Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Only the little people pay taxes. 25-year-old inherits €10.5 billion tax free.

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

    I never said it was an income, I said it was money once sold

    Fair enough. We both agree it's a once off amount (minus costs) rather than an income.


  • Options
    #63
    alias no.9
    Registered Users Posts: 6,289 ✭✭✭alias no.9


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Should that be taxed too? :D

    That will happen in the form of a wife


  • Options
    #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    alias no.9 wrote: »
    That will happen in the form of a wife

    Or husband (Gay marriage). ;)


  • Options
    #65
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Of course it is still a family home for them. What is the family home? The place you grew up in. The value is in your memories of the place....

    IF I recieved my parents home, I know i wouldn't be able to pay the overal costs of maintaining it (in addition to my other home, and there's no point in selling that)... so I might rent out my family home, until such a time, that I can afford to maintain or live there.

    Do you realise the sheer cost of maintaining a house in Ireland?

    Side question: Anyone know if the inheritated house was mortgage free?

    It's the house they grew up in not their family home. The family home would be where you are currently living with your family. If you are renting it then it is a business asset
    Side question: Anyone know if the inheritated house was mortgage free?

    In a normal situitation I would assume that the deceased had something like mortgage protection any remaining mortgage at the time of death would be cleared.


  • Options
    #66
    dev100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭dev100


    B.A._Baracus wrote:
    Sorry for the stupid question, but if people who inherit £325,000 or more have to pay 40% how did he get this tax-free? amazing solicitor, right?

    When a company is worth 9 billion you wouldn't just have an amazing solicitor you would be hiring a whole host of different professions to help you to avoid paying tax


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    matrim wrote: »
    It's the house they grew up in not their family home. The family home would be where you are currently living with your family..

    I don't see the difference. And I'm 39 years old. My brother and sister are older than I am. We have our own homes... and in my mind, the family home is the home we grew up in and where my parents currently live in (they've had it 34 years).

    Now, If my parents sold that place and moved elsewhere... then there would be no family home as such.


  • Options
    #68
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,241 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »


    I never said it was an income, I said it was money once sold

    You refered to it as "unearned wealth". The earned/unearned bit is irrelevant; and the definition of wealth is closer to income than it is to an asset.

    The scenario you listed - selliing the current property and moving into the inherited one - is not the same, as income is generated on the sale and tax will be due on this income. There's no threat to losing the inherited prioperty as taxing the inherited preprty when no money is gained from it what we're debating here.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #69
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    dev100 wrote: »
    When a company is worth 9 billion you wouldn't just have an amazing solicitor you would be hiring a whole host of different professions to help you to avoid paying tax

    If he's a director then I'd imagine upon the death of the other directors (his parents), the shares transfer to him. He only pays tax if he sells the shares or receives dividends. The same way the previous directors would have.


  • Options
    #70
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't see the difference. And I'm 39 years old. My brother and sister are older than I am. We have our own homes... and in my mind, the family home is the home we grew up in and where my parents currently live in (they've had it 34 years).

    Now, If my parents sold that place and moved elsewhere... then there would be no family home as such.

    I understand where you're coming from and I still think of my parents house as "home home" but I think of where I live (even thought it's rented) as my family home. Because that's where I have my personal stuff, where I have my post and where I can put my stamp on the place with my fiancee.

    I would be sad to see my parents house sold because it would be like losing a part of my childhood but i know that neither myself or any of my siblings would have any real interest in living there so it will eventually either get sold or rented. When that happens you have to give up on it being your family home because it's then an asset and should be treated as such. E.g. if you're renting it it's the people who are living there who's home it is. You can't just walk in and make a cut of tea like you would if it's your parents house.


  • Options
    #71
    dev100
    Registered Users Posts: 1,002 ✭✭✭dev100


    smash wrote:
    If he's a director then I'd imagine upon the death of the other directors (his parents), the shares transfer to him. He only pays tax if he sells the shares or receives dividends. The same way the previous directors would have.


    That's true but my point being if you or your parents or your company are worth an extreme amount of money . You will have access to a whole host of legal and professional consultants to help you minimise your liability to pay tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,568 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is it time countries in the western world started putting serious taxes on the super rich, and particularly on inherited wealth (i.e. on people who contribute nothing in terms of work or initiative)? If they all do it, the rich won't have anywhere to escape to. Indeed, if they're like the 25-year-old above with the largest property portfolio in Britain it's highly unlikely they'll sell everything and move.

    Just two questions.

    Would you be in favour of a tax of, let's say, 5% of capital you have in the bank ?

    Do you think that all large businesses should be liquefied on the death of their owners?


