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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Wealth distribution through property taxation

1234568

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭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



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • 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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,797 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    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
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Princess Calla


    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.

    How is it nonsense?

    I want to buy my boyfriend a nice rolex or omega watch....it's over the 3k threshold, so technically they should be paying tax on the balance of the gift.

    Or to give a gift as I please do I have to pay for the gift and also cover the tax liability generated? Which in itself is another tax liability!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Any time there is a transfer of wealth, taxman must get his pound of flesh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭air


    It's nonsense as wages are a fully allowable expense for corporation tax purposes.
    Wages are paid from operating profit before any taxation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭holyhead


    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.

    You are spot on. Inheritance tax is an absolute swindle by the state. Redistribution of wealth my eye. It's nothing less than gouging.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Fol20


    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.

    Wow, talk about absolutely awful self awareness of what you just said. Reverse the situation:

    ""The only ones for inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who wont inherit money enough to pay tax on it and and instead of being happy for others that were gifted it want to take a cut of someone else's money and are not prepared to put in the work themselves to earn it

    Complete nymbyism by you. As long as it benefits you, you are happy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    c.p.w.g.w wrote: »
    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...


    Are there really many people in such circumstances? There would have to be;
    1 - Family home with asset value above the threshold, after any care costs/Fair Deal scheme deduction

    2 - Sole child surviving, who doesn't already have their own family home, but not already living in the family home



    I'm sure there are some of these, but there really isn't that many.



    If there was a sole child who was going to move into the family home, perhaps there is a case for some exemption if they continue to live there for say, 5-10 years, but these cases would few and far between.

    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.
    Asset taxes or wealth taxes of some form are fairly common across Europe. It's fairly reasonable to tax assets as well as income, to avoid excessively punishing those who work for a living.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,997 ✭✭✭Princess Calla





    Asset taxes or wealth taxes of some form are fairly common across Europe. It's fairly reasonable to tax assets as well as income, to avoid excessively punishing those who work for a living.

    Just because something is fairly common doesn't mean I have to like it or will stop me from voicing my displeasure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Just because something is fairly common doesn't mean I have to like it or will stop me from voicing my displeasure.
    I don't think any of us particularly like paying any tax. We still need to have a reasonable and fair system to fund the public services that we all use.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    elperello wrote: »
    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?
    Given free reign? I'd eliminate the thresholds entirely and tax inheritance / parental gifts at the marginal rate (or higher).

    No one likes paying tax but taxation is necessary to fund the state and, imho, taxation of unearned wealth (such as inheritance) is far fairer and more equitable than the taxation of income from one's work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Wow, talk about absolutely awful self awareness of what you just said. Reverse the situation:

    ""The only ones for inheritance taxes are those greedy ****s who wont inherit money enough to pay tax on it and and instead of being happy for others that were gifted it want to take a cut of someone else's money and are not prepared to put in the work themselves to earn it

    Complete nymbyism by you. As long as it benefits you, you are happy.

    Your sentence doesn't make any sense though. The person inheriting money hasn't put in any work to earn it. They've just been lucky enough to be born to parents who either (a) were prepared to put in the work or (b) inherited it themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,021 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    I don't think any of us particularly like paying any tax. We still need to have a reasonable and fair system to fund the public services that we all use.

    The thresholds for people with small families or no children are not fair, they are a joke.


  • Posts: 24,714 [Deleted User]


    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.

    We are taking about close relations here not an employer paying their employee.

    Money earned (and taxed) by a parent should be considered the family’s money and should not be liable for taxation moving it around within the family the same as you wouldn’t tax money earned by a wife and given to her husband.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,555 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    Are there really many people in such circumstances? There would have to be;
    1 - Family home with asset value above the threshold, after any care costs/Fair Deal scheme deduction

    2 - Sole child surviving, who doesn't already have their own family home, but not already living in the family home



    I'm sure there are some of these, but there really isn't that many.



    If there was a sole child who was going to move into the family home, perhaps there is a case for some exemption if they continue to live there for say, 5-10 years, but these cases would few and far between.



    Asset taxes or wealth taxes of some form are fairly common across Europe. It's fairly reasonable to tax assets as well as income, to avoid excessively punishing those who work for a living.

    I would rather burn my house down, than hand it over as a so called "wealth tax". Its my house, I earned it, I paid for it, and I paid every cent of tax due on it, and it is my prerogative to give it to my kids to give them a leg up the ladder.

    Its shocking how gullible people are to fall for the type of argument that giving or inheriting within direct family is some sort of undesirable action, and that they would rather hand over taxation of a family home to be squandered by the state while of course feeding the kids into the commercial rental market.

    Disgusting


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,269 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    We are taking about close relations here not an employer paying their employee.

    Money earned (and taxed) by a parent should be considered the family’s money and should not be liable for taxation moving it around within the family the same as you wouldn’t tax money earned by a wife and given to her husband.
    Ah, the same wonderful loophole used by so many of our great "businessmen" to avoid paying their debts when the recession hit: the house is in the wife's name.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Your sentence doesn't make any sense though. The person inheriting money hasn't put in any work to earn it. They've just been lucky enough to be born to parents who either (a) were prepared to put in the work or (b) inherited it themselves.

    How does it not make sense. You have a clear bias in that you want to pay less tax yourself as I suspect you won’t make the threshold to pay the inheritance tax so you are happy for others to pay it yet at the same time you also want to pay less tax. The highest earns already pay the highest share of taxes, yet people want them to continue to pay more.

    The only people who should decide where that money goes is the the parent and no one else. If the parents decide to burn it, give it to Sinn Fein or their children, that’s their prerogative as they worked hard for their money. The government shouldn’t have any claim on money that was already taxed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Amirani wrote: »
    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.

    It is money on which the tax is deferred on. It is put back through the taxation system again. Government use this method so taht people will not be totally dependent on the state in there old age. As well people that have pension are more likly to fund more of there Nursing home care than those that have not. it is a win win for the state. As well remember that any inheritance in cash form is the surplus left over after nursing home case.

    A lot of people are getting away from the original point of the OP. He was advocating and I quote

    In the interests of equity, fairness, and social cohesion, Ireland should learn it's lessons and hold it's hands up to say where direct government intervention benefits one set of people above another to the unprecedented extent it did (but bills all of the next generation) then that generation and any benefit they try accrue to the offspring should be heavily, heavily taxed. And I mean very heavily. Tonne of bricks heavy.


    Lets look at nursing home charges at about 50K/year. If OP's tax plans were put in place it would be a huge disincentive to many to care for there parents, husbands, wifes, aunts and uncles( maybe minded by brother and sisters so as to preserve inheritance for there children) to care for these people which often takes a load of time and has implications on life and mental health. By implementing penal rates of tax as OP suggested it could put nursing home and the health system under severe stress more so than present.

    I have no issue with the present system maybe some modificatons and make the band one common sum across all inherited money which is equivlent to about 10 yeras after tax wages.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Given free reign? I'd eliminate the thresholds entirely and tax inheritance / parental gifts at the marginal rate (or higher).

    No one likes paying tax but taxation is necessary to fund the state and, imho, taxation of unearned wealth (such as inheritance) is far fairer and more equitable than the taxation of income from one's work.

    I doubt there would be any political support for eliminating the thresholds altogether.

    If such as you propose was done it would lead to widespread evasion.

    I agree that taxation is a necessary part of the functioning of any state.

    Taxation on income is based on ability to pay. Inheritance tax is not because Revenue has no idea of the personal circumstances of the beneficiary.
    They could be millionaires or on their uppers the same amount of tax would apply.

    Do you think some sort of assessment on beneficiaries would be fair?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,306 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Given free reign? I'd eliminate the thresholds entirely and tax inheritance / parental gifts at the marginal rate (or higher).

    No one likes paying tax but taxation is necessary to fund the state and, imho, taxation of unearned wealth (such as inheritance) is far fairer and more equitable than the taxation of income from one's work.
    The money would just get moved out of the country sooner, or put into trusts.

    IMO, either you pay good accounts to hide your cash, or the taxman will take your cash. Trust funds, grandchildren pensions, etc. All legal ways of hiding the money from the taxman.

