Using Property Taxes to Encourage Redistribution of Family Homes

Assetbacked

JDD wrote: »

It's got to be a multi-layered solution right?

1. We, and by that I mean the government, must build a certain amount of social housing. Not at the level of the 1950's and 1960's, but enough that it's providing permanent accommodation to families who have been stuck in the hostel/hotel emergency accommodation system for over a year, and perhaps a little more to cover those who are living with relations or friends for more than two years. Unfortunately, this housing can't be built in Louth or Leitrim. It needs to be built close to areas where there is employment, otherwise everyone getting allocated social accommodation is going to be long term unemployed. That's no good for the families or the rural area they've been allocated. Secondly, they have to be built somewhere close to childcare. Most people in social housing can't afford private childcare, and there is not enough publically funded childcare (either places in urban centres, or facilities at all in rural areas) that would allow someone to take up employment, even if they secured something. So until such a point as universal public childcare is available (and this may never happen), families in social housing will have to rely on relatives. So when people say "oh X person turned down a house in Waterford because they wanted to be close to Mammy in Tallaght" it's not just a sense of entitlement - it's an economic necessity, for families anyway.

2. Get rid of the first time buyer grant for new houses. It's just a builder's subsidy. It doesn't reduce the cost of a house for first time buyer, it increases the cost of a house by the amount of a subsidy, and has a knock on effect on the value of second hand houses in the area, thus increasing the price for second time buyers and disincentivising them from selling their first house.

3. More active use of the CPO for vacant land. Yes, it will inhibit the free market for property. Yes, it will disincentivise investors from investing in property. Is that a bad thing? No. When buyers outstrip supplies, then anything that reduces the buyers is a good thing. Investors will choose other things to put their money into. Fine Gael won't do this as they are right wing, and in favour of the free market. The problem is, while the market adjusts (supply comes online) we have a crisis. They're just trying to ride the crisis out without intervening, and to be honest I find that reprehensible.

4. Have a really forensic look at why building costs are so high, without the first reaction being "lower building standards!". Are wages high? Can we get in cheaper labour? Are insurance costs artificially high? Can we find a way to reduce that e.g. through a government insurance scheme (though if we were to do that, you'd want to come down the heavy on any builder that breaches building standards - it should become an individual personal liability, like a doctor or teacher). Anything that reduces building costs *should* decrease the price of property, though again the government would have to make sure, in some way, that these savings are being passed on to the customer.

5. I can't think of anything else. Though I would assume brighter minds than mine have suggested all of the above and other things on this thread. And I would presume all of those options have been discussed within government departments. I just fail to understand why nothing substantial has been done.

I think a more substantial property tax should be introduced which can then fund ensuring a more sustainable market. People who don't pay then adjust their living situation accordingly by selling up. Considering the majority of the wealth in the economy is tied up in property, this is a no brainer.

For Dublin, a more concerted effort to limit commercial space being built in the city until apartment supply picks up.

ELM327

Assetbacked wrote: »

I think a property tax should be introduced to get old people out of their unnecessarily large houses and make way for the next generation. This tax can then fund ensuring a more sustainable market.

There's already a property tax.
Let's not force old people out of a house they have worked for for years/decades. It's not their problem. It's a poor governance problem combined with a social welfare class.

JDD wrote: »

It's got to be a multi-layered solution right?

1. We, and by that I mean the government, must build a certain amount of social housing. Not at the level of the 1950's and 1960's, but enough that it's providing permanent accommodation to families who have been stuck in the hostel/hotel emergency accommodation system for over a year, and perhaps a little more to cover those who are living with relations or friends for more than two years. Unfortunately, this housing can't be built in Louth or Leitrim. It needs to be built close to areas where there is employment, otherwise everyone getting allocated social accommodation is going to be long term unemployed. That's no good for the families or the rural area they've been allocated. Secondly, they have to be built somewhere close to childcare. Most people in social housing can't afford private childcare, and there is not enough publically funded childcare (either places in urban centres, or facilities at all in rural areas) that would allow someone to take up employment, even if they secured something. So until such a point as universal public childcare is available (and this may never happen), families in social housing will have to rely on relatives. So when people say "oh X person turned down a house in Waterford because they wanted to be close to Mammy in Tallaght" it's not just a sense of entitlement - it's an economic necessity, for families anyway.

2. Get rid of the first time buyer grant for new houses. It's just a builder's subsidy. It doesn't reduce the cost of a house for first time buyer, it increases the cost of a house by the amount of a subsidy, and has a knock on effect on the value of second hand houses in the area, thus increasing the price for second time buyers and disincentivising them from selling their first house.

3. More active use of the CPO for vacant land. Yes, it will inhibit the free market for property. Yes, it will disincentivise investors from investing in property. Is that a bad thing? No. When buyers outstrip supplies, then anything that reduces the buyers is a good thing. Investors will choose other things to put their money into. Fine Gael won't do this as they are right wing, and in favour of the free market. The problem is, while the market adjusts (supply comes online) we have a crisis. They're just trying to ride the crisis out without intervening, and to be honest I find that reprehensible.

4. Have a really forensic look at why building costs are so high, without the first reaction being "lower building standards!". Are wages high? Can we get in cheaper labour? Are insurance costs artificially high? Can we find a way to reduce that e.g. through a government insurance scheme (though if we were to do that, you'd want to come down the heavy on any builder that breaches building standards - it should become an individual personal liability, like a doctor or teacher). Anything that reduces building costs *should* decrease the price of property, though again the government would have to make sure, in some way, that these savings are being passed on to the customer.

5. I can't think of anything else. Though I would assume brighter minds than mine have suggested all of the above and other things on this thread. And I would presume all of those options have been discussed within government departments. I just fail to understand why nothing substantial has been done.

Social Welfare housing needs to be provided where it is cheapest to the state. If you want a better/bigger house or a better location then obtain gainful employment and, you know, pay for it!

Assetbacked

ELM327 wrote: »

There's already a property tax.
Let's not force old people out of a house they have worked for for years/decades. It's not their problem. It's a poor governance problem combined with a social welfare class.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/we-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310

Household net worth is now higher than it was in the boom (mainly due to property price increases) meaning that the status quo remains and wealth is continually being tied up in property - considering we live in a progressive tax system, this should be taxed. If people can't pay then sell and adjust their living accordingly.

ELM327

Assetbacked wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/we-are-wealthier-than-during-the-boom-says-central-bank-1.3691310

Household net worth is now higher than it was in the boom (mainly due to property price increases) meaning that the status quo remains and wealth is continually being tied up in property - considering we live in a progressive tax system, this should be taxed. If people can't pay then sell and adjust their living accordingly.

This is more an issue for Politics than Accommodation.


However the wealth used to purchase property has already been taxed a number of times:
Income tax
Property tax
vat
stamp duty


How many more taxes? It is not fair or just to force an elderly person out of their family home. That's rubbish and should not be supported and is certainly not "progressive"

RayCun

ELM327 wrote: »

It is not fair or just to force an elderly person out of their family home. That's rubbish and should not be supported and is certainly not "progressive"

Nobody is forcing an elderly person out of their home.
If you are 70 years old, on a fixed income but own your home, you can get equity release to pay property tax.

And it absolutely is progressive to have a tax on wealth.

ELM327

So... you want someone to take out a second mortgage on their pension (defer payments until after death) so that the state can fund free houses for people that don't work? Nonsense. Are you Richard Boyd barret?

Kintarō Hattori

RayCun wrote: »

Nobody is forcing an elderly person out of their home.
If you are 70 years old, on a fixed income but own your home, you can get equity release to pay property tax.

And it absolutely is progressive to have a tax on wealth.

Owning a home that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth. We all require a roof over our heads. Sure if you own more than one property then you might be considered wealthy by some definition but simply having worked hard to own a family home, doesn't mean you should be taxed out of it. It's absolutely wrong.

RayCun

ELM327 wrote: »

So... you want someone to take out a second mortgage on their pension (defer payments until after death) so that the state can fund free houses for people that don't work?

No, I want people to pay wealth taxes so the state can afford better public transport and schools and hospitals :rolleyes:

RayCun

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Owning a home that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth.

Owning stocks and shares that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning a small business that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning an expensive car that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

A house is an asset, of course it's wealth.

beauf

RayCun wrote: »

No, I want people to pay wealth taxes so the state can afford better public transport and schools and hospitals :rolleyes:

So what will happen is people will spend it all while they can, as then the'll only be paying tax on it a couple of times instead of 4 or 5 times. Then when they need hospitals and nursing homes, they'll be on the same level as everyone else.

RayCun

beauf wrote: »

So what will happen is people will spend it all while they can, as then the'll only be paying tax on it a couple of times instead of 4 or 5 times. Then when they need hospitals and nursing homes, they'll be on the same level as everyone else.

yeah, that's what will happen. The same way the introduction of income tax made people give up working.

seamus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Owning a home that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth. We all require a roof over our heads. Sure if you own more than one property then you might be considered wealthy by some definition but simply having worked hard to own a family home, doesn't mean you should be taxed out of it. It's absolutely wrong.

Nobody's talking about "taxing them out", but recognising that wealth hoarding in any form denies funding for public services and disadvantages those who are coming behind you.

Thus the aim of any state should be to balance the right an individual to accumulate wealth against the needs of wider society.

Emotive language like "worked hard all their life for the family home" conjures up images of a little old lady in a modest rural cottage. Rather than the reality of two able-bodied and well-pensioned people rattling around a five bed house in Harold's Cross.

Nobody's seeking to strip old people of everything they've worked for and force them to die alone in a one-bed flat. There does however, need to be a top-down redistribution of wealth in order to ensure that everyone is given a fair chance to "work all their life to own their own home".

If they can afford to pay a reasonable tax on their large property, then more power to them. If they can't, then they should sell up and buy something more in line with their means.

Cyrus

seamus wrote: »

Emotive language like "worked hard all their life for the family home" conjures up images of a little old lady in a modest rural cottage. Rather than the reality of two able-bodied and well-pensioned people rattling around a five bed house in Harold's Cross.

conjurs up images of people who have paid tax all their life and already made their contribution to society and probably funded most of their own pension.

beauf

RayCun wrote: »

yeah, that's what will happen. The same way the introduction of income tax made people give up working.

It more like increasing income tax usually increases the black/shadow economy.

There was also this...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/ourview/fair-deal-scheme-abused-change-rules-to-end-bed-blocks-886426.html

RayCun

Cyrus wrote: »

conjurs up images of people who have paid tax all their life and already made their contribution to society and probably funded most of their own pension.

So take people in this situation.

They've invested in a pension, paid their mortgage, and have a decent income, but not enough to pay an increased property tax.

It's probably better for society if they sell the house that is now too big for them and move somewhere smaller, but they don't want to do that, and they don't have to.

They can do the reverse mortgage/equity release thing, and stay in their house as long as they like.

They don't lose out at all.

Who loses out? Who complains? The kids who wanted to inherit. Inherit a house that they didn't pay for. Get something that they didn't work hard for all their lives.

This isn't about protecting hard-working old people. It's about people who want something for nothing, and don't want to lose any of it to tax.

beauf

seamus wrote: »

Nobody's talking about "taxing them out", but recognising that wealth hoarding in any form denies funding for public services and disadvantages those who are coming behind you..

..If they can afford to pay a reasonable tax on their large property, then more power to them. If they can't, then they should sell up and buy something more in line with their means.

Forcing people out like that would probably make it too expensive for those who want to force other people out.

beauf

RayCun wrote: »

...
It's probably better for society if they sell the house that is now too big for them and move somewhere smaller, but they don't want to do that, and they don't have to.

They can do the reverse mortgage/equity release thing, and stay in their house as long as they like.

They don't lose out at all. ...

The cost to change is massive. Even if there were more suitable places to
downsize too, which there isn't.

They just spend a ton of money to end up exactly where they started. Cheaper to pay the tax and stay in a location they are familiar with know their neighbours etc.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread Split.
Interesting conversation but probably better suited to its own thread.

Moonjet

It would be political suicide for any party that tried to introduce such a policy, given 70% of the population own their properties (mortgaged or not), however logical it may be to resolve the housing crisis.

RayCun

Moonjet wrote: »

It would be political suicide for any party that tried to introduce such a policy, given 70% of the population own their properties (mortgaged or not), however logical it may be to resolve the housing crisis.

We already have property tax

Cyrus

RayCun wrote: »

So take people in this situation.

They've invested in a pension, paid their mortgage, and have a decent income, but not enough to pay an increased property tax.

It's probably better for society if they sell the house that is now too big for them and move somewhere smaller, but they don't want to do that, and they don't have to.

They can do the reverse mortgage/equity release thing, and stay in their house as long as they like.

They don't lose out at all.

Who loses out? Who complains? The kids who wanted to inherit. Inherit a house that they didn't pay for. Get something that they didn't work hard for all their lives.

This isn't about protecting hard-working old people. It's about people who want something for nothing, and don't want to lose any of it to tax.

why wouldn't they lose out to tax, there are thresholds for CAT you know?

Moonjet

RayCun wrote: »

We already have property tax

Read the OP:


"I think a more substantial property tax should be introduced which can then fund ensuring a more sustainable market."

RayCun

Moonjet wrote: »

Read the OP:


"I think a more substantial property tax should be introduced which can then fund ensuring a more sustainable market."

Yes, but since we already have a property tax, there is no need to introduce such a policy. Increasing the rate of an existing tax is a lot easier, especially if it can be 'ringfenced' for sunshine and rainbows.

beauf

From what I'm reading, new builds are mainly family homes. Many not in the range of the first time buyer. Because they have the better profit margin.

The shortage seems be in social housing, affordable housing, and FTB, and rentals. Which seems an entirely different type of property than a "a five bed house in Harold's Cross".

So this focus on old people and inheritance, has almost no impact on the shortages.

Spanish Eyes

The day that those in receipt of social housing, or HAP, or RAS, etc., or privately renting have to pay something towards the upkeep of facilities (apart from bin charges obv!), is the day I will say OK no problem.

Most other jurisdictions have a charge on property whether renting or owned. That is to fund lighting, rubbish collection (I know), road maintenance, street cleaning and so on. Everyone benefits, but only owners pay here for some reason.

I await the response.

LirW

And where exactly should elderly downsize to? Of course it's a bug bear of many that elderly sit in houses way too big but the truth is that there's little out there that people can downsize to. If they live in an urban area, they're not particularly sprinkled with nicely sized two-bedroom homes and if they compete for smaller 3-bed homes, people will be up in Arms that the boomers will buy "their houses".
Also moving them far out isn't an option either because elderly do need somewhat of a support network, especially when age progresses and they might need help/medical treatments.
There are plenty of elderly that want to downsize but they can't unless they really move further afield, because there's simply nothing around.

It really doesn't change anything about the problem that affordable supply is scarce.

Spanish Eyes

There are two other issues that spring to mind re the availability of certain housing.

1. If someone dies, it takes months if not up to a year to obtain Probate. House sitting there empty until it can either be sold or transferred.

2. Fair Deal Scheme. If family let out the family home of the person in receipt of FD, taxes have to be paid, and the FD is reduced. Meaning a lot of decent properties are lying idle.

Both above have a big impact on availability of property.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

Who loses out? Who complains? The kids who wanted to inherit. Inherit a house that they didn't pay for. Get something that they didn't work hard for all their lives.

This isn't about protecting hard-working old people. It's about people who want something for nothing, and don't want to lose any of it to tax.

Define irony: Labeling the families of hard working taxpayers as "people who want something for nothing" so that you can provide housing for people who don't work for a living.

I'm telling you, Boards is like cloud cuckoo land sometimes. I'm never sure if people are ripping the pi$$ half the time.

Are you seriously advocating that old folks who've worked since they were 16, paid income tax their whole lives, paid VAT, stamp duty, 14% interest rate mortgages, property tax in recent years and whose kids will pay CGT on their house when they pass on should be taxed more.......because the government has failed in their duties over the past number of years to provide adequate housing?

Three words for you: F*** that S***

The housing crisis could be fixed in 6-12 months, if any politician had the stones to do it.

