Wealth distribution through property taxation

anewme

kippy wrote: »

You'll be able pass on literally hundreds of thousands tax free.

I won’t though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dav010 wrote: »

The older you and your family, if you have one, get, the more you will think about it. You will see that money you worked hard for, money set aside for your kids, being taxed heavily when you pass it on. Posters say your kids won’t have earned it, but you will have, and now the State takes a huge chunk of what you have already paid tax on, just because you want to give it to your kids. The people arguing for IT are those that feel aggrieved that others have done better and have assets to pass on.

Right, the beneficiaries haven’t earned it though. It’s not double taxation because as somebody said, you can’t tax a dead person.

As for feeling aggrieved, you have no idea what the financial situation of anyone posting here is. Some people might be well off AND okay with CAT. But “OMG ur jus jellus” arguments will always be with us sadly.

elperello

anewme wrote: »

I won’t though.

Because you don't have children of your own.

A lot of people don't realise that the thresholds drop dramatically outside of immediate family.

Info here - https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-thresholds-rates-and-aggregation-rules/cat-thresholds.aspx

Dav010

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right, the beneficiaries haven’t earned it though. It’s not double taxation because as somebody said, you can’t tax a dead person.

As for feeling aggrieved, you have no idea what the financial situation of anyone posting here is. Some people might be well off AND okay with CAT. But “OMG ur jus jellus” arguments will always be with us sadly.

Who is okay with paying CAT?, I suspect the answer to that will be those who do not have the assets which will attract it. Perhaps you are happy to pay more tax, good for you.

In essence it is double taxation on the asset, the person bequeathing it has paid tax on the income, the person inheriting it will usually use the inheritance to pay tax on it, either in cash or by selling the asset to pay the CAT. So the inheritance is taxed twice before the recipient receives it.

anewme

elperello wrote: »

Interesting thread but the definition of wealth is pitched way too low.

Our tax code is double taxing those who work to get a bit ahead while failing to tackle those who work the system to maintain their position.

A couple of hundred grand and an average house is not real wealth.
While you are squabbling about the starter the really wealthy are making off with the main course and the silver cutlery to boot.

Wealth management, succession planning, family trusts, offshore investment vehicles and even tax exile all help to ensure that they get the best possible result in helping their children to inherit without encumbrance.

This really is the crux of it. This is not “wealth”.

I would think the ones here against it are PAYE workers probably working class now lower middle class who have worked hard to improve their life. Seeing their estate fleeced when their children probably still won’t be able to afford a house is not acceptable.

They are not poor enough to get handouts ( nor would they want to) but not rich enough to go offshore, tax schemes etc, or have enough that it does not matter.

These are the people who pay for everything. Always.

oceanman

John Proud Outfielder wrote: »

What’s the point in building wealth if it’s going to be decimated in tax? I really can’t get my head around anyone who even remotely agrees with taxing gifts or inheritances within the family at the very least.

Why are they so against wanting to help their kids out or do they begrudge those who can so much. Any parent who can helps out their kids, if that’s a deposit or gifting land to build on or for the even luckier gifting them houses etc making their lives much better and easier reducing/eliminating worries about money for them etc.

Yet some want it stopped, absolute madness.

The good thing is though that it’s the other way things are going thankfully with the tax free threashold being increased every year. Hopefully in future the taxation of money or assets bring gifted/inherited within the family will be totally tax free on all amounts but we can only hope.

because anything handed to you on a plate is never appreciated the same way as if you had to work for it yourself..

anewme

elperello wrote: »

Because you don't have children of your own.

A lot of people don't realise that the thresholds drop dramatically outside of immediate family.

Info here - https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-thresholds-rates-and-aggregation-rules/cat-thresholds.aspx

I’ve only realised recently myself as I’m at the age that I need to start looking. It’s shocking.

I am against the tax in general, but for those with small families,ie one child or no children, it’s an absolute disaster.

_Brian

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Except if you receive a large inheritance.

I don’t know where I stand on the whole inheritance tax thing because I haven’t given it much thought but somebody receiving a huge inheritance hasn’t necessarily worked very hard in their life.

I think the reason that there isn’t huge outrage at CAT rates and thresholds is because many people will never receive an inheritance big enough to exceed the parental threshold so it just seems a distant problem and, in a way, a nice problem to have.

Tax has already been paid on the wages used to purchase a house, plus property taxes.

Browney7

Dav010 wrote: »

Who is okay with paying CAT?, I suspect the answer to that will be those who do not have the assets which will attract it. Perhaps you are happy to pay more tax, good for you.

No one is happy with it but there has to be a maturity and acknowledgement that stuff has to be paid for. If wealth isn't taxed, something else has to be taxed in its place. Why is income taxed so much more severely at modest levels here - are you advocating for higher income tax in lieu of CAT?

elperello

oceanman wrote: »

because anything handed to you on a plate is never appreciated the same way as if you had to work for it yourself..

That's said so often that it has become a sort of a mantra in discussions like this.

For myself I've been fortunate enough to be able to spend money that came to me very easily.

I've also spent money that I worked hard for.

As far as I'm concerned, no discernible difference.

Dav010

Browney7 wrote: »

No one is happy with it but there has to be a maturity and acknowledgement that stuff has to be paid for. If wealth isn't taxed, something else has to be taxed in its place. Why is income taxed so much more severely at modest levels here - are you advocating for higher income tax in lieu of CAT?

The same maturity that was shown when we were told our water system needed to be upgraded and to do that we would have to pay for water used above the normal household threshold?

At the moment I believe the State is indulging too many, as I said earlier, we have an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but having a situation where it is more beneficial to stay on welfare rather than working is wrong in my view. I look at a working family struggling to pay a mortgage, and another family receiving rental subsidies and welfare payments while making no attempt to find a job in case they loose those benefits, and think that is wrong.

ml100

Browney7 wrote: »

No one is happy with it but there has to be a maturity and acknowledgement that stuff has to be paid for. If wealth isn't taxed, something else has to be taxed in its place. Why is income taxed so much more severely at modest levels here - are you advocating for higher income tax in lieu of CAT?

There is way too much 'stuff' to be payed for in this country, the incompetence of the government and the permanent government would not encourage me to give them anymore tax to 'redistribute', I really don't know how the country is not bankrupt, the amount of people here and coming here that are completely dependent on the state is unreal.

Wanderer78

It's interesting that there's been little or no mention of accumulated wealth of large corporations and institutions so far in the thread!

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's interesting that there's been little or no mention of accumulated wealth of large corporations and institutions so far in the thread!

Nor the employment and high paying jobs they can provide. Kick them out I say.

elperello

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's interesting that there's been little or no mention of accumulated wealth of large corporations and institutions so far in the thread!

They don't tend to directly transfer wealth along familial lines although it does happen in some cases.
Most of the big earners in large corporations and institutions are well adept at reducing their personal tax as well as business tax.

ted1

Assetbacked wrote: »

It is toxic and ensures wealth preservation in families and enables inequality through generations. Dead people can determine how the wealth of future generations is used, this has caused utter chaos.

Aren’t you a regular Robin Hood.

Some people and their families are simply better off than others. Get over it and move on.

_Brian

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's interesting that there's been little or no mention of accumulated wealth of large corporations and institutions so far in the thread!

No..
What we have here is a bunch of people promoting the idea of taxing successfull ordinary people to protect those who have made little or no effort to provide for themselves or their families..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dav010 wrote: »

Who is okay with paying CAT?, I suspect the answer to that will be those who do not have the assets which will attract it. Perhaps you are happy to pay more tax, good for you.

In essence it is double taxation on the asset, the person bequeathing it has paid tax on the income, the person inheriting it will usually use the inheritance to pay tax on it, either in cash or by selling the asset to pay the CAT. So the inheritance is taxed twice before the recipient receives it.

“I suspect” - so yes, not a notion.

It’s funny people mention begrudgery. I find the sentiment expressed here by some “I’d rather burn money than see it taxed” far more malignant.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Brian wrote: »

Tax has already been paid on the wages used to purchase a house, plus property taxes.

Of course it has. Do you think I don’t know what income tax is? The inheritance beneficiary didn’t pay that income tax.

genericgoon

By the logic of certain posters in this thread, it could be easily be argued that their beneficiaries will be just as a much a scrounger as any welfare recipient given they will have access to educational opportunities, jobs and even entire properties through no material effort of their own. However, I am sure with the tutelage given here they will learn to believe in their own success when given the chance to gift themselves even if they end up net wealth neutral over their lifetime but yet see themselves as superior to those who work hard but do not have has much wealth because accrual is harder than standing still.

Phoebas

ml100 wrote: »

Because their family paid tax on the money they worked hard to earn and now you want more of that income redistributed to others who largely do nothing to deserve it, for me the tax redistribution in this country is already way generous to the large section of society that live their whole lives taking from the state.

As mentioned elsewhere , it all goes into the same pot - Income tax, VAT, CAT, the while lot.

So what makes CAT less fair than Income Tax?

The Student

Dav010 wrote: »

The same maturity that was shown when we were told our water system needed to be upgraded and to do that we would have to pay for water used above the normal household threshold?

