What Scams have you only just Realised?

KomradeBishop

RoboRat wrote: »

What you are suggesting is not relevant. Its more relevant to say that it would be scandalous if someone received a birthday present and had to declare it and then pay a special tax on it when the purchaser has already paid a tax in the form of VAT.

Inheritance tax is wrong. it is not an income source, its a gift from somebody who has died so its wrong to apply yet another tax to it.

If the birthday present is expensive enough, it is not exempt from tax - gift tax.

Inheritance and gifts are income - not an income stream such as a wage, but an income of money - and almost all transactions and sources of income, are subject to taxes (if they pass thresholds for a specific tax).

Optimalprimerib

LadyFenghuang wrote: »

:-/

A post office you buy it over the counter. An individual license for one dog for one year is twenty Euro. For one lifetime (meaning you never have to get one again for that dog, it's the dog's lifetime not yours you still need to for other dogs) is 140 Euro.

PLEASE get one!

What are they for? If your dog is licensed or unlicensed and bites someone, it has to be put down either way.

Qualitymark

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Inheritance and gifts are income - not an income stream such as a wage, but an income of money.

Most inheritances are homes.

Dog licence, Optimalp, is compulsory for all who have dogs. It's planned to make it conditional on having the dog microchipped, which will probably mean another stratospheric price rise - it's gone up from €6 to €12.50 to €20 in the last few years.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Qualitymark wrote: »

Most inheritances are homes.

Your point being ?

Fear Ciarrai

Mass cards
Mass and cards

Hotblack Desiato

RoboRat wrote: »

Once the car is sold to the customer, the garage can claim back their VAT so therefore VAT is never really a cost in the chain. The person left paying the VAT is the customer, hence why VAT is a tax on consumer spending.

Good post, but <cue nitpick>
Yes, ultimately the consumer pays all the VAT. A consumer consumes, they don't create value they destroy it and pay heavily for the privilege.

It's not quite correct to say that there isn't a cost all along the chain though. VAT is a tax on added value, it's not quite the same as a straight 'sales tax' which US states, etc. operate.

Businesses can claim back VAT but they still have to pay the difference between the VAT on their inputs (materials, etc.) and the VAT on their outputs (goods.) Ultimately they don't pay this, it's the next link in the chain (wholesaler or retailer) that pays it, and they claim it from the next link (retailer or consumer) but it is a tax on the value added at each step along the way. The consumer pays it, but it'll be remitted to Revenue piecemeal by each link along the chain.

I can only presume that the reason it's done this way is anti-evasion, a sales tax imposed only on the end transaction would be easier to get around with free offers, cashback, money under the counter or whatever.

Inheritance tax is wrong. it is not an income source, its a gift from somebody who has died so its wrong to apply yet another tax to it.

I don't agree, up to a point (e.g. the cost of a modest home in Dublin) there should be no tax, but inherited wealth above that should absolutely be taxed and taxed heavily. There is no privilege in life like inherited privilege. Inheritance tax in the UK was a big factor in bringing the landed gentry to heel and not before time.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't agree, up to a point (e.g. the cost of a modest home in Dublin)

Why should some people get their houses for free ?

Hotblack Desiato

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Why should some people get their houses for free ?

It's just an approximation of what the average Joe or Jane (if an only child) could expect to inherit, at the most.

You couldn't really call inheriting the semi-d you've lived in all your life 'wealth'.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You couldn't really call inheriting the semi-d you've lived in all your life 'wealth'.

Getting free house = no rent/mortgage = more money for other stuff = wealth ?

Hotblack Desiato

I take it you're not arguing against taxing inherited wealth above that level.

If you want to argue for taxing inherited wealth below that level be my guest, but bear in mind that the more people you draw into the tax net the more opposition there will be - and the less you'll get off each one, so there comes a point where politically it's not worth the hassle.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Getting free house = no rent/mortgage = more money for other stuff = wealth ?

A son or daughter inheriting a house from their parents is still liable for 33% inheritance tax if the property is worth over 225,000.

CINCLANTFLT

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

A son or daughter inheriting a house from their parents is still liable for 33% inheritance tax if the property is worth over 225,000.

Go on my son!

DEFTLEFTHAND

CINCLANTFLT wrote: »

Go on my son!

Cor blimey. :eek:

Fratton Fred

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Why should some people get their houses for free ?

Like the professionally work shy?

Hans Bricks

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Why should some people get their houses for free ?

Why shouldn't they ? It's a debt free asset with no creditors awaiting their dues on it. There's a whole class of people in this country who are entitled to a free home and allowances because they had a kid whilst financially unprepared or come from a "deprived area"/familial culture of state dependence.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Getting free house = no rent/mortgage = more money for other stuff = wealth ?