1. Incentivise building with tax breaks
2. Enforce the social & affordable housing planning conditions that have been around 20 years but which builder's have been allowed to buy their way out of
3. Locate all social housing outside the M50

brightspark

seamus wrote: »

Emotive language like "worked hard all their life for the family home" conjures up images of a little old lady in a modest rural cottage. Rather than the reality of two able-bodied and well-pensioned people rattling around a five bed house in Harold's Cross.

A "five bed house in Harold's Cross" should never become "Social Housing".

If anyone wants a large property in Dublin then they should "work hard" and pay for it.

RayCun

Deleted User wrote: »

Define irony: Labeling the families of hard working taxpayers as "people who want something for nothing" so that you can provide housing for people who don't work for a living.

1. "the families of hard working taxpayers"
not the hard-working taxpayers themselves, but the people who want to benefit from what someone else worked for. You know, scroungers :rolleyes:

2. Tax is tax, it all goes into the same pot. If you don't like the idea of this tax going on housing, feel free to imagine it going on education instead, or whatever things it is you are glad money is spent on.

beauf

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

...
2. Fair Deal Scheme. If family let out the family home of the person in receipt of FD, taxes have to be paid, and the FD is reduced. Meaning a lot of decent properties are lying idle....

80% of their income goes into the Fairdeal anyway. So its would be entirely pointless.

If any issues come up, the person in the nursing home isn't going to be able to deal with them.

brightspark

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Fair Deal Scheme. If family let out the family home of the person in receipt of FD, taxes have to be paid, and the FD is reduced. Meaning a lot of decent properties are lying idle.

The "Fair Deal Scheme" is very unfair to our elderly.

1, If they get cancer/heart disease etc., all their medical needs are largely taken care by the state. Unfortunate to get dementia or become immobilised etc., then the state takes 80% of your income and 7.75% of your assets every year.

If you never worked a day in your life and live in social housing then of course it makes little difference, if you have worked hard and saved (including paying into a private pension) then the state grabs it.

As you get older you are probably better off to squander your money as quickly as possible, no point in hoping that you will be able to gift it your family or friends.

beauf

RayCun wrote: »

1. "the families of hard working taxpayers"
not the hard-working taxpayers themselves, but the people who want to benefit from what someone else worked for. You know, scroungers :rolleyes:....

You can write someone out of a will if you think they do not deserve it. you can disown your whole family if you dislike them that much.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

1. "the families of hard working taxpayers"
not the hard-working taxpayers themselves, but the people who want to benefit from what someone else worked for. You know, scroungers :rolleyes:

2. Tax is tax, it all goes into the same pot. If you don't like the idea of this tax going on housing, feel free to imagine it going on education instead, or whatever things it is you are glad money is spent on.

1. So now if you accept inheritance from your parents, you're a scrounger? Get outta that garden. Who are they scrounging from? Their ma and da!!!?! :pac:
2. I'd love to see a breakdown of how much tax goes to the government as a result of these sky high rents. If rent wasn't as high as it is the tax intake would take a serious dent, I'd say.

Part and parcel of working your entire life is so that you can provide for your offspring. If I've worked my whole life to buy a house, I should be able to give it to whomever I damn well please when I pass on.

listermint

brightspark wrote: »

The "Fair Deal Scheme" is very unfair to our elderly.

1, If they get cancer/heart disease etc., all their medical needs are largely taken care by the state. Unfortunate to get dementia or become immobilised etc., then the state takes 80% of your income and 7.75% of your assets every year.

If you never worked a day in your life and live in social housing then of course it makes little difference, if you have worked hard and saved (including paying into a private pension) then the state grabs it.

As you get older you are probably better off to squander your money as quickly as possible, no point in hoping that you will be able to gift it your family or friends.

So what your saying is its unfair to the family then ...

STB.

RayCun wrote: »

Owning stocks and shares that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning a small business that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning an expensive car that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

A house is an asset, of course it's wealth.

Owning stocks and shares is either gambling or an investment.

Owning a house is neither of those things. Many people who bought second hand houses have possibly paid a shed load of stamp duty and property tax. There is nothing else to squeeze. They've paid their way and made sacrifices.

You really are not that bright are you.

