peoples sense of entitlement in Ireland

Chucktastic

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Their parents earned it and should be entitled to help their children if they wish.Simple as that.

So the state should be allowed to do likewise, so long as the people wish.

KomradeBishop

suicide_circus wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying but your username does have a certain whiff of Kremlin off it

It does ya - that's the point though:
My username is precisely a pisstake, on how often posters just rabidly label me with the 'Communist!' label Idealistically I'd be Left-Libertarian, realistically more Social Democrat.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Chucktastic wrote: »

So the state should be allowed to do likewise, so long as the people wish.

Absolutely but it doesn't make it a fair or good idea to not allow people to give their own money to their children and I would imagine that if there was a ridiculous law of 100% tax on inheritance after a certain level it would probably force people to find very creative ways around paying inheritance tax.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Well tell us why you think we are homogenous rather than just stating it over and over again. Convince us. Have to tell you though, I've lived here and in the US and we have very little in common with them on either culturally or socially.

Of course, the US is a huge place and I imagine more rural parts further West may have more in common over the densely packed East coast I spent my time in.

You want me I convince you a former British colony is culturally similar to us? A country which speaks our language, has an estimated 30 million citizens of Irish descent and inherited it's culture from the British Isles?

Would you like me to convince you water is wet while I'm at it? You can disingenuously listen to my argument and pretend to dismiss it to win the argument all the same. I have better things to do.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Does it? Why?

It's not the government's job to build a happy society. The government grants life, liberty and the persuit but not guarantee of happiness.

If a person can't afford creche fees, or one partner isn't willing to put their career on hiatus then people should hold off having children. It's not the governments job to patch over people's lack of family planning or personal responsibility.

You understand even working people find creche fees extremely expensive?

Valetta

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Absolutely but it doesn't make it a fