Wealth distribution through property taxation

c.p.w.g.w

The Student wrote: »

Targeted wealth distribution might work but that will never happen. We have a cohort of people who feel entitled to everything and that won't change. We have some families who look upon social welfare as a lifestyle while working in the black economy.

The inheritance tax threshold should be increases to ensure the majority of families should never have to pay anything. I find it unacceptable that an only child (even an adult child) should have to pay tax on the inheritance of their family home.

My grand uncle put cash away for years and years. Before he passed, his child was given €90,000 in cash and the house, if he left the cash in a bank his son would have be raped with inheritance tax on it. I do remember his son having trouble with such a large chunk of cash

relax carry on

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

My grand uncle put cash away for years and years. Before he passed, his child was given €90,000 in cash and the house, if he left the cash in a bank his son would have be raped with inheritance tax on it. I do remember his son having trouble with such a large chunk of cash

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

Spleerbun

relax carry on wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

The house might have been worth more than the threshold

c.p.w.g.w

relax carry on wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

anewme

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

This is the point though. These are not wealthy people.

An ordinary working person with an average value house and even a half decent job could end up with a pot of 700-800k, especially if they get a tax free lump sum out of their pension.

Boredstiff666

anewme wrote: »

if they get a tax free lump sum out of their pension.

You see that is all a big con and always will be.

What will happen is that the state pension will be deducted or taken from those people who get private pensions as it will all be classed as unearned income.

Then all pensions will become taxable.

Was always the plan and private pensions was just set up to suit the banking sector in late 80's.

Assetbacked

Diarmuid wrote: »

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.

That is what redistribution of wealth is. Referring to dole scroungers as a way to justify reducing or abolishing inheritance tax is cognitive dissonance at its finest from the triggered in this thread.

relax carry on

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

Ok so assume the threshold was 310000. That's 450000 minus 310000 which is 140000 @ 33%. Add on the 90000 cash you mentioned earlier that's 210000 at 33%. Add in another 100000 for other assets, that's 310000 at 33%. So all in all the son inherits assets and cash totalling 620000 and pays 102300 leaving net value of assets valued 517700. I don't know about you but I'd be delighted with that. Think the rest of us will just continue to play the lotto and live in hope.

c.p.w.g.w

relax carry on wrote: »

Ok so assume the threshold was 310000. That's 450000 minus 310000 which is 140000 @ 33%. Add on the 90000 cash you mentioned earlier that's 210000 at 33%. Add in another 100000 for other assets, that's 310000 at 33%. So all in all the son inherits assets and cash totalling 620000 and pays 102300 leaving net value of assets valued 517700. I don't know about you but I'd be delighted with that. Think the rest of us will just continue to play the lotto and live in hope.

He worked very hard all his life, never on the dole. He worked a lot of really terrible jobs and only had 5 years of retirement before cancer took him...his jobs in all likelihood lead to his cancer.

The fact he had inheritance tax on his property was a sore point for him. He grow up poor and earned every penny he had, and he wanted to maximize how much he passed onto his son. He also paid tax on his income already, inheritance tax is almost a double taxation in his mind. It's not like he was a millionaire

Cyrus

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

boring accountant

Cyrus wrote: »

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

That’s not true. Anyone leaving an estate above the threshold can afford estate planning advice.

kippy

Cyrus wrote: »

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

So what would be the point you would determine someone to be a well off regular folk who wouldn't be able afford or make such things cost effective?

Cyrus

boring accountant wrote: »

That’s not true. Anyone leaving an estate above the threshold can afford estate planning advice.

Really so anyone with a house worth more than 330k can afford 10s of thousands of professional advice ?

Cyrus

kippy wrote: »

So what would be the point you would determine someone to be a well off regular folk who wouldn't be able afford or make such things cost effective?

See my last post

Sheeps

the_syco wrote: »

I've not much against the current system, but why would I have to give what I sacrificed to save, to those that don't save?

You don't. You and everyone else pay into a giant pot which gets spent by the central and local government on things that result in prosperity for everyone. You're indirectly enabled to prosper through the spending/investing of tax funds in things like infrastructure, people etc.

kippy

Cyrus wrote: »

See my last post

You do realise that the taxman doesn't tax everything about the 330 odd K at a hundred percent?

boring accountant

Cyrus wrote: »

Really so anyone with a house worth more than 330k can afford 10s of thousands of professional advice ?

It’s not 10s of thousands to get estate planning advice. Not even close.

Boredstiff666

No houses around my woods sell anywhere near 330k. Less than half that and you want that for your tax pot?

Ronin247

Sheeps wrote: »

You don't. You and everyone else pay into a giant pot which gets spent by the central and local government on things that result in prosperity for everyone. You're indirectly enabled to prosper through the spending/investing of tax funds in things like infrastructure, people etc.

The thing is "everyone else " isn't paying into the giant pot.... some of us put lots into it and some of us put nothing. So now when I have spent a lifetime putting money into the pot people want me to hand over anything else I have left, to give more to those who never put anything in the pot??
To help the people who were born into poverty they need to make a bit of effort themselves, but that doesn't happen because they get everything handed over for nothing so why would they bother?? Oh I know what we should do hand them more!!!!

Umaro

Umaro wrote: »

But here's the rub. You didn't create all that wealth by yourself. You generated it from other people. You owned a successful factory? Good for you. Did you birth the workforce yourself? Educated them too? Did you singlehandedly build the roads that delivered goods to and from the factory? No, no and no. But you and your family have benefited massively from taxes that did, and that's why the government wants a bigger cut from you every step of the way. If you don't like it, tough - this is the price of your wealthy successful life.

There is tax at every step towards building up savings and assets, taxed when it’s earned, taxed when it’s spent, taxed when invested, taxed on interest etc etc. On top of all that those use who contribute the most benefit the least.

Your narrative is trying to sell something that I don’t buy, you can’t go around claiming that someone should pay a load of inheritance tax because their parents were privileged enough to employ people., it’s stretching beyond the beyonds altogether. It’s the other way around that you should be sending your compliments, complimenting the employer for creating jobs which in turn means more taxes paid etc etc. The money they earn should be the families to do as they please without having to fork out more tax. As far as I’d be concern money earned by a parent is money earned by the child the same as it is for married couples.

People rattle on that money being transferred between parents and children is this and that, to me it’s not even really transferring, it’s the families money and certainly between parents and children it should be totally outside the tax net the same as between married couples, blood relatives are closer than married couples after all. Now id push out to the wider family and say no tax should be liable but for the purposes of the discussion let’s just keep it to parents to children.

Also you can only laugh at people saying, “I only wish I had to pay 100k in inheritance tax as I’ll never be in that situation”. What a load of nonsense! Typical of someone who will never be in a situation to have this opinion. Trust me if you were forking out 100k in inheritance tax you would be sick to the core.

John_Rambo

Jaysus lads, it's xmas night.

Be thankful for you family and their success instead of stressing about the money the leave you when they die.

Merry xmas, be you a landlord or a tenant.

oceanman

John Proud Outfielder wrote: »

There is tax at every step towards building up savings and assets, taxed when it’s earned, taxed when it’s spent, taxed when invested, taxed on interest etc etc. On top of all that those use who contribute the most benefit the least.

Your narrative is trying to sell something that I don’t buy, you can’t go around claiming that someone should pay a load of inheritance tax because their parents were privileged enough to employ people., it’s stretching beyond the beyonds altogether. It’s the other way around that you should be sending your compliments, complimenting the employer for creating jobs which in turn means more taxes paid etc etc. The money they earn should be the families to do as they please without having to fork out more tax. As far as I’d be concern money earned by a parent is money earned by the child the same as it is for married couples.

People rattle on that money being transferred between parents and children is this and that, to me it’s not even really transferring, it’s the families money and certainly between parents and children it should be totally outside the tax net the same as between married couples, blood relatives are closer than married couples after all. Now id push out to the wider family and say no tax should be liable but for the purposes of the discussion let’s just keep it to parents to children.

Also you can only laugh at people saying, “I only wish I had to pay 100k in inheritance tax as I’ll never be in that situation”. What a load of nonsense! Typical of someone who will never be in a situation to have this opinion. Trust me if you were forking out 100k in inheritance tax you would be sick to the core.

if your only obsession was money.

Boredstiff666

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

boring accountant

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

If everyone rented homes there would still be people owning them.

Boredstiff666

boring accountant wrote: »

If everyone rented homes there would still be people owning them.

Yeah the council or the state and none of you would like paying them.

Back in the USSR.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

Revenue is envious?

Boredstiff666

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Revenue is envious?

Trying to twist words which were never implied.

Revenue isn't envious. But the way 'some' want it applied is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Trying to twist words which were never implied.

Revenue isn't envious. But the way 'some' want it applied is.

That’s supposition. It’s simply an assumption that anyone in favour of CAT has never had to pay it. Many people simply aren’t all that obsessed with money and don’t take it as a big affront to have to pay some tax on a windfall. Many of us realise that tax is a necessary evil that everyone benefits from.

Somebody indulged in whataboutery upthread, saying that the same people in favour of CAT probably opposed water charges but outside of a small, intense group, most people seemed fine with paying them.

Boredstiff666

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s supposition. It’s simply an assumption that anyone in favour of CAT has never had to pay it. Many people simply aren’t all that obsessed with money and don’t take it as a big affront to have to pay some tax on a windfall. Many of us realise that tax is a necessary evil that everyone benefits from.

Somebody indulged in whataboutery upthread, saying that the same people in favour of CAT probably opposed water charges but outside of a small, intense group, most people seemed fine with paying them.

This time you havent twisted but generalised.

Regards revenue the point about inheritance tax is that it is money which has already been fairly taxed, but the point that it is a big posh house in a nice area which may or may not have been shrewdness by the owner gets up other peoples noses so they think it should be taxed.

Regards water charges.......again it wasnt being done properly possibly for obvious reasons and I did hear it mentioned that this money was already being taxed in the tax system.

Point is that tax has to be collected but you cant discriminate by saying your rich so you should pay more than me, because if you do, mr rich will go. So you aim is instantly defeated. This was tried with high tax by the Loony Left in the UK much to Irelands benefit.

Again now you want inheritance taxes higher. So the point is dont die in Ireland, sell up and move away. Again self defeating.

Perhaps supporters of more and more tax should look what others have done and history to find out if their ideas are feasible instead of thinking....'oh arent we clever and invented a new way.'

Instead before any more taxes or stealth taxes like 'levy's are bought in. They should look at savings and the pure waste of hundreds of millions that happens in Ireland which would raise extra money.

Cyrus

kippy wrote: »

You do realise that the taxman doesn't tax everything about the 330 odd K at a hundred percent?

Yes

Any reason you felt the need to restate the obvious