Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Wealth distribution through property taxation

1…910121415

Comments

  • #332
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    hmmm wrote: »
    I'm far from a socialist, but in my view Income tax should be reduced, and CAT increased to pay for it.

    The kid from a poor family who gets up early in the morning to flip burgers on minimum wage should not be taxed more than someone receiving an inheritance. It is completely unfair that we penalise working, yet allow large wealth transfers to go untaxed.

    It is because you looking at it from a very wrong angle. Tax was paid when the money was earned by the parent, that money is now in the family and once it’s in the family it’s the families money imo not just the person who earned it the same as a husband’s money can be give to his wife without any tax. The same should be the case for money going from parents to their kids at the very least though I’d be in favour of extending this to at least aunts/uncles to nieces/nephews, grandparents to grand kids and grant aunts/uncles to grand nieces/ nephews. I don’t really agree with taxing gifts between any people but I could meet in the middle ground and agree on some level of taxation when you move to more distant relations/non related people than the people listed above but for the above the tax should be zero regardless of how much is moved around between the relations be it 100k or 100 billion.

    Plenty of counties don’t apply tax to inheritances/gifts so it’s not like it’s some crazy unheard of concept.


  • #333
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    John Proud Outfielder wrote: »
    It is because you looking at it from a very wrong angle. Tax was paid when the money was earned by the parent, that money is now in the family and once it’s in the family it’s the families money imo not just the person who earned it the same as a husband’s money can be give to his wife without any tax.
    Tax is paid everywhere along the cycle e.g Income tax, VAT, Capital Gains, Stamp Duty. There's no point at which money becomes free of tax.

    We need tax to pay for services. The question is where is it fairest to collect that tax. It's easy to see why people who are expecting windfalls from their relatives should be in favour of low rates of inheritance tax, it's not so easy to see why as a society we would think it is a good idea to allow this while we impose high rates of taxes on people who work. It's particularly galling when you have people who complain about "unfairness" in society, or who claim themselves to be socialists, are also in favour of reducing or minimising inheritance tax.

    Do we want a society where your parents wealth is more important than your own efforts?


  • #334
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    hmmm wrote: »
    ....
    Do we want a society where your parents wealth is more important than your own efforts?

    I think you are playing to the crowd who imagine life changing inheritance of billionaires.

    For most it will have almost no impact on their lifestyle. It will be too little and too late.


  • #335
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    beauf wrote: »
    I think you are playing to the crowd who imagine life changing inheritance of billionaires.

    For most it will have almost no impact on their lifestyle. It will be too little and too late.

    Came here to say this. The majority of people have one thing to leave behind: their primary residence and maybe some savings. If a deceased leaves behind their 400k Dublin gaff to their 5 kids they hardly end up rich, especially if the deceased received care via the Fair deal scheme, the funeral, solicitor and selling costs have to be paid from that.
    It's a nice sum to receive, absolutely, but nothing life-changing, most likely to be distributed between children, house renovation and pension savings.

    I think the threshold system is the way to go. I'd be interested how much the average Joe really inherits when the time comes.


  • #336
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    John Proud Outfielder wrote: »
    It is because you looking at it from a very wrong angle. Tax was paid when the money was earned by the parent, that money is now in the family and once it’s in the family it’s the families money imo not just the person who earned it the same as a husband’s money can be give to his wife without any tax. The same should be the case for money going from parents to their kids at the very least though I’d be in favour of extending this to at least aunts/uncles to nieces/nephews, grandparents to grand kids and grant aunts/uncles to grand nieces/ nephews. I don’t really agree with taxing gifts between any people but I could meet in the middle ground and agree on some level of taxation when you move to more distant relations/non related people than the people listed above but for the above the tax should be zero regardless of how much is moved around between the relations be it 100k or 100 billion.

    Plenty of counties don’t apply tax to inheritances/gifts so it’s not like it’s some crazy unheard of concept.

    They tax elsewhere so. The shortfall has to be found somewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    ml100
    Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭ml100


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    They tax elsewhere so. The shortfall has to be found somewhere.
    Maybe some of these countries don't waste their taxes like we do, children's hospital mess and now the broadband rollout, these are things that are needed in the country but the government will pay twice what they should have for them.


  • #338
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    They tax elsewhere so. The shortfall has to be found somewhere.

    We are massively over taxed in Ireland in general so the above just doesn’t cut it (the taxes are mostly wasted too which makes it even worse). Also inheritance tax would be a very small source of tax. People who leave inheritances or can gift are the people who are propping up the economy as it is paying vast amount of tax while large numbers of people pay little in the country. Increasing taxes for lower earners thus bring in a small bit more from a large number of people and reducing taxes on mid to higher earners would be a far fairer tax setup along with abolishing inheritance and gift tax completely for family members.


