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

Charles Babbage

No

The bottom line is that if I pay someone to clean my house or paint it, then that working person has to pay tax, although the money I used to pay then has come out of my after tax income. But if I die, then someone gets a much larger amount of money and many people here say that they should have to pay no tax. This can create a society where it is hard to succeed by your own efforts, while many succeed by the efforts of their ancestors. Someone leaving a house might well have worked and paid their way in life, but the value of their house might still be largely a windfall gain because it was on the outskirts of town when they bought it, but is now in a desirable area and someone built a LUAS nearby in the meantime.

No

Irish inheritance tax in relation to agricultural property is quite interesting.

Two brothers can jointly inherit a €5 million estate of agricultural property from their parent, (including livestock, tractors, buildings, land, forestry, etc) and pay absolutely no tax. They can have no interest in farming the land, and just lease the farm and just live off an enormous asset.

I've always felt that the special treatment of agricultural inheritance is a bit strange, when you consider there are people paying tax on minimum wage, but not on 5 million euro estates.

(And yes, I know 5 million euro agricultural estates are quite rare, I'm just illustrating a point)

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

What if that wealth was accumulated centuries ago?

Then most likely it was accumulated illegally or at best completely unethically. Seriously look at our history. Or the UK's. Slaving. Dissolution of monasteries. Or jobs for the boys , like granting monopolies or franchises. Look at how the speculators have cleaned up over the centuries. Look at how the big US ranchers only bought the areas with water so others couldn't survive without access to it no matter how much land they had bought.

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.

That's actually the problem. The super rich pay a much lower tax rate than someone on minimum wage. Look at things like Property Tax or USC. If you are on the dole then apart from your family home then other assets you have above a threshold like shares and stuff are treated as if you get a 4% return on them.

So we should be treating assets of the super-rich as producing an income of 4% of their value and taxing them accordingly.

We should also be charging DIRT too on the money that was offshored.

So many companies and individuals avoid tax that it's time to consider introducing a turnover tax. Also if a company is unprofitable then it should be wound up and directors barred, maybe that might stop them declaring paper losses to avoid tax.




Remember the "national solidarity bonds" that were paying half the rate of government bonds that the bondholders were getting ?

I'm tired of corporate welfare and subsidising the extremely wealthy.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

bur wrote: »

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

A cursory Google suffers that we spend slightly more than a billion a year on unemployment benefit. This doesn't include pension, child benefit etc. Do you have anything to back up that the exchequer is losing more than a billion a year to tax evasion?

Elliott S

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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?

Whilst I'm a bit torn on the issue of inheritance tax, I don't understand this argument. People will still want to build wealth because it will give them a nice life themselves. It's not like the only upside of wealth is being able to pass it on to the next generation. Building a comfortable lifestyle for oneself is as good a motivator! And that has nothing to do with the next generation.

Geuze

Donald Trump wrote: »

That system is too easily open to abuse.

You're in your 70s and you want to leave your kids your 500k Athlone house and your 10 million in the bank tax free? Do you want them to pay tax on the 10 million? No? Well sell your own house, add it to the 10m cash and buy a big house in Ballsbridge. Then when you die, your kids can inherit the house, sell it and walk away without paying tax.

The only circumstances when it should be inherited tax free are:
1) If it is under a reasonable allowance
2) If the child has also been living in the house as their primary residence for a significant number of years up to the present time and continues to do so for a reasonable number of years afterwards.

PPR houses are not exempt from CAT.

Geuze

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?

No, they used a trust.

Capt'n Midnight

Elianna Aggressive Butter wrote: »

A cursory Google suffers that we spend slightly more than a billion a year on unemployment benefit. This doesn't include pension, child benefit etc. Do you have anything to back up that the exchequer is losing more than a billion a year to tax evasion?

And then there's tax avoidance. Just to give people a sense of scale.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-awaits-apple-ruling-as-brussels-tightens-tax-screw-1.2662370

Indeed, the possibility of large settlement being sought has been raised by Apple’s investment bank, JP Morgan. In a report last year, it said up to $19 billion (€17 billion) might be required if the final decision went against Ireland and Apple.

Donald Trump

Geuze wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

That system is too easily open to abuse.