    Just more people will look to hide it earlier if their money will go to the state after they die.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    elperello wrote: »
    Taxation on income is based on ability to pay. Inheritance tax is not..
    Oh come on. The recipient of an inheritance would have received €335,000 tax free before being asked to pay 33% tax on any further receipts, the poor mouth won't work here.

    Meanwhile someone starts paying 20% tax on almost any income they receive from work.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    hmmm wrote: »
    Oh come on. The recipient of an inheritance would have received €335,000 tax free before being asked to pay 33% tax on any further receipts, the poor mouth won't work here.

    Meanwhile someone starts paying 20% tax on almost any income they receive from work.

    I'm not using the poor mouth just teasing out the issue.

    As I said in the post inheritance tax does not take into account the circumstances of the beneficiary.
    Certainly €335,000 is a nice nest egg to receive.
    However a person with rent to pay who has a handicapped child to take care of gets the same as a millionaire with a mansion and a bungalow in Spain.

    Do you think the circumstances of the beneficiary should be taken into account or not?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Austria!


    Its my house, I earned it, I paid for it, and I paid every cent of tax due on it, and it is my prerogative to give it to my kids to give them a leg up the ladder.


    This seems inconsistent. You make a big deal that you earned the house and paid all the tax due on it, as if earning something and having paid tax on that is important, and then you say you want your kids to have something completely unearned tax free.



    For the sake of a fair society why should your kids have a leg up on the ladder? If they want success they can get it through education and hard work, not by getting a handout.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Austria! wrote: »
    This seems inconsistent. You make a big deal that you earned the house and paid all the tax due on it, as if earning something and having paid tax on that is important, and then you say you want your kids to have something completely unearned tax free.



    For the sake of a fair society why should your kids have a leg up on the ladder? If they want success they can get it through education and hard work, not by getting a handout.

    I'd say most people think earning something and paying tax on it is indeed important and see no contradiction in their being allowed to use it as they see fit.

    Their kids might not be fit enough to work or clever enough to benefit from education. The revenue is blind to such situations the person leaving the money is not.

    What they have been saying in this thread is that they would prefer to use the money they have saved after tax to give their kids a leg up and not the neighbour's kids if you will.


  • Posts: 24,714 [Deleted User]


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Given free reign? I'd eliminate the thresholds entirely and tax inheritance / parental gifts at the marginal rate (or higher).

    No one likes paying tax but taxation is necessary to fund the state and, imho, taxation of unearned wealth (such as inheritance) is far fairer and more equitable than the taxation of income from one's work.

    This is hardcore levels of begrudgery on display here.
    Austria! wrote: »


    For the sake of a fair society why should your kids have a leg up on the ladder? If they want success they can get it through education and hard work, not by getting a handout.

    No such thing as a fair society, parents who can should give their children every advantage they can to get ahead of others, they children should benefit 100% and not “society”.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,275 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    The irony is the state did better out of inheritance tax when the thresholds were higher and the rate lower.

    As others have said increase the tax and you increase the length people will go to to avoid it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    elperello wrote: »
    I'm not using the poor mouth just teasing out the issue.

    As I said in the post inheritance tax does not take into account the circumstances of the beneficiary.
    Certainly €335,000 is a nice nest egg to receive.
    However a person with rent to pay who has a handicapped child to take care of gets the same as a millionaire with a mansion and a bungalow in Spain.

    Do you think the circumstances of the beneficiary should be taken into account or not?

    Hard cases make bad law. However there is AFAIK also extra clauses in inheritance where an inidividual has lived in a dwelling and inherits it.

    https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-exemptions/exemption-for-dwelling-house/index.aspx

    Also it is not like when one reaches the threshold everything else is taken. It is a 310K tax on the excess so

    500K inheritance tax about63K
    1 million tax 230K

    Slava Ukrainii



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


    The difficulty is really around the property market, as that's the main asset. The average value of a house in Dublin is 375,862. Which means more than 50% of people in Dublin are over that inheritance limit, if they have one child.

    Basically, if your house is worth over 335k, to minimise the tax on your estate you need two kids. Your house goes over 600k in value, go for the third child.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    pwurple wrote: »
    The difficulty is really around the property market, as that's the main asset. The average value of a house in Dublin is 375,862. Which means more than 50% of people in Dublin are over that inheritance limit, if they have one child.