  • Options
    #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    matrim wrote: »
    I understand where you're coming from and I still think of my parents house as "home home" but I think of where I live (even thought it's rented) as my family home. Because that's where I have my personal stuff, where I have my post and where I can put my stamp on the place with my fiancee.

    I would be sad to see my parents house sold because it would be like losing a part of my childhood but i know that neither myself or any of my siblings would have any real interest in living there so it will eventually either get sold or rented. When that happens you have to give up on it being your family home because it's then an asset and should be treated as such. E.g. if you're renting it it's the people who are living there who's home it is. You can't just walk in and make a cut of tea like you would if it's your parents house.

    I guess it's a matter of perception then. I have a house (mortgage) in Cork, that I haven't lived in for a decade, I have an apartment (renting) in China where I live most of the time, and I travel quite a bit living in hotels or serviced apartments. My parents home when they die will go to my sister who has her own house, but she has children, and that house will go to them, with my sister moving to my parents home.

    Maybe my family is different in that we've talked about the future, and made agreements to avoid discord when my parents die. But I will still continue to think of my home as the place I grew up. I'm unlikely to live there again... but since I have no family of my own, it remains that way. Perhaps that would change if I married and had children... but I honestly don't see that happening now.

    So I continue (and I suspect that won't change) to see the house of my parents as the family home because it will remain in the main family possession. Any other house is just temporary. The family home is a constant for my parents children.


  • Options
    #74
    wandatowell
    Registered Users Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    Am old work mate of mine's parents are stinking rich and the 40% inheritance tax is a big issue for them so every time he goes home he comes back with thousand of pounds in cash or I guess a cheque.

    He wants a new car ( not an often event, he changes his car as often as everyone else does I guess) but they pay for it. He goes on holidays, they pay for it. Household bills they pay for.

    According to him they don't miss the cash and are happy to give him his inheritance early so he doesn't have to stress over money.

    It's a weird scenario tbh. What is surprising is how together he is and very much normal.


  • Options
    #75
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    wandatowell wrote: »
    Am old work mate of mine's parents are stinking rich and the 40% inheritance tax is a big issue for them so every time he goes home he comes back with thousand of pounds in cash or I guess a cheque.

    He wants a new car ( not an often event, he changes his car as often as everyone else does I guess) but they pay for it. He goes on holidays, they pay for it. Household bills they pay for.

    According to him they don't miss the cash and are happy to give him his inheritance early so he doesn't have to stress over money.

    It's a weird scenario tbh. What is surprising is how together he is and very much normal.

    They are allowed to give up to €3000 (per parent) tax free every year but it supposed to be declared and come off the total amount he has been given when caculating the inheritance tax. Essentially what your friend is doing is a smaller version of what the OP is complaining about.


  • Options
    #76
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    matrim wrote: »
    They are allowed to give up to €3000 (per parent) tax free every year but it supposed to be declared and come off the total amount he has been given when caculating the inheritance tax. Essentially what your friend is doing is a smaller version of what the OP is complaining about.

    The €3000 per annum does not come off your inheritance tax allowance. Anything above €3000 does.


  • Options
    #77
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    Brynn Thundering Performance wrote: »
    The €3000 per annum does not come off your inheritance tax allowance. Anything above €3000 does.

    Are you sure? I've always be told that the 3000 was included.


  • Options
    #78
    Zonda999
    Registered Users Posts: 5,532 ✭✭✭Zonda999


    As far as I can see, the whole issue of inheritance is going to become a huge issue in the not so distant future, and is probably at the root of the whole supposed rise in inequality we are seeing and which will only increase into the future I reckon.

    I think this because if it is true that the current generation will never be as "rich" as their parents, then it will be the wealth of the parents that has a greater bearing on the children's wealth than any actions of the children themselves. This scenario, in isolation, sounds like a disaster for society in my opinion, because its as if your faith is already decided for you and upward mobility is no longer as realistic a possibility as it was in the past.

    Unfortunately, I think what will happen is far more aggressive inheritance taxes in the future in an attempt to level the playing field. To protect yourself* the time to take action is now.

    *And by protect yourself, what I really mean is ensuring your parents wealth stays in your own pocket and not in everyone else's. If that's construed as a selfish attitude towards society, so be it, if you can;t look after your own interests, who else is going to.


  • Options
    #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zonda999 wrote: »

    *And by protect yourself, what I really mean is ensuring your parents wealth stays in your own pocket and not in everyone else's. If that's construed as a selfish attitude towards society, so be it, if you can;t look after your own interests, who else is going to.

    Totally agree.

    It's strange that it's bad to be capitalist these days. Socialism seems to have taken over. What happened to being able to keep what you earn?


  • Options
    #80
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,305 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Je_suis_Jean wrote: »
    I don't understand why someone who accumulates wealth, be it property or business interests, and pays income and all other taxes due during their ownership should then have the fruits of their labour pillaged just because they die and pass what they have accumulated onto their family.

    If we make wealth creation a punitive exercise and demotivate people from starting businesses etc who's going to create the jobs we need to provide incomes for those who want to work?

    What if that wealth was accumulated centuries ago?


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lawred2 wrote: »
    What if that wealth was accumulated centuries ago?

    Can't see why that matters. There have been taxes paid on that wealth in the time it's been in existance... it's already been paid for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,074 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    No
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can't see why that matters. There have been taxes paid on that wealth in the time it's been in existance... it's already been paid for.


    Tax is on an individual, it is the recipient who pays tax on his money /assets / income irrespective if the giver paid tax on his income / assets / money


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Tax is on an individual, it is the recipient who pays tax on his money /assets / income irrespective if the giver paid tax on his income / assets / money

    And the individual, company or organisation that held that previous wealth probably paid tax on it.


  • Options
    #84
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well first of all I don't think it's fair to use someone who recently lost his father as a target for the anger at inequality and I think some of the press like the Guardian acted a bit classless on this.

    I can see how people can feel a bit angry though at large inheritance in general. A friend of mine in the UK finished his masters with a loan debt of 41 k. No one should feel in anyway angry towards this man but education, lifestyle and opportunity of outcome are very much better for some people than for others. I think a tax on unearned wealth is needed in some cases.

    My mother inherited a modest house in Dublin after her sister died and paid several tens of thousands of tax on after it was sold. The very rich already have a enough going for them so I wouldn't describe it as punishment that they pay more than people who can afford less.


  • Options
    #85
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can't see why that matters. There have been taxes paid on that wealth in the time it's been in existance... it's already been paid for.

    My employers pay me with money that has already been taxed. By your logic should I pay no tax on it?


  • Options
    #86
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,074 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    No
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And the individual, company or organisation that held that previous wealth probably paid tax on it.

    Can't see why that matters


  • Options
    #87
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Can't see why that matters

    Yes if we stopped paying tax because at some point the money was taxed then there would be no tax.


  • Options
    #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    My mother inherited a modest house in Dublin after her sister died and paid several tens of thousands of tax on after it was sold. The very rich already have a enough going for them so I wouldn't describe it as punishment that they pay more than people who can afford less.

    My problem is that its a slippery slope.

    I'm not rich. I'd say I have slightly less than most people of my generation. (My own choices are responsible for that). However, I do have a lot more than others. Where do you establish the line that says what is reasonable and what is not?

    From what I've seen of policies in Ireland, they're becoming more socialist in nature with a huge focus on the poorer members/groups of society. How long until I'm considered to be fair game to be taxed excessively just to support those "less fortunate" than me?


  • Options
    #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    My employers pay me with money that has already been taxed. By your logic should I pay no tax on it?

    No. I don't see how my logic suggests that. Explain?

    Edit. Sorry but have we shifted examples? I thought we were talking about wealth through inhertance? Surely the inheritance tax is enough? (same law for everyone applied equally.)


  • Options
    #90
    bur
    Registered Users Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭bur


    No
    Jay D wrote: »
    I'd like to agree but while our governments are super-greedy and super incompetent then what's the point? Ireland in particular is an absolute joke. So f*ck it really.

    In fact what I'd much rather see is penalising for this sense of entitlement from freeloaders waiting on handouts that we see so often. Having a load of kids with no means of their own to support them. I think that would fix a lot more problems than taxing the super-rich to begin with.

    Call me medieval.

    Not medieval, just badly misguided. Money lost to tax evasion dwarves any measure of money spent on benefits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    54and56
    Registered Users Posts: 7,659 ✭✭✭54and56


    jcon1913 wrote: »
    We need to get real and get all countries to change laws across the world to get everyone to pay their fair share including the mega wealthy.

    I hope you were being ironic. The idea that we'll "get real" and every single country in the world will adopt the same tax laws and tax rates is inconceivable. All sovereign countries are free to implement whatever tax laws they wish. Some deliberately craft laws which make them attractive for high net worth individuals to domicile themselves there (think Monaco, Saudi Arabia etc) and those who want to protect the wealth they have created (and paid tax on) for their children will happily move their domicile there and rightly so. Only the average plebs (of which I am one) allow the bit of wealth they have created to be stolen from them via unfair (IMO) inheritance taxes.


Advertisement