  • #339
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,353 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    John Proud Outfielder wrote: »
    We are massively over taxed in Ireland in general so the above just doesn’t cut it (the taxes are mostly wasted too which makes it even worse). Also inheritance tax would be a very small source of tax. People who leave inheritances or can gift are the people who are propping up the economy as it is paying vast amount of tax while large numbers of people pay little in the country. Increasing taxes for lower earners thus bring in a small bit more from a large number of people and reducing taxes on mid to higher earners would be a far fairer tax setup along with abolishing inheritance and gift tax completely for family members.

    As with the vast majority of people, Nox, your idea of, 'fairer' seems to be whichever results in you paying less.

    We're certainly not over taxed, all things considered, here in Ireland. It just doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I'd agree with you on the efficiency of how tax is used though. I'd actually be quite content paying even more tax if I felt a sense of societal value from it.


  • #340
    oceanman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭oceanman


    John Proud Outfielder wrote: »
    We are massively over taxed in Ireland in general so the above just doesn’t cut it (the taxes are mostly wasted too which makes it even worse). Also inheritance tax would be a very small source of tax. People who leave inheritances or can gift are the people who are propping up the economy as it is paying vast amount of tax while large numbers of people pay little in the country. Increasing taxes for lower earners thus bring in a small bit more from a large number of people and reducing taxes on mid to higher earners would be a far fairer tax setup along with abolishing inheritance and gift tax completely for family members.
    not the "squeezed middle" crap again.


  • #341
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    oceanman wrote: »
    not the "squeezed middle" crap again.

    By happy coincidence these wealth distribution ideas and new taxes generally remove more people from the squeezed middle.

    The Irish economy has in recent years flipped from decreasing wealth inequality to increasing it. Probably for the first time since the foundation of the state. Less people in the middle. Also less at the top end but those at the top richer than ever.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    They tax elsewhere so. The shortfall has to be found somewhere.
    Sure for example less spending. :D


  • #343
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    GGTrek wrote: »
    Sure for example less spending. :D

    Anyone for a second hand printing press?


  • #344
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    pwurple wrote: »
    Anyone for a second hand printing press?

    What size? Dont worry I will get it in somehow


  • #345
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    oceanman wrote: »
    not the "squeezed middle" crap again.

    wouldn't exactly call it crap, we live in a country where a family with two incomes are taxed at 52% can just about afford a 3 bed semi an hour away from the city , just about run it and the car and raise a child , have to contribute to their own private pension just to have a retirement and then their family home will likely be given to the hse for nursing home expenses or if their kid inherits it the government takes another chunk.

    The middle are being squeezed, pay all the tax, get the least for it and constantly get kicked by the revenue boot again and again.


  • #346
    oceanman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭oceanman


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    wouldn't exactly call it crap, we live in a country where a family with two incomes are taxed at 52% can just about afford a 3 bed semi an hour away from the city , just about run it and the car and raise a child , have to contribute to their own private pension just to have a retirement and then their family home will likely be given to the hse for nursing home expenses or if their kid inherits it the government takes another chunk.

    The middle are being squeezed, pay all the tax, get the least for it and constantly get kicked by the revenue boot again and again.
    move up or down your scale? surely that would solve the problem, very people do that though. I wonder why?


  • #347
    fungie
    Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭fungie


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    wouldn't exactly call it crap, we live in a country where a family with two incomes are taxed at 52% can just about afford a 3 bed semi an hour away from the city.

    Who pays 52% tax though? I earn well above the average and pay approx 31% tax.


  • #348
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,461 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    wouldn't exactly call it crap, we live in a country where a family with two incomes are taxed at 52% can just about afford a 3 bed semi an hour away from the city , just about run it and the car and raise a child , have to contribute to their own private pension just to have a retirement and then their family home will likely be given to the hse for nursing home expenses or if their kid inherits it the government takes another chunk.

    The middle are being squeezed, pay all the tax, get the least for it and constantly get kicked by the revenue boot again and again.

    Not by a long shot. It's the top earners paying the vast majority of tax.


  • #349
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    fungie wrote: »
    Who pays 52% tax though? I earn well above the average and pay approx 31% tax.


    How so? What loophole are you using?


  • #350
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,381 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    How so? What loophole are you using?

    PAYE would average out around that percentage when you take tax free allowance and the lower rate applicable to 33 odd K into account.