    Basically, if your house is worth over 335k, to minimise the tax on your estate you need two kids. Your house goes over 600k in value, go for the third child.

    First off even with one child on a 500K house tax element is 63K even if you have to value it at this amount. On Two or more children house will usually be disposed. With two childern tax element on a one million euro house is 126K euro between the two. If a child is living in the house longer than 3 year they inherit tax free.

    I cannot see the issue

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Hard cases make bad law. However there is AFAIK also extra clauses in inheritance where an inidividual has lived in a dwelling and inherits it.

    https://www.revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cat-exemptions/exemption-for-dwelling-house/index.aspx

    Also it is not like when one reaches the threshold everything else is taken. It is a 310K tax on the excess so

    500K inheritance tax about63K
    1 million tax 230K

    I might just reply by saying bad tax rules make for good evasion.

    You are correct regarding the link you gave but you have not referred to some other exemptions namely Business Relief and Farming Relief. These reliefs protect the real wealth involved in inter-generational transfers.

    https://www.lawyer.ie/probatewills/inheritance-tax/

    We know they don't take it all over the threshold but at least one poster here supports that.

    You haven't addressed the question of whether there should be an assessment of beneficiaries means before they have to pay.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    elperello wrote: »
    I might just reply by saying bad tax rules make for good evasion.

    You are correct regarding the link you gave but you have not referred to some other exemptions namely Business Relief and Farming Relief. These reliefs protect the real wealth involved in inter-generational transfers.

    https://www.lawyer.ie/probatewills/inheritance-tax/

    We know they don't take it all over the threshold but at least one poster here supports that.

    You haven't addressed the question of whether there should be an assessment of beneficiaries means before they have to pay.

    TBH business and agriculture relief is restrictive and benifits only where real wealth is transferred. I remove these reliefs or curtail them. However there is a case for maintaining small business's . On the other hand it is possible to minimise tax by reducing these values.

    two options reduce rates on business's which are active and creating employment or allowing tax to be paid over a longer period.

    I see no point in accessing beneficiaries a tax rate and relief is a tax rate and relief

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    TBH business and agriculture relief is restrictive and benifits only where real wealth is transferred. I remove these reliefs or curtail them. However there is a case for maintaining small business's . On the other hand it is possible to minimise tax by reducing these values.

    two options reduce rates on business's which are active and creating employment or allowing tax to be paid over a longer period.

    I see no point in accessing beneficiaries a tax rate and relief is a tax rate and relief

    Exactly those reliefs protect real wealth while someone passing on a house and a couple of hundred grand from a lifetime of hard work is caught in the net.

    They have to face the prospect of Revenue taking money from their estate that may be badly needed by a family member.

    It seems you don't see any point in taking into account the ability to pay but I'm not quite sure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Minimise income tax, make up the shortfall with inheritance tax. Sound fair?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Minimise income tax, make up the shortfall with inheritance tax. Sound fair?

    I don't think the numbers would add up.
    Your proposal may need a little more research.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    elperello wrote: »
    I don't think the numbers would add up.
    Your proposal may need a little more research.

    I didn't say they would balance. Maximise one revenue and minimise the other.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,608 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Ush1 wrote: »
    I didn't say they would balance. Maximise one revenue and minimise the other.

    Would you care to put a few numbers out there?

    Are you suggesting removing the existing thresholds?

    How much do you think would need to be collected from Inheritance Tax in order to reduce Income Tax by one percentage point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,797 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    20/20 wrote: »
    You are nonsense.
    What on earth are you talking about.
    How is it nonsense?

    I want to buy my boyfriend a nice rolex or omega watch....it's over the 3k threshold, so technically they should be paying tax on the balance of the gift.

    Or to give a gift as I please do I have to pay for the gift and also cover the tax liability generated? Which in itself is another tax liability!
    air wrote: »
    It's nonsense as wages are a fully allowable expense for corporation tax purposes.
    Wages are paid from operating profit before any taxation.

    I've answered these points earlier on thread. Not gonna go back over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    elperello wrote: »
    They have to face the prospect of Revenue taking money from their estate that may be badly needed by a family member.
    .
    OK, and what about the people in society who badly need something and aren't expecting to receive hundreds of thousands in unearned money? Is life just a genetic lottery?

