I find this quite an exaggeration that 1 in 10 inherited their home. I could be wrong.
On the other hand, I do think that the amount that you can gift a child should go back to 542k as in 2009 if house prices are so high.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nearly-1-in-10-inherited-or-got-a-gift-of-their-home-42218767.html
Yeah, the funny thing is the (admittedly rare!) example I gave is the precise opposite.
but inheritance tax on a family farm is explicitly accounted for, isn't it?
https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-reliefs/agricultural-relief/index.aspx
This is the point. If you hire someone and they work for that money then they have to pay tax, but if you just give it to someone they do not. This is an imbalance.
Most family grouping or marriages are given preferential treatment as it's seen a benefit to a stable and productive society. Same as supporting people having children etc.
The vast majority of people working on their parents farms or with their parents business get underpaid if they get paid for it at all.
i remember the first time the weirdness of the situation struck me - in my early 20s, i bumped into a guy i'd been at school with when a bunch of us all ended up down the pub through a random coincidence. he was cagey about what he was doing, but someone else told me later in the evening; he was getting IRL£800 a week pocket money from his dad - £40k a year.
i was on £16k at the time, and paying tax on it; maybe his family had realised if they employed him it'd cost him more in tax than just giving it to him as a gift, and that's what they did. but either way, he was getting two and a half times what i was, for doing nothing, and paying zero tax.
that family had plenty of financial resources available to hand, so i can pretty much guarantee that whatever that guy inherits probably won't be affected by the money he was getting back then.
you seem invested in the fact that the parents put in a lot of hard work to get the house; and fair play, they did. but if 'hard work' and 'earning' is such an important part of the equation, how come that vanishes in a puff of logic when the house is being given to someone who didn't work hard for that house, for whom it was as earned as a present would be?
again, why is society OK with me being taxed at approx 50% on a bonus i would earn for putting in a year's hard graft in my job, but if a parent gives me a third of a million quid because they like me, that's sacrosanct?
I'm aware of a very famous stable genius ex-President billionaire who people tried to denigrate by saying he got a handout of hundreds of millions from his father rather than doing all the work himself. Do they not know that it wasn't a handout? It as a gift.................Incredibly different .... apparently
Oke dokey. If you say so.
Any particular fundamental rule of physics or legal reason why it is so?
"get nothing for those taxes" - what are you talking about?
They didn't drive on roads? Their kids didn't go to school. They or their family never availed of healthcare? Never benefitted in any way from living in a safe, stable society?
For someone to inherit means mostly a parent has to die. In most cases by the time that happens the child will already be in a career and have property of their own and family of their own. The child will already has established how rich they are going to be.
Depends what you classify as rich.
The majority of people who are hit with some CAT, their parents saved money despite high rates of tax, temptations to spend on holidays, additional kids etc.
It is hardly gifting anyone state money?
But compare that to medical cards, travel cards, social housing (ironically each unit can be multiples of the CAT allowance to a child), rules about the number of kids to a room for the same social housing (many who buy privately have to exceed this limit).
We generate enough tax in this country to do without this tax, but we spend excessively on things which should be for basic necessity only.
Regardless of everything else said in the thread, inheritance tax is a rich people problem.
Cutting or reducing it is gifting rich people state money, and the shortfall will have be made up by a raised tax somewhere else.
I’m not in favour of that.
That timeline is nonsense.
Which bit are you having difficulty with?
The fact that a man got old?
The fact that he had nieces and nephews but none of his own kids?
The concept of a nursing home? The fact that a man had to go into one because he wasn't able to look after himself and none of his remaining relations were arsed enough to help him?
The concept of refurbishing a house?
There nothing in that story that makes sense.
Yes. You are just using the house as security, I don't know why you think you wouldn't be able to mortgage a property you already own outright. You're the legal owner of any house once you buy it anyway
There are also equity release mortgages too if you need them
Will a bank give a mortgage to pay CAT?
Normally a mortgage helps you buy a house.
In these case you already own the house.
Will a bank give you a mortgage on a house you already own outright?
I know of a fella who owned a bit of property. Probably the guts of 2m worth or thereabouts that I'd have been aware of. He didn't have his own family. He only had some nieces and nephews. His brothers and sisters were all gone. He lived in a house that was a bit run down.
He got sick and had to go into a home. He wasn't expected to last too long. The nieces and nephews took it upon themselves to organise for the house to be refurbished ..... It was sold about 2 months after he went in (presumably to pay for the nursing home) so they were fairly on the ball!
Maybe you could argue that they were doing him a favour by helping him maximise the value of the property...............but I always thought it was a bit sad that they weren't as concerned to organise to refurbish the place and give him a bit of comfort when he was living in it. In reality he was never going to come out of the home.
But not all the thread. My comment was in reply to the importance and value of the family unit.
Too many seem to be strangers to their family.
Correct. Given that it is the topic under discussion for most of the thread. Revenue don't take their cut in pounds of flesh.
I didn't mention money. But it's the only thing you mentioned in reply.
If you are inheriting a house worth 700k the chances are that your parents paid a fraction of that for it, and any increase in value is not very much to do with your parents and almost certainly nothing to do with you
Your argument could equally be applied to any tax. Income tax is paid on earnings, "the government" didn't earn that. VAT is paid on sales, "the government" sold nothing, etc etc.
Some see their family as more than dollar signs Flinty997.
It seems that some people don't have much if any connection to their family. So they don't see any value or the effort and time that goes into that.
It's a bit silly for a dying person not to waive an inheritance. They would have to pay tax and then whoever inherits their estate would have to pay it again.
Because, as you surely know, the testator is not charged inheritance tax. Nor is their estate. The beneficiary might be charged though
What are you on about? I give you facts. I can only explain them to you. I can't understand them for you.
I understand you might feel special and want special rules for yourself... but it might be no harm to read a few "textbooks" yourself maybe. There is no point coming on here and moaning about something that isn't actually a problem because you really want to moan about something else but are afraid to state the reality.
You're not worried about wealth you leave to your own kids being taxed because if you were, you can basically do it so they don't have to pay any. In reality, what you are worried about you having to pay a little bit of tax on what you are left from your parents. Dollar signs in the eyes. Why not just have the talk with them and see if they are really that bothered about it? If they are, they can take steps now to minimise any tax you might have to pay. Talk to them about it rather than whinging on an anonymous message board if it bothers you that much. Or if you think it bothers them so much. They should be delighted to set it up for you if that is their priority
We had this on the other thread. Some poster going around and around in circles who wouldn't just come out and say their intentions for the house they are hoping will be left between them and a sibling. They were going to have to pay 75k tax on a half share in a 1.2m house. Going on about "family home" etc and a poor destitute child not being able to afford the 75k ....... trying to imply that they would want to keep the house .... but not able to account for buying out the other sibling's 600k half. Bu they were afraid to just say "yeah, we're gonna sell it and split the proceeds as soon as we can, but I want to keep all my half with no tax". That's not an unreasonable or unexpected position. But it doesn't garner much sympathy.
Again Donald your responses are text book responses, not based on any life experience. Do you just read manuals on your free time. Seems that way.
Oh thank you for sharing your experience. Don't forget the education not only free in Denmark but also you get paid attending college. Yet a country that doesn't rob the dying people with inheritance tax.
Thank you!! 🙏 You have described very well what I mean. Yes, it is not a handout, it is a wish from the parents to the kids. The parents worked their backside off, pay high taxes, get nothing for these taxes, then their wish dying is their kids get the benefit of the house. What is so hard to understand! Why would someone not wish that for their kids. It is not a handout, it is the parents wish. Jesus!
Good for them if they get a leg up.