You're in your 70s and you want to leave your kids your 500k Athlone house and your 10 million in the bank tax free? Do you want them to pay tax on the 10 million? No? Well sell your own house, add it to the 10m cash and buy a big house in Ballsbridge. Then when you die, your kids can inherit the house, sell it and walk away without paying tax.

The only circumstances when it should be inherited tax free are:
1) If it is under a reasonable allowance
2) If the child has also been living in the house as their primary residence for a significant number of years up to the present time and continues to do so for a reasonable number of years afterwards.

PPR houses are not exempt from CAT.

You'd better let the Revenue know

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/leaflets/cat10.html

In your face sucka :-P wrote:

Introduction
Section 86 of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 provides that gifts or inheritances of a dwelling- house taken on or after 1 December 1999 will be exempt from capital acquisitions tax provided the following conditions are complied with -

1. The recipient must have occupied the dwelling- house continuously as his/her only/main residence for a period of 3 years immediately prior to the date of the gift/inheritance. Where the dwelling- house has directly/indirectly replaced other property owned by the disponer, this condition may be satisfied where the recipient has continuously occupied both properties as his/her only/main residence for a total period of 3 out of the 4 years immediately prior to the date of the gift/inheritance.
2. The recipient must not, at the date of the gift/inheritance, be beneficially entitled to any other dwelling- house or to any interest in any other dwelling- house. The Revenue's view is that a dwelling-house means a building or part of a building being used or which is suitable for use as a dwelling.
3. Gifts taken on or after 20 February 2007: Any period during which a donee occupies a house that was during that period the disponer's only or main residence will be disregarded as a period of occupation in that house unless the disponer is compelled, by reason of old age or infirmity, to depend on the services of the donee for that period. Old age refers to a person aged 65 or over.
4. Gifts taken on or after 20 February 2007: The house must be owned by the disponer during the 3 year period prior to the gift and, where the gifted house has replaced another property, each house must be owned by the disponer for the relevant part of the 3 year period that it was occupied by the beneficiary.
5. The recipient must continue, except where such recipient was aged 55 years or more at the date of the gift or inheritance or has died, to occupy that dwelling- house as his/her only/main residence for a period of 6 years commencing on the date of the gift/inheritance. Where the dwelling- house is directly/indirectly replaced by other property, this condition may be satisfied where the recipient continuously occupied both properties as his/her only/main residence for a total period of 6 out of 7 years commencing on the date of the gift/inheritance. A recipient absent during any time through working abroad is considered to remain in continuous occupation of that dwelling house.

The exemption will not be withdrawn where a breach of the condition referred to at e) above is as a result of the recipient requiring long term medical care in a hospital, nursing home or convalescent home or as a result of a condition being imposed by an employer on a recipient to reside elsewhere.

Elliott S

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.

Incorrect. The annual gift exemption isn't subtracted from the CAT allowance. It's a separate entity.

Donald Trump

Geuze wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

That system is too easily open to abuse.

You're in your 70s and you want to leave your kids your 500k Athlone house and your 10 million in the bank tax free? Do you want them to pay tax on the 10 million? No? Well sell your own house, add it to the 10m cash and buy a big house in Ballsbridge. Then when you die, your kids can inherit the house, sell it and walk away without paying tax.

The only circumstances when it should be inherited tax free are:
1) If it is under a reasonable allowance
2) If the child has also been living in the house as their primary residence for a significant number of years up to the present time and continues to do so for a reasonable number of years afterwards.

PPR houses are not exempt from CAT.

Just to clarify, my original post was refuting someone who said that houses should always be tax-free.

My position is that there are only two cases where that should be. Either of the two I listed. Which I think is basically what we have now

Wanderer78

this is a lot more complicated than just trying to get the 1% to pay their fair share in taxes, i suspect, if this is even possible, it may make very little difference. the biggest culprits here are large corporations and financial institutions. we somehow need to find a way of taxing these industries more along with the wealthiest individuals.

Charles Babbage

No

Wanderer78 wrote: »

this is a lot more complicated than just trying to get the 1% to pay their fair share in taxes, i suspect, if this is even possible, it may make very little difference. the biggest culprits here are large corporations and financial institutions. we somehow need to find a way of taxing these industries more along with the wealthiest individuals.