    There's lots of low-income families who could do without paying Income tax, but have to. We should be encouraging people to work, earn income and support themselves. Not penalise work, and have low taxes on big inheritances for the lucky few.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Cyrus wrote: »
    The irony is the state did better out of inheritance tax when the thresholds were higher and the rate lower.
    Do you have a source for this please?
    This is hardcore levels of begrudgery on display here.

    No such thing as a fair society, parents who can should give their children every advantage they can to get ahead of others, they children should benefit 100% and not “society”.
    Fair play to you for your honesty. I guess most people here and most policy makers would see moving towards a fairer society as generally being a good thing.
    the_syco wrote: »
    The money would just get moved out of the country sooner, or put into trusts.

    IMO, either you pay good accounts to hide your cash, or the taxman will take your cash. Trust funds, grandchildren pensions, etc. All legal ways of hiding the money from the taxman.

    Just more people will look to hide it earlier if their money will go to the state after they die.
    And then the Revenue look harder at those who are hiding it or change the rules or whatever.
    I would rather burn my house down, than hand it over as a so called "wealth tax". Its my house, I earned it, I paid for it, and I paid every cent of tax due on it, and it is my prerogative to give it to my kids to give them a leg up the ladder.

    Its shocking how gullible people are to fall for the type of argument that giving or inheriting within direct family is some sort of undesirable action, and that they would rather hand over taxation of a family home to be squandered by the state while of course feeding the kids into the commercial rental market.

    Disgusting
    You don't pay any tax when handing over your house, so it would be a little bit silly to go burning it down. Unless you have a very valuable house and a very small number of children, you won't be facing inheritance tax.

    Don't kid yourself that those who have a different view to you are gullible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    elperello wrote: »
    Exactly those reliefs protect real wealth while someone passing on a house and a couple of hundred grand from a lifetime of hard work is caught in the net.

    They have to face the prospect of Revenue taking money from their estate that may be badly needed by a family member.

    It seems you don't see any point in taking into account the ability to pay but I'm not quite sure.

    Inheritance relief from a parent is 310k before tax. That is 10 years wages after tax paid approx and then it is taxed at 33%.

    I have given implications if tax on half a million inheritance just earlier. There is also exemptions where beneficiary is dependent on doner

    You cannot cover every eventually with tax laws but they are far from unfair.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    pwurple wrote: »
    The difficulty is really around the property market, as that's the main asset. The average value of a house in Dublin is 375,862. Which means more than 50% of people in Dublin are over that inheritance limit, if they have one child.
    While average family size is decreasing, most families of those who are dying and leaving a property behind them would have more than one child, so it is nothing near 50% of people in Dublin that are impacted.
    pwurple wrote: »
    Basically, if your house is worth over 335k, to minimise the tax on your estate you need two kids. Your house goes over 600k in value, go for the third child.

    Even ignoring the absolute insanity of basing family size decisions on tax planning, you'll probably find that having the extra children will cost you an awful lot more than your expected tax saving, so this would be a bit or a silly approach.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,976 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    hmmm wrote: »
    OK, and what about the people in society who badly need something and aren't expecting to receive hundreds of thousands in unearned money? Is life just a genetic lottery?

    There's lots of low-income families who could do without paying Income tax, but have to. We should be encouraging people to work, earn income and support themselves. Not penalise work, and have low taxes on big inheritances for the lucky few.

    By changing inheritance tax laws you will change little in income tax. In 2018 about 5billion was raised in inheritance tax and 21billion in income tax. Already you pay virtually no tax on first 16k in income or 32k for a married couple both working. For such a couple there is access to Family income support and if renting there accommodation there is rent relief.

    Out tax net as is is too small . In theory if you restricted relief you would not increase tax. It could become very beneficial to move abroad if you knew inheritance was on the way to a less restrictive regime. You could do this by delaying the taking out of probate. Take it 310k relief was abolished and rate was increased to 50%. Any one inheriting over few hundred K would be better off moving abroad. While some might think this unlikely most people inheriting are in their 50's or 60's in the case of s substantial inheritance moving abroad for 2-3 years would solve a tax bill on what at present is covered by the taxation limits

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
Advertisement