Also your expectations that any of this solves the governments problem of providing social housing is way off the mark. The solution is not private residences.

The solution is getting back to building fecking houses and revising HAP schemes for ONLY the most vulnerable, not people who have no interest in getting off their own backsides and grafting and saving.

RayCun

Deleted User wrote: »

1. So now if you accept inheritance from your parents, you're a scrounger?

We agree, then, the people concerned here are not the "hard-working taxpayers who worked their whole lives to pay for a house", but the people who want to inherit that house.

Amirani

Deleted User wrote: »

The housing crisis could be fixed in 6-12 months, if any politician had the stones to do it.

1. Incentivise building with tax breaks
2. Enforce the social & affordable housing planning conditions that have been around 20 years but which builder's have been allowed to buy their way out of
3. Locate all social housing outside the M50

A political party that campaigned promising those items is unlikely to be elected.

I don't think you have much evidence to suggest that the above would fix the housing crisis either. Your second and third points contradict each other too.

RayCun

STB. wrote: »

Owning stocks and share are either gambling or an investment.

Owning a house is neither of those things.

It is.

It's an investment.

Not a complicated concept.

LirW

RayCun wrote: »

We agree, then, the people concerned here are not the "hard-working taxpayers who worked their whole lives to pay for a house", but the people who want to inherit that house.

Would you turn down inheritance from your parents?

Amirani

STB. wrote: »

Owning stocks and share are either gambling or an investment.

Owning a house is neither of those things. Many people who bought second hand houses have possibly paid a shed load of stamp duty and property tax. There is nothing else to squeeze. They've paid their way and made sacrifices.

You really are not that bright are you.

You are aware that you pay stamp duty on shares also? You also pay Capital Gains Tax at far higher rates than you pay property tax.

RayCun

RayCun wrote: »

We agree, then, the people concerned here are not the "hard-working taxpayers who worked their whole lives to pay for a house", but the people who want to inherit that house.

Nope, it's the people who own that house and want to give it to their kids. We are as far away from agreement as can possibly be. The ideas you've espoused on this thread are absolute nonsense and an affront to hard working people.

Spanish Eyes

brightspark wrote: »

The "Fair Deal Scheme" is very unfair to our elderly.

1, If they get cancer/heart disease etc., all their medical needs are largely taken care by the state. Unfortunate to get dementia or become immobilised etc., then the state takes 80% of your income and 7.75% of your assets every year.

If you never worked a day in your life and live in social housing then of course it makes little difference, if you have worked hard and saved (including paying into a private pension) then the state grabs it.

As you get older you are probably better off to squander your money as quickly as possible, no point in hoping that you will be able to gift it your family or friends.

Absolutely agree. We are in this situation.

Not that we care about inheritance at all it is what happens.

Relative who left her well provided for would have been better to P it up against the wall after the pub seven nights a week, and left relative with nothing.

But that is not the way we operate.

I was just saying it out loud, because you don't get many opportunities to do this in real life. People think in different ways I know this.

But honestly, what is the incentive to save and pay your own way in your later years really when the person in the next room never worked, has nothing, and is getting the same facilities as those paying the bones of 5k euro a month. I am serious.

As a start, maybe there should be some incentive to lower the tax or the Fair Deal Contribution to idle family homes.

brightspark

listermint wrote: »

So what your saying is its unfair to the family then ...

No I'm not, it's unfair to the person who worked hard and saved their money.

If they want to give it all to an animal shelter then that's their choice...but it should be their choice.

They have already paid taxes all their lives to fund whatever the state deemed necessary at the time.

Amirani

LirW wrote: »

Would you turn down inheritance from your parents?

Nobody would. But that doesn't mean the State should do nothing to intervene in the accumulation and hoarding of wealth in the more well off elements of society. The ability to easily transfer wealth capital untaxed has been the biggest driver of inequality in Western societies. Thomas Piketty explains it well, assuming you haven't read much of his stuff?

Spanish Eyes

Amirani wrote: »

Nobody would. But that doesn't mean the State should do nothing to intervene in the accumulation and hoarding of wealth in the more well off elements of society. The ability to easily transfer wealth capital untaxed has been the biggest driver of inequality in Western societies. Thomas Piketty explains it well, assuming you haven't read much of his stuff?