Taxing large corporations is all very fine, but you might as well say tax large farms. It is the people profiting from those corporations that should be taxed.

Wanderer78

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Taxing large corporations is all very fine, but you might as well say tax large farms. It is the people profiting from those corporations that should be taxed.

yea it gets very complicated. i actually think the main beneficiaries of these corporations are almost ghosts in the system. i suspect the richest people on this planet are almost unknown to most. if the highest ranking people in major drug cartels can hide their wealth, so to can those associated with major corporations and financial institutions, maybe theyre the same people!

many describe our financial sector as parasitic or cancerous. id have to agree with them but i would also add major corporations to that list. we think they are benefitting our societies by mainly providing employment amongst other things, but in fact, they are actually extracting from our societies. many of them are evading and avoiding taxes, causing irreversible and complex social economic and environmental damage globally.

54and56

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Then most likely it was accumulated illegally or at best completely unethically.

Do you mean "illegally" in that it was legal at the time the income was earned but it wouldn't be legal now? If so it's a meaningless point. The income was earned legally at the time. End of. You can't retrospectively declare income "illegal" because years later the way the income was earned became "illegal". As for "unethical", that's purely personal opinion which doesn't have sufficient support to turn the "unethical" behaviour into illegal behaviour. Your ethics and mine are possibly very different and yes I do have ethics but you possibly think yours are of a higher standard or more worthy. If you do off you go, knock yourself out. It won't make any difference to anything.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Seriously look at our history. Or the UK's. Slaving. Dissolution of monasteries. Or jobs for the boys , like granting monopolies or franchises. Look at how the speculators have cleaned up over the centuries. Look at how the big US ranchers only bought the areas with water so others couldn't survive without access to it no matter how much land they had bought.

Wow, so many conspiracy theories in so few words

Slaving - definitely not good but not illegal at the time. Any examples of currently existing companies or individuals whose source of their wealth was slaving? Actual facts now not urban myths or innuendo.

Dissolution of monasteries - not sure if you are pro or anti this as taking apart the greatest organised crime organisation ever created is as far as I'm concerned a good thing.

Jobs for the boys - Neoptism exists in every walk of life. Even left wing communists ensure their family members get the plumb jobs. It's a universal human trait which pervades society, left and right but you probably only want to focus on the "bad" corporate guys giving jobs to their buddies etc no doubt.

Granting monopolies or franchises - sounds like you've hit on something there. any actual examples?

Speculators cleaning up - Imagine that!! Speculators i.e. people who take risk getting rewarded for the times the risk they take paying off. You do know there are tons of speculators who speculate and lose the shirts of their back right or are you just focused on the winners?

Ranchers buying land with water - This might actually be the best microcosm of your view on life i.e. sensible people only buy the land which has a source of water on it to ensure they can irrigate their crops and provide drinking water their livestock. Others buy land with no source of water and then look for someone to blame when surprise surprise they can't irrigate their crops or provide drinking water for their livestock. Let's blame the sensible people for idiots being idiots.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

That's actually the problem. The super rich pay a much lower tax rate than someone on minimum wage. Look at things like Property Tax or USC. If you are on the dole then apart from your family home then other assets you have above a threshold like shares and stuff are treated as if you get a 4% return on them.

So we should be treating assets of the super-rich as producing an income of 4% of their value and taxing them accordingly.

We should also be charging DIRT too on the money that was offshored.

So many companies and individuals avoid tax that it's time to consider introducing a turnover tax.

The super rich may pay a lower rate of tax but the actual amount of tax they pay is already very significant. In the UK the top 1% of tax payers contribute almost 25% of all tax raised, see



Your proposal ref turnover taxes highlights how little real world experience you have. Turnover taxes simply make products more expensive for everyone and hurt the lowest income earners and people dependent of social welfare (the very people you seek to protect) the most. If for example Tesco/Dunnes/Aldi/Lidl etc are subject to a 4% turnover tax and they currently sell a litre of milk for €1 as soon as the tax is introduced the price of a litre of milk will increase to €1.04. No impact whatsoever on Tesco/Dunnes etc but life just got more difficult for ordinary people. Good job there

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Also if a company is unprofitable then it should be wound up and directors barred, maybe that might stop them declaring paper losses to avoid tax.