At the moment I believe the State is indulging too many, as I said earlier, we have an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but having a situation where it is more beneficial to stay on welfare rather than working is wrong in my view. I look at a working family struggling to pay a mortgage, and another family receiving rental subsidies and welfare payments while making no attempt to find a job in case they loose those benefits, and think that is wrong.

Completely agree with this. Those who stand on their own two feet are expected to provide for those who are able but could not be bothered. Those who are just plain lazy.

elperello

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I find the sentiment expressed here by some “I’d rather burn money than see it taxed” far more malignant.

I meant to reply to that notion of burning money.
Unless I see the smoke it never happened.

No need to burn it.

Spend it.Give it away.Give it to charity.

But please no burning.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

elperello wrote: »

I meant to reply to that notion of burning money.
Unless I see the smoke it never happened.

No need to burn it.

Spend it.Give it away.Give it to charity.

But please no burning.

Absoballylutely, the people who say they’d burn any money over the threshold rather than see it taxed are blatant bullshitters.

Ubbquittious

There is no point in squabbling over the few k the person next door might get from someone. To really tackle the problem of wealth distribution you have to shake out the likes of Amazon and Google and the People's Republic of China who have collectively been hoovering up tons of wealth for the past couple of decades.

anewme

elperello wrote: »

I meant to reply to that notion of burning money.
Unless I see the smoke it never happened.

No need to burn it.

Spend it.Give it away.Give it to charity.

But please no burning.

That's clearly what people mean by burning it.

I'm sure there are no FIrestarters on the thread.

A few round the world cruises in First Class with vintage Dom Perignon will help.

Also, the dogs home.

Apart from being lighthearted, the Govt is trying to get people to provide for themselves in old age by pension and savings. Yet if I die tomorrow, whatever I've saved gets fleeced, so I'm thinking I should spend it now. Its definitely an issue that people need to consider, particularly single people to find the right balance.

Bass Reeves

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's interesting that there's been little or no mention of accumulated wealth of large corporations and institutions so far in the thread!

Because there wealth is mobile. Tax corporate wealth and it will flee the country. We already see that here in Ireland with the Apple case where we were used to shelter corporate earnings by a large corporation even though we have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world.

However I consider out Inheritance tax laws quite fair. Lets look at the facts

A child is allowed to inherit 310K with out any tax, a niece or nephew is allowed to inherit 32500 from aunts and Uncles and you are allowed to inherit 16260 from strangers. Along with that there is an annual 3K gift any person can receive from any person with out any implication of tax.

After that all gifts and inheritance are taxed at 33%. To put it another way you are allowed to inherit about 10 times the annual industrial wage after tax from parents a year from aunts and uncles and a half year from strangers. This is outside possible annual gifts.

As well where there is an business involved you are allowed to mulitply the threshold by ten subject to conditions. Some gifts given are not considered within these thresholds. For instance money paid for education or for wedding receptions will not be considered within the inheritance.

By adequate planning fairly substancial wealth can be transferred to where one wishes it to go. Parents could transfer 3K each/year to there children over 10 years that is 60K/child not considered part of threshold. If an uncle or aunt want to transfer to a niece or nephew they can use there sibling as a tax efficient means.

Take an example where a person wanted to transfer 20K to a neice today. By gifting that neice 3K and her parents 3K each today and on the 1st january give exactly the same gifts the parents can then transfer the money to the neice to give a total gift of 18K along with a small wad of 50 euro notes(40 of them) the 20K is transferred. As well neices and nephews spouses can be gifted as well as there children.


In reality only wealth in the millions is taxed and these people usually move to more tax efficient haven. However if we put penal inheritance tax laws in place wealth will transfer over seas and it may be more benifical to people to leave the country if inheriting fairly large amounts

DubCount

myshirt wrote: »

You can see it in the kids from the greater Dublin region living at home saving for a deposit, versus the kid up from the country paying rent and trying to save.

Just as well the kid up from the country will benefit from Agricultural Relief from CAT when he/she inherits the family farm.

Diarmuid

I honestly don't understand the logic of "I worked hard for the money", "I made lots of sacrifices for my money" "others are just scrounging" hence CAT should be removed.
I totally agree that those who work hard for their income should be rewarded for their toil. Reduce income tax and give those who do work hard a break. Balance that out by taxing those who got their wealth by an accident of birth, those who ended with 300k without lifting a finger.

pwurple

Ireland is part of a global economy don’t forget. We are not prisoners here at all.

Portugal is where the grey money is headed at the moment. Sell house in Ireland, buy much cheaper house abroad. Make new will there. Nice incentives for drawing the pension down there too.

Also, Australia, New Zealand, Estonia, Norway, Canada, etc etc etc. all zero estate tax.