What! No CGT, no Gift Tax (here I mean).

Must get on to my accountant so if I had anything to give, but you'd never know, the lotto numbers may come up sometime. :P

Maybe Piketty has more avoidance clues, must look that up.

Cyrus

Amirani wrote: »

Nobody would. But that doesn't mean the State should do nothing to intervene in the accumulation and hoarding of wealth in the more well off elements of society. The ability to easily transfer wealth capital untaxed has been the biggest driver of inequality in Western societies. Thomas Piketty explains it well, assuming you haven't read much of his stuff?

state intervention in accumulation of wealth

sorry comrade i dont agree :P

brightspark

Amirani wrote: »

Nobody would. But that doesn't mean the State should do nothing to intervene in the accumulation and hoarding of wealth in the more well off elements of society. The ability to easily transfer wealth capital untaxed has been the biggest driver of inequality in Western societies. Thomas Piketty explains it well, assuming you haven't read much of his stuff?

And we have inheritance taxes (CAT) with fairly modest exemption when you consider the value of property in our cities so the State is doing something.

Group A: €310,000 (increased to €320,000 this year) Applies where the beneficiary is a child (including adopted child, step-child and certain foster children) or minor child of a deceased child of the disponer. Parents also fall within this threshold where they take an inheritance of an absolute interest from a child.

Group B: €32,500 Applies where the beneficiary is a brother, sister, niece, nephew or lineal ancestor or lineal descendant of the disponer.

Group C: €16,250 Applies in all other cases.

Spanish Eyes

Cyrus wrote: »

state intervention in accumulation of wealth

sorry comrade i dont agree :P

Me neither. Paul Murphy is the person to contact. His number is 087 xxxxx

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

Nobody would. But that doesn't mean the State should do nothing to intervene in the accumulation and hoarding of wealth in the more well off elements of society. The ability to easily transfer wealth capital untaxed has been the biggest driver of inequality in Western societies. Thomas Piketty explains it well, assuming you haven't read much of his stuff?

Paying off your mortgage does not equate, in most peoples' minds, with 'hoarding' of anything.

Imagine, for a second, someone who was:
born into poverty in the late '50s,
who left school and got a job down the docks at aged 13,
qualified for a mortgage aged 22,
bought a house in Dublin 1 @ a mortgage interest rate of 14%,
lived in one of the most under-privileged areas of the country for almost half a century (through the largest drugs epidemic this country has ever seen),
paid for their kids to go school and/or college,
paid off their mortgage and is now retired.

These people are "hoarding wealth" now, are they, because houses close to the city centre are fashionable in this day and age?

witchgirl26

RayCun wrote: »

Owning stocks and shares that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning a small business that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

Owning an expensive car that you've worked all your life to own shouldn't be classed as wealth?

A house is an asset, of course it's wealth.

You purchase stocks and shares to make a profit - thus it's a wealth providing asset (or liability!) and you pay Capital Gains tax on the profit of stocks and shares.

A small business is set up to make a profit and give wealth - thus it's a wealth providing asset. And you pay the appropriate taxes including VAT and then Capital Gains if you sell the business as a going concern.

An expensive car is a choice to purchase as you can also purchase a cheaper car. However cars lose value the minute they are drive off the forecourt so it's not really wealth at all. You've already made a loss by just getting it home.

A house is purchased to provide shelter and accomodation. It is not a designed as a wealth generating asset if it is the primary residence of the family. Hence we don't pay Capital Gains on it. However if you own a second property, then yes that is a wealth generating asset and that's why you do pay Capital Gains on it. It's not really that complicated.

I don't think that trying to force people to move out of their homes or let people inherit early or anything like that is really fair. If they want to stay in the comfort of the home that they worked hard for and enjoy it in their latter years, let them. None of our family particularly want my mam's house as we've made our lives elsewhere and she loves where she lives. She has friends nearby, which is important to her and knows her neighbours. There are social isolation problems with moving elderly people. Also people who have Alzheimers often cope better at the beginning with familiar surroundings and items.