This is without doubt the single most stupid thing I have ever seen anyone propose on Boards. You do know that a lot of very successful companies started out as loss making companies in their early years right? In your world Steve Jobs would have been locked up when Apple made losses prior to becoming the most profitable company in history. Another great job there

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Remember the "national solidarity bonds" that were paying half the rate of government bonds that the bondholders were getting ?

Please explain. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You know "bondholders" are mostly pension funds made up of ordinary peoples life savings which in order to generate a "secure" return lent €X to banks in exchange for a promise by the bank to repay the loaned amount on a fixed date with X% interest? Wicked wicked "bondholders"

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm tired of corporate welfare and subsidising the extremely wealthy.

Please elaborate. Where can corporates get welfare? How exactly are you subsidising the extremely wealthy? Are you sending them money somehow or are they just not paying the imaginary taxes you'd like to impose on them?

It seems to me that you are in fact green with envy and jealous that you're not "extremely wealthy" yourself so are simply begrudging of those who are and I think thats sad. Try letting go, lose the bitterness and enjoy life. As they say. The best things in life are free

54and56

Elliott S wrote: »

Whilst I'm a bit torn on the issue of inheritance tax, I don't understand this argument. People will still want to build wealth because it will give them a nice life themselves. It's not like the only upside of wealth is being able to pass it on to the next generation. Building a comfortable lifestyle for oneself is as good a motivator! And that has nothing to do with the next generation.

This may be true for those without families but any successful people I know are highly motivated to provide financial security for their kids and their grand children if possible and that's a noble motivation which should be encouraged not discouraged.

Je_suis_Jean

No

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

This may be true for those without families but any successful people I know are highly motivated to provide financial security for their kids and their grand children if possible and that's a noble motivation which should be encouraged not discouraged.

The irony of excoriating those living on "handouts" whilst defending the rights of grown adults to benefit from handouts from the dead, whilst often paying no tax.

A man can inherit twenty working stallions and a large farm worth 2 million euro and pay zero tax, and you think that's fair to people who inherited nothing but poverty and pay tax on minimum wage jobs? I know who I'd call the hard worker in that scenario, and society doesn't treat him fairly.

KingBrian2

ProudDUB wrote: »

Why is a low income earner automatically entitled to a slice of the wealth of a high income earner, but the child of home owner has no entitlement to the ownership of their family home?

The child has no legal ownership right until he reaches age. He is dependent on the income of the parent. Low income earners are placed under enormous pressures that further up the income scale don't apply. If a low paid worker was layed off that would be disastrous, find another job, rear children look for a place to live. High income earners have none of these problems. One career opportunity is lost another one opens up the following day with none of the consequences, get back up and back to job security.

markpb

KingBrian2 wrote:

High income earners have none of these problems. One career opportunity is lost another one opens up the following day with none of the consequences, get back up and back to job security.

That's not necessarily true and I think it's shows your prejudices even suggesting it.

If the high income earner was made redundant because things have moved on and their skills are no longer required, there's no job security there. If there is a recession because their industry is going off a cliff, there's no job security there either.

They could be earning from their own company which, if it gets into trouble, could be using their family home and all their assets as collateral. If they lose their job, they lose everything.

KingBrian2

markpb wrote: »

That's not necessarily true and I think it's shows your prejudices even suggesting it.

If the high income earner was made redundant because things have moved on and their skills are no longer required, there's no job security there. If there is a recession because their industry is going off a cliff, there's no job security there either.

They could be earning from their own company which, if it gets into trouble, could be using their family home and all their assets as collateral. If they lose their job, they lose everything.

They can fall back on what they have saved on.

markpb

KingBrian2 wrote:

They can fall back on what they have saved on.

Isn't that true of everyone?

54and56

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The irony of excoriating those living on "handouts"

I did no such thing. Please apologise.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

whilst defending the rights of grown adults to benefit from handouts from the dead, whilst often paying no tax.

I love the way you try to completely depersonalise inheritances by calling them "handouts from the dead". Do you call birthday presents "handouts from the living"? :rolleyes: Children (whether adults or not) are not receiving some random money. The person passing on the inheritance is passing on assets (cash, property etc etc) on which they have paid all relevant taxes. Nailing the children is just double dipping and promotes the kind of off shore tax avoidance activity you and others here complain about.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A man can inherit twenty working stallions and a large farm worth 2 million euro and pay zero tax

Tax rules which were legislated into existence by a democratically elected government I presume? If your ideas for taxing the rich blah blah blah are so good why don't the masses (which by definition are not extremely wealthy) vote for candidates who promote your policy ideals? The closest example we have ATM is Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and even the Labour party there recognise after just a few months of his leadership that his utopian view of the world isn't going to gain popular support and will keep them out of government for as long as he's leader.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

and you think that's fair to people who inherited nothing but poverty and pay tax on minimum wage jobs? I know who I'd call the hard worker in that scenario, and society doesn't treat him fairly.

My personal belief is that we should raise enough tax to ensure all children get access to a basic education (to LC and preferably university level if they gain the LC points), have access to free healthcare which is based on a combination of medical need and value for money (I'm against spending massive amounts on crazy equipment and drugs to keep people technically alive but with no quality of life) and access to social housing if their parents are unable (or unwilling) to provide same.

Being a hard worker is an irrelevant and misguided barometer. If I had two sons, one who worked hard through school and university and got himself a job at an Investment Bank earning €200,000 a year where he didn't have to work particularly hard but the contribution he made was valued by his employer and another son who dossed his way through school, ended up on minimum wage and working bloody hard for the few quid he earned I know which of them I'd be most proud of.

If you expect society to "treat you fairly" which in your terms seems to be if you can't finance your own life the rich should bale you out then you are living in a fantasy world my friend.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

matrim wrote: »

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

absolutely certain.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

...and you think that's fair to people who inherited nothing but poverty and pay tax on minimum wage jobs? .

How much tax does somebody on minimum wage pay?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Such a huge swing towards the far left these days, the mantra of tax everyone except myself so I can reap the rewards.

And a huge amount of bad feeling towards hard working people too.

Be interesting to see where it all ends up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Penny Kind Vitamin wrote: »

Such a huge swing towards the far left these days, the mantra of tax everyone except myself so I can reap the rewards.

And a huge amount of bad feeling towards hard working people too.

Be interesting to see where it all ends up.

Nothing left-wing about that mantra - have a look at the quote in the opening post if you don't believe me.

Trying to shoe-horn a left/right wing "blame game" agenda into this is a bit bogus for me because it's not a political question.

Goose81

Deleted User wrote: »

Billionaire Leona Helmsley is infamously recorded as saying, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes". And so it is with Britain's richest person, dying and leaving his whole estate tax free to his son. Legally.

Apparently, the little people in Britain pay 40% inheritance tax on everything above £325,000. In Ireland the first €280,000 is tax free (while imposing cutbacks on the rest of us, Fine Gael in October 2015 looked after its property-rich voters in south-east Dublin and increased the tax-free limit by €55,000, from €225,000 - it's no wonder inequality is growing faster than ever, and I write this as somebody who will benefit directly from that election stunt.)


Hugh Grosvenor (25) begins first weekend as billionaire

Duke's £9bn inheritance prompts call for tax overhaul

Duke’s death hands property empire to 25-year-old son

Inheritance tax and the Dukes of Westminster

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.

Damn right, not everyone in south Dublin is a millionaire. Many grew up here but could never afford to buy now. If people on the council house waiting list can refuse a free house because " its not where they grew up and have no family ties" then people inheriting houses where they grew up but could never afford to buy now they should pay 0 tax on the inheritance of their family home.

Get that chip off your shoulder and spit the lemon out.

54and56

I'll leave it there for tonight, I have to get up early for work and to pay taxes so others who don't work can have free healthcare etc.

Night all

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I'll leave it there for tonight, I have to get up early for work and to pay taxes so others who don't work can have free healthcare etc.

Night all

Given that most capitlaist countires have been forced to introduce austerity measures due to national debts built up by crazy lending, are you sure that's solely as socialist attribute?

Arcade_Tryer

markpb wrote: »

Isn't that true of everyone?

Seriously?

You think someone earning minimum wage for 10 or 20 years can fall back on savings the same way someone on a +35k salary can given relatively similar circumstances? Utterly ridiculous supposition.