Sisters wanting sites

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

No sites to be given here and my sisters are fine with that. They got there education and parents helped them out every way posssible and I'm presuming they'll get a nice contribution towards they're wedding etc.
I've been out doing what ever I could do since I was young and I came home at 20 to farm full time to pay the bills and put food on the table with the promise of no wage. Everything we have now is because of my parents and me, and at the end of the day we are only pulling wage from what we have. If I have to go borrowing money to pay them off when the inevitable happens I may as well sell the whole lot. Worked hard enough to get what we have, why should I work even harder just so someone that had no interest can get a nice payout because I inherit an asset rich business that me and my parents built up

But in saying that it's all case specific. If my siblings were interested as much as me and put in as much as I have they would definitely be entitled to as much as me

Only thing I'd say is if the opportunity ever comes up that any of them consider coming back it's definitely in your interest to offer a site, your parents won't always be as independent as they are now, and it can be a massive and stressful undertaking if you get left caring for them and your siblings are all hours away.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Curious thing about this thread is that it's just history repeating itself in many cases. Much the same happened to the numerous large estates across the country as the 1700s went into the 1800s and the last century even. Whether imposed by land grants or run by older Gaelic families, they seem to have been reasonably stable in the 1700s, but with each passing generation multiplying and seeking to 'bleed' the estate for income and their own large houses, they run increasingly into financial difficulties in the 1800s. Combine the effects of the famine, land reform and increased taxation and many become nonviable and bankrupt. If they'd be able to run a tighter shop in relation to inheritances etc., they might well have been a lot more durable.

I think you are missing a few not-so-subtle subtleties in your analysis there horse

Donald Trump wrote: »

Me bollix in fairness.


A bit of land left between them and it's unfair because they decided to buy out some of the siblings. It's not as if they were giving them money for nothing.


Fair enough you put in your work, but you still have your place. The ones that sold their share probably couldn't buy a fraction of it back off you if they gave you back what you had given them

Book value of farm in 1995 wasn’t much more then 200k, only their was milk quota and a good herd of cows to sell to help gather up money needed it was game-over, was 9 at the time when sheriffs arrived at the door threatening to start lifting stuff over inheritance tax....
The inflation point re land value is bulls**t if the money they got was invested wisely in property/shares at the time, they would be sitting on a pretty penny now,add on the fact the fact that 350odd k has been spent on reclaiming land/building sheds over the past 10 years it’s a mute point

jaymla627 wrote: »

Book value of farm in 1995 wasn’t much more then 200k, only their was milk quota and a good herd of cows to sell to help gather up money needed it was game-over, was 9 at the time when sheriffs arrived at the door threatening to start lifting stuff over inheritance tax....
The inflation point re land value is bulls**t if the money they got was invested wisely in property/shares at the time, they would be sitting on a pretty penny now,add on the fact the fact that 350odd k has been spent on reclaiming land/building sheds over the past 10 years it’s a mute point

Yiz were left land. A sibling was also left land. The sibling decided to sell you their land. You (your family) could have chosen not to buy it and could have also invested that money in these mythical shares. And you could have chosen to sell your own part too. Particularly if you were being sustained by off farm income.


You have to judge it by the status of what it was at the time. At the time, there was equal free option to sell as there was to buy. And it was the grandparents to leave to whomever they wanted to. They could have just as easily chosen not to leave you any. Could have left it to the other sibling or could have left it to charity. Their choice. Anyone should be grateful to get anything


If you make bad choices, you have to live by them. No point blaming others. There'd be some claim of injustice if a person was living at home and working a place for years for a pittance and depending on it as their only source of income. But that wasn't the case here was it? Sibling sold their land, you bought it. And still have it. Seems fair to me!

Sure isn't it the children of farmers that get all the grants towards their 3rd level education??? What are the parents supposedly forking out for?

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I got no grant going to college. I worked during the summer at home and anywhere else I could turn a few bob for the fees and worked weekends in Dublin and at home to pay as much accomodation and book fees I could and also whatever pocket money I had for drinking and enjoying myself was paid for by bar work during the college terms.


And a lot of my cohort was doing the same so go away out of that with that rubbish:rolleyes:

So your farming folks didn't pay to educate you?

Embossy wrote: »

Enough of our countryside is destroyed already! We need no more one off housing for both environmental and social reasons.

What about 3 off housing?

Irish people are beyond weird about land and 'ownership.' And yet not a single one of them manages to take more than 2㎡ with them.

Addle wrote: »

Sure isn't it the children of farmers that get all the grants towards their 3rd level education??? What are the parents supposedly forking out for?

No grants got here and I spent 4 years in ucd a few years ago myself so your point is just ridiculous.

Just reading the op without all the other posts. My 2c is it's normal to give kids sites, especially if they're entitled to build under local needs rules.

littelady wrote: »

They are looking for an acre each. Farm has about 200 acres

As someone else said, 1/3 acre each would be perfectly adequate. I have about 0.7 acres and I wish I had about half that, to be honest.

cnocbui wrote: »

As someone else said, 1/3 acre each would be perfectly adequate. I have about 0.7 acres and I wish I had about half that, to be honest.

You can sign the other half over to me if ya want. I'll take it off your hands and won't charge you for it

Addle wrote: »

So your farming folks didn't pay to educate you?

I have friends who grew up on farms and worked 3 jobs in the States on a J1 during the early 90s and did waitressing during term time to pay for their degree.

Now students have to work to pay registration fees. Some commute to college and help out on the farm whenever they can.

Some farming families will throw children the line "we fed you, clothed you, gave you a roof over your head and educated you" while non-farming families will make no big deal about that because they see that as something you do when you have children. However children who grew up on farms often have to contribute as soon as they can - milking, picking potatoes and helping out whatever way they can during holidays and in the evenings. Some do milking in the mornings before going to school.

Not all farming families can or will pay to educate their children. Some of the hardest working and most determined students come from farms - they often work that hard because want to get away from the greed, negativity and toxicity that can be found in some farming families.

BarryD2 wrote: »

No, just a different scale but the same basic issues. Affects many small businesses too, the handover to the 3rd generation etc.

Most of the decent farms and estates were owned by Protestant Ascendancy. The Catholic Irish had the marginal land and smaller plots.



The splitting of smaller Catholic farms and lands during that time period was down to rules that Catholics had to necessarily divide their farms up like that.


Unless of course one son converted to Protestantism. In which case he could get it all.