And we can assume that more money is subject to income tax, VAT paid on any other asset/consumer item, PRSI. Should they wish to sell that semi-d, they are also subject to Capital Gains Tax on that asset. I don't see why someone intending to turn it into a primary residence or holding it under sentimental value should be effed in the A with a 33% extortion charge unless it's providing an income stream.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Why shouldn't they ? It's a debt free asset with no creditors awaiting their dues on it.

How -even if this is the case (which it isint always) is this a reason why someone should get it for free (thereby securing an advantage over the majority of society who have to pay for their houses) without having to pay tax on it ?

Hans Bricks wrote: »

There's a whole class of people in this country who are entitled to a free home and allowances because they had a kid whilst financially unprepared or come from a "deprived area"/familial culture of state dependence..

Nobody gets a free house because they come for a particular area. You are spouting irrelevant nonsense.

Hans Bricks wrote: »

And we can assume that more money is subject to income tax, VAT paid on any other asset/consumer item

The "I should have lots of money because sure wouldn't I have to pay tax when I spend it" argument ? Rubbish !

emeldc

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

How -even if this is the case (which it isint always) is this a reason why someone should get it for free (thereby securing an advantage over the majority of society who have to pay for their houses) without having to pay tax on it?

It's never black and white. How do you know they're getting it for free. Very often adult children give up the best part of their adult lives and careers to care for an elderly parent. To say they inherit a free house is a bit wide of the mark when they've lost pretty much everything else. And when they inherit their free house, they often have to sell it to pay the tax on it. Yea, that sounds fair alright.

Mechanical Clocktail

Lads could ye fcuk off elsewhere, ye're ruining the thread.

Hans Bricks

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

How -even if this is the case (which it isint always) is this a reason why someone should get it for free (thereby securing an advantage over the majority of society who have to pay for their houses) without having to pay tax on it ?

If it was €225,000 or below they wouldn't be paying tax on it at all. Why all of a sudden do they have an advantage because it may be over that threshold ? Assuming they don't even sell it and move into the dwelling as a primary residence. Like I said, they would be paying CGT on it if that were the case, they're not currently reaping financial benefits or extra income on it so why tax them ?

Nobody gets a free house because they come for a particular area. You are spouting irrelevant nonsense.

I'm just saying that a lot of people do essentially get free houses through the social housing system. Let's not kid ourselves here.

The "I should have lots of money because sure wouldn't I have to pay tax when I spend it" argument ? Rubbish !

You're putting words in my mouth. People don't inherit a detached or semi-d with the add on feature of a money tree and just stop working and contributing to society.

My argument really boils down to a private asset. The same rules of inheritance tax applies to it should the owner wish to liquidize it. I genuinely can't see the need to tax something like a dwelling which currently has no financial benefit to the owner.

steddyeddy

I think a lot of masters programmes are scams designed to make money for the college.

pablo128

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I'm just saying that a lot of people do essentially get free houses through the social housing system. Let's not kid ourselves here.

By your logic, anyone who rents a house gets it for 'free'.

Hans Bricks

pablo128 wrote: »

By your logic, anyone who rents a house gets it for 'free'.

Does every social housing tenant work and pay rent to the council for it though ?

pablo128

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Does every social housing tenant work and pay rent to the council for it though ?

Every social housing tenant pays rent. Forget the working issue, as social housing by its nature is intended for those who are unable to buy a house or afford private rent.

Hans Bricks

pablo128 wrote: »

Every social housing tenant pays rent. Forget the working issue, as social housing by its nature is intended for those who are unable to buy a house or afford private rent.

Not to sound vindictive or come across as a rabid dole basher, but the 188 + rent allowance which comes from the Department of Social Protection is paying that rent. So with regards to possessing a 'free' home in the inheritance analogy, is it not technically free ?

Cienciano

HandsomeDan wrote: »

Worked in the public sector. They would have to hire four people to get the work of one done. It's a disaster.

I worked in both. Wasters in both tbh. Plenty of nepotism in the private sector too.

pablo128

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Not to sound vindictive or come across as a rabid dole basher, but the 188 + rent allowance which comes from the Department of Social Protection is paying that rent. So with regards to possessing a 'free' home in the inheritance analogy, is it not technically free ?

Does every public servant get everything for free? They are paid from the public purse too.

Hans Bricks

pablo128 wrote: »

Does every public servant get everything for free? They are paid from the public purse too.

For providing public services. Pablo I was really just using the social housing argument as a parallel to inheriting or should I say obtaining a property without really having to pay for it. I really know how to drag a thread off topic. :pac:

5rtytry56

Any ice cream cone or fried chicken for €1 or less. You're purchasing gunk mate.

fryup

biggest scam of all... the catholic church

think about it, its run by an elderly virgin living in a palace in Rome, telling married couples how they should live their lives

its lunacy

Qualitymark

The school system. It's meant to teach kids how to think; instead it teaches them how to read what 'authorities' think and regurgitate it when asked a question.