Uncle Charlie wrote: » If you put cash deep under ground it would not be found they still haven't found the generals gold he buried in the Dublin mountains back in the 80s.
Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » b) Person B hides the €1 million from Revenue by burying it in the ground, where its purchasing power is slowly eroded by inflation.
CelticRambler wrote: » Digital/crypto is entirely dependent on both access to a reliable, stable, electricity supply and reliable, stable, digital infrastructure. ....
Mabel White Sander wrote: » Would it be fair to say that in this coming cashless (almost Chinese social-credit) system, that physical storage of wealth (not necessarily bullion), for use as bartering, may become more popular. The only question is the vehicle of storage, for a short while (post-brexit) it might be teabags, biscuits or scotch whisky.
Mad_maxx wrote: » Travellers receive special treatment, most people will find it hard going to avoid declaring a million euro windfall
Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » Which is the best strategy for growing wealth? a) Person A declares the €1 million, pays CAT on it, and invests the remainder in the markets so that it can grow. b) Person B hides the €1 million from Revenue by burying it in the ground, where its purchasing power is slowly eroded by inflation. Who do you think would have more money after, say, ten years?
CelticRambler wrote: » Being able to get your hands on hard cash in the event of such a breakdown would be essential. The "cost" of inflation on a buried stash could be considered a sort of insurance premium. But a couple of k, not a million!
Mabel White Sander wrote: » Depending on (precise) level of any such a SHTF sceanrio you mentioned (again all are very highly unlikely), it might stand that the actual 'usefulness' of any asset or item of wealth storage will become more important. Important for both practical use, and thus an item of further barter. So assuming a Cat5-Hurriance touches down at Cork in 2025 (close to impossible). Then a bucket, torch, wellies, poncho an pallet of soup will win (in the short/medium term) against a wad stuffed pierre cardin leather wallet, and fancy Rolex. After all, the shops would be boarded up anyway. A recent report (UKF) shows 6,240 ATMs were removed in 2018, and cash trans are down 16% in the uk for 2018., from 2017.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Santino Chubby Munchies wrote: » Which is the best strategy for growing wealth? a) Person A declares the €1 million, pays CAT on it, and invests the remainder in the markets so that it can grow. b) Person B hides the €1 million from Revenue by burying it in the ground, where its purchasing power is slowly eroded by inflation. Who do you think would have more money after, say, ten years? Over that time I would slowly spend the money on Gold and other things.
Mad_maxx wrote: » I've some beans if you're interested? Beans are other things.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » Mad_maxx wrote: » I've some beans if you're interested? Beans are other things. Gold keeps its value over time. I think we should look to the travellers as experts on how to be "tax efficient".
cnocbui wrote: » I love the gold in case civilization collapses argument. It's happened so many times in my lifetime, my fathers lifetime and his fathers lifetime, it's obviously a necessary precaution.
cnocbui wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » How will the recipient get to spend their "sizeable amount"? Sell some, from time to time.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » How will the recipient get to spend their "sizeable amount"?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And get the money transferred from the exchange into your bank account?
cnocbui wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » And get the money transferred from the exchange into your bank account? Yes. A few K a year won't be noticed. If we are talking a serious amount, you emigrate, even if temporarily, long enough to be tax resident and then you can convert the lot to cash. You could move back after your extended holiday, if you are mad. Personally I just plan to emigrate to somewhere with no inheritance tax and no CGT. I absolutely loath Inheritance tax; It's wicked.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If a few k won't be noticed now, do you think it will be noticed by the tools available to Revenue in 2 years time? Or in 5 years time? I wouldn't like to wager my financial future on a gamble like that.
cnocbui wrote: » Sounds interesting. How do these tools work?
Uncle Charlie wrote: » For every one person Revenue catch there is 100 they don't catch.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I know a load of travellers driving 181 and 191 vehicles and who have never worked and don't hide their wealth but the Revenue don't seem interested in going after them.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » If they did that I would just give them the small amounts of cash I had in the house and tell them I've no more.
Uncle Charlie wrote: » You seem to think we have a moral obligation to pay extra tax when the government are biggest criminals in state. If O'Brien and Bono can get away with not paying tax I see no reason why the little man should also try and be as "tax efficient" as possible.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Really? How exactly did you work that out? Now I'm not talking about a lad who worked a few weekend nixers. I'm talking about the kind of serious tax fraud that you're recommending - the six-figure sum tax frauds. How did you work out Revenue's success rate? They all don't have houses. Or bank accounts. Or utility bills. Is that the kind of model you're proposing for your tax fraud approach? Are you sure they haven't found it? How would you know? Either way, you're not doing a great job at 'selling' this approach, with an example of the man who apparently put his money beyond reach of himself and his family. These guys are professionals. They're a lot better at stealing money than you are at hiding money, as they do it all the time. They've taking your missus and/or your daughter away to a different location, and one of them was looking at the ladies in a particularly unsavoury way. How brave are you feeling now? Do your moral obligations extend to not using any of the schools, hospitals, roads, parks, beaches that are paid for by other tax payers?
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I'm not proposing any fraud I'm talking about not paying any more tax on money that was legally earned. People who have worked all their lives should be able to pass on money to their family without their family facing a massive tax bill. Its the double taxation I have problem with. To call it "fraud" is laughable when all I would be trying to do is keep my own money in the family which has already has tax paid on it. Just look at Bob Geldof hes another person who is "tax efficient" who will be able pass on his properties with little or no tax paid. But its not "fraud" when the likes of Geldof or Bono does it. One law for the rich another for the poor!https://www.standard.co.uk/news/how-debt-crusader-geldof-could-save-16m-in-death-tax-6597904.html
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you have a problem with double taxation every time you spend taxed income in a shop and pay VAT?
Uncle Charlie wrote: » I should have said triple taxation. Also the difference with going into a shop is that you don't have to spend the money. If a family member leaves me 500k I would have to pay massive tax on it because I'm not Bono or Geldof.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? There is no 'triple taxation'. It's no different to VAT or motor tax in principle. With no inheritance tax, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is a modest redistribution measure. For a typical family, splitting a €500k house among 2 or 3 kids, there is no tax due. If one child is inheriting the family home they have lived in, no tax is due. For higher value inheritances, modest taxes apply, maybe something like 60k in your example, with lots of options to minimise the impact through tax efficient insurance.We need more wealth taxes to avoid increasing income taxes. But I'm still unclear about what exactly you're recommending for the OPs scenario?
cnocbui wrote: » Many in this country seem to share your socialist ideals. Marx would be proud. Can't wait to emigrate. What the country needs is for either a reduction in pay levels for civil servants and a reduction in their numbers - preferably both - or an increase in the tax take from corporations. How people can hold a view that people should be wealth taxed in Ireland in order to increase the income of US individuals who already have extreme wealth, is beyond me.
cnocbui wrote: » AndrewJRenko wrote: » You're making this up as you go along, aren't you? There is no 'triple taxation'. It's no different to VAT or motor tax in principle. With no inheritance tax, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is a modest redistribution measure. For a typical family, splitting a €500k house among 2 or 3 kids, there is no tax due. If one child is inheriting the family home they have lived in, no tax is due. For higher value inheritances, modest taxes apply, maybe something like 60k in your example, with lots of options to minimise the impact through tax efficient insurance.We need more wealth taxes to avoid increasing income taxes. But I'm still unclear about what exactly you're recommending for the OPs scenario? Many in this country seem to share your socialist ideals. Marx would be proud. Can't wait to emigrate.
Bob Harris wrote: » An post will give you 1.5%AER or 16% over 10 years guaranteed and tax free. 120K is the maximum investment. Put 120k in your name and 120k in for the missus and you've earned nearly 40k for nothing. Can be withdrawn with 7 days notice.