  • #351
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,305 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    fungie wrote: »
    Who pays 52% tax though? I earn well above the average and pay approx 31% tax.


    Same here, but his point is incremental income I'm sure.




    On the topic of inheritance tax, while I am in favor of a low tax small government economy, I think inheritance tax is one of the fairest ones as it taxes unearned income.


    I do think there should be a caveat when property is left, that the inheritance tax due is calculated and left as a lien on the property which only becomes due on sale, or commercial use.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    fungie
    Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭fungie


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Same here, but his point is incremental income I'm sure.

    Fair enough, but you would only be paying 52% tax on additional income above 70k.

    I give about 11% of my income to pension which reduces tax too.


  • #353
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,122 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    fungie wrote: »
    Who pays 52% tax though? I earn well above the average and pay approx 31% tax.

    You pay 52%at the marginal rate. Any money saved is excess income over day to day spending. You can assume that any such income will be saved after marginal rate tax us paid. It symaptics say nobody pays 52% tax.

    All earnings are taxed it is just you are allowed certain tax credit that reduce tax paid.st 20%rate. All of your income is subject to tax.

    I think the big debate here is are present inheritance tax rates fair. Some think not. Some think we need to increase tax rates.on inheritance.

    IMO tax rates are fair. If I was changing anything I would make the tax free limit a single band and allow anyone to inherit that amount from any source and pay inheritance tax on all inheritance after that.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #354
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users Posts: 18,122 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    fungie wrote: »
    Fair enough, but you would only be paying 52% tax on additional income above 70k.

    I give about 11% of my income to pension which reduces tax too.

    In correct. You 52% on income over 35ishk. Married couple are allowed to split some of there tax credits and tax bands between them. They may not transfer PAYE tax credit and.only 2/3 of 20% band. However USC rates are personnel to the individual.

    Pension savings is money on which tax is deferred.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #355
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    Pension savings is money on which tax is deferred.

    Not necessarily. Much pension savings can be taken tax-free and at a lower tax rate in retirement, so it's not necessarily just deferred taxation.


  • #356
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,140 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    The only ones against inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who want what their parents / grandparents earned and aren't prepared to put the work in to earn it themselves.

    If we taxed such unearned wealth properly, we could greatly reduce income taxes.


  • #357
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,174 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The only ones against inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who want what their parents / grandparents earned and aren't prepared to put the work in to earn it themselves.

    If we taxed such unearned wealth properly, we could greatly reduce income taxes.

    From my experience quite a lot of parents/grandparents are against inheritance tax too.

    Most of them have a lot of time for their families which is why they want them to inherit as much as possible.

    Are you suggesting a reduction in the thresholds?


  • #358
    c.p.w.g.w
    Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The only ones against inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who want what their parents / grandparents earned and aren't prepared to put the work in to earn it themselves.

    If we taxed such unearned wealth properly, we could greatly reduce income taxes.

    I'm not going to have anything to inherite from either of my parents. I do think the treshold is a bit on the low side, many folks out there unable to keep their family home due to the tax...


  • #359
    Princess Calla
    Registered Users Posts: 5,766 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    Sleepy wrote: »
    The only ones against inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who want what their parents / grandparents earned and aren't prepared to put the work in to earn it themselves.

    If we taxed such unearned wealth properly, we could greatly reduce income taxes.

    I stand to get very little off my folks, what I do get will be covered by the threshold anyway.... If I'm not disinherited first :)

    However I really hate anyone ie revenue dictating how I manage my assets. If I want to gift someone something or if I want to leave something to someone in my will, I would really prefer that they get the full value of the gift.

    I've already paid tax on earning the money.


  • #360
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,381 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Princess Calla wrote: »
    I stand to get very little off my folks, what I do get will be covered by the threshold anyway.... If I'm not disinherited first :)

    However I really hate anyone ie revenue dictating how I manage my assets. If I want to gift someone something or if I want to leave something to someone in my will, I would really prefer that they get the full value of the gift.

    I've already paid tax on earning the money.

    This is a nonsense argument.
    They haven't paid tax on "earning" the money.
    In a similiar way that your employer has most likely already paid some form of tax on the money they are gifting you for your services.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    20/20
    Registered Users Posts: 701 ✭✭✭20/20


    kippy wrote: »
    This is a nonsense argument.
    They haven't paid tax on "earning" the money.
    In a similiar way that your employer has most likely already paid some form of tax on the money they are gifting you for your services.

    You are nonsense.
    What on earth are you talking about.


Advertisement