AndrewJRenko wrote: » The same principle has always applied to Revenue cases. Revenue can come up to on the street and take the Rolex off your arm, putting the obligation on you to prove your innocence - that you bought it from taxed income.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » The concept of CAB has never been properly challenged in the courts. The idea someone is guilty until they can prove they are innocent completely goes against the law.
Rows Grower wrote: » You have to take risks if you want to be successful. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Let's say a great aunt died and left you a million euro, could you retire and having put the money to work, live off it? If so, what would you do with the money - where would you invest it? Idea stems from stories you read about people who either build up enough of a nest egg to retire early, replace great aunt with won it on the 3.10 @ Cheltenham if you prefer.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » The security in not having to worry about how I pay the bills.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Only in the same way that someone who breaks the speed limit is a "criminal".
Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » MPT did nothing to protect investors in 2008—where people holding diversified portfolios got hit just as badly in many cases as people following an "all eggs in one basket" strategy—and it's unlikely to do much in any future market crash either. But investment advisors won't tell you this. All they know is MPT, and so they'll keep on blindly practicing it and giving investors a false sense of security.
Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » To quote Buffett again, "Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing." If one actually knows and understands the market for Dublin executive property, investing in it could make more sense than investing in multiple things one doesn't understand just for the sake of being diversified. Plus, we now see a higher degree of correlation across investment classes. If property crashes, stocks and other investments are likely to tank as well. Like it or not, most people who have got really wealthy have done so by putting all of their eggs in one basket.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Hang on a sec. The 'cute hoor' investors here, who put large parts of their portfolio into Irish financial shares, or better still, put in all into Anglo had their capital almost completely wiped out - like high ninety percent wiped out. I recall hearing Gay Byrne whinging about what' advisor ' got him to put big money into Anglo, as he rebuilt his portfolio after being ripped off by a previously fraudulent advisor (and uncle of current Minister Murphy, funnily enough).
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Lots of people don't know what they don't know, and overestimate their knowledge of a sector.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So you're spending it on paying the bills, despite having no other income? That's going to show up on someone's exception list in Revenue someday.
Not really - if you pay your speeding fine and take the penalty points, then you don't actually get a conviction in Court. If you deal in cash to avoid tax, there is a good chance of an actual criminal conviction, and having any assets seized and a Revenue judgment with interest and penalties.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Mad_maxx wrote: » Is that a serious question? Yes
Mad_maxx wrote: » Is that a serious question?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » To quote Buffett again, "Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing." If one actually knows and understands the market for Dublin executive property, investing in it could make more sense than investing in multiple things one doesn't understand just for the sake of being diversified. Plus, we now see a higher degree of correlation across investment classes. If property crashes, stocks and other investments are likely to tank as well. Like it or not, most people who have got really wealthy have done so by putting all of their eggs in one basket. Part of the problem here is that many people think they understand the Dublin executive property market because they once rented a bachelor pad in their 20s,but they really don't. Have a look at the posts that come into the accommodation forum from landlords, often experienced and well established landlords, who clearly have little clue about their legal and financial obligations. Have a look at the posts from people who bought property in badly built blocks now facing substantial costs to rectify and dealing with nonpaying neighbours. Lots of people don't know what they don't know, and overestimate their knowledge of a sector.
Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » Hang on a sec. The 'cute hoor' investors here, who put large parts of their portfolio into Irish financial shares, or better still, put in all into Anglo had their capital almost completely wiped out - like high ninety percent wiped out. I recall hearing Gay Byrne whinging about what' advisor ' got him to put big money into Anglo, as he rebuilt his portfolio after being ripped off by a previously fraudulent advisor (and uncle of current Minister Murphy, funnily enough). True. However, I'm advocating an "all eggs in one basket" strategy only if you have a high degree of understanding of that basket. It's safe to say that Gay Byrne was not informed enough to know what he was doing when he invested in Anglo. Likewise, the "cute hoor" investor is generally following what he hears from others. If you don't have a high degree of understanding of a sector or company, then sure, stick your money in an index tracker or something. It's better than nothing. That said, funds and index trackers are likely to go nowhere for some time, given that the stock market, at least in the US, is enormously overheated right now. Shiller P/E ratios are at levels previously seen only in 1929 and during the dot-com bubble.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » So you're spending it on paying the bills, despite having no other income? That's going to show up on someone's exception list in Revenue someday. Its not because I live a very modest lifestyle and have a legit income. Also if I was to go on the piss every night and eat in some top restaurants while paying in cash the revenue would have noway of detecting that. Not really - if you pay your speeding fine and take the penalty points, then you don't actually get a conviction in Court. If you deal in cash to avoid tax, there is a good chance of an actual criminal conviction, and having any assets seized and a Revenue judgment with interest and penalties. I don't have any assets so they wouldn't be coming after me.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Your sort of detailing what is an interesting thread
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Mad_maxx wrote: » Your sort of detailing what is an interesting thread I'm just pointing out how people can limit their tax.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Your envisaging a situation where people work in cash in relation to a one million euro sum. Was funny for about three posts
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Mad_maxx wrote: » Your envisaging a situation where people work in cash in relation to a one million euro sum. Was funny for about three posts No someone can withdraw a lot of cash over time and save it in their house. A lot of old people keep large amounts of cash in their homes.
Mad_maxx wrote: » What has that got to do with growing wealth?
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Mad_maxx wrote: » What has that got to do with growing wealth? I'm talking about how someone can limit their tax liabilities if they want to pass on their wealth.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Your borderline trolling
Rows Grower wrote: » He doesn't have the same standards as you and is far from a close friend of mine, he openly tells everyone when he has a good few drinks in him on his payday how stupid they are to be working all their life. He gloats on it, I've seen him order a drink for people with the line "Give him a drink on me there, shur that poor man has to work".
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Its not because I live a very modest lifestyle and have a legit income. Also if I was to go on the piss every night and eat in some top restaurants while paying in cash the revenue would have noway of detecting that. I don't have any assets so they wouldn't be coming after me.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Ireland is notoriously unattractive when it comes to investing in the markets ( for the average person)
Mad_maxx wrote: » Investing in high end city centre apartments usually won't involve dealing with HAP tenants
Mad_maxx wrote: » Add to that, all " in one basket" is far riskier in equities than property, any public listed company could become worthless or liks U. S steel shrink in value despite being a behemoth at one time, a house in a prime location despite technically fitting the description of " illiquid and undiversified", is still not in the same ballpark of risk. Too much orthodox traditional textbook, almost clichéd jargon trotted out when it comes to these things.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I'm just pointing out how people can limit their tax.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » No someone can withdraw a lot of cash over time and save it in their house. A lot of old people keep large amounts of cash in their homes.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I'm talking about how someone can limit their tax liabilities if they want to pass on their wealth.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Either you spend it or you don't. If you spend it, whether on bills or anything else, your spending will be out of line with your declared income. Revenue are building better and better systems every day, with more and more access to data and information. If you live of undeclared cash, you will show as an exception on a Revenue report some day. They've got all the time in the world to catch up with you.
And if you've got a pile of undeclared cash in the mattress, you've got assets.
You're just proposing criminal activity and tax fraud.
Have you considered the risks involved? It's kinda difficult to do anything about the theft of undeclared money.
That doesn't 'limit their tax liability'. It evades their tax liability, which is illegal.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Its the same as what Denis O'Brien does but when the little man does it they try and say its illegal.
Kyrie Tinkling Reimbursement wrote: » Nothing you've suggested is even remotely like anything the likes of D. O'Brien does to limit tax liability. But then again you know that perfectly well and are just having your fun.
