pu laughter)..I am just well off!..La di da"...."And as a result, the country can't survive without us elitists running things, cause we know what's best for your life!"....

A real estate company with her lover, setting up properties???....A slum lord maybe???...Cashing in on the people she supposedly goes to bat for????.....Or is it a profitable venture, catering to the upper echelon, like herself???...Profits???...Sounds capitalistic to me..."I don't have to pay taxes cauz I am an elitist. That for the little people"...huh huh huh (again, uppity, snobbish pu pu laughter)......LEFTISTS = HYPOCRISY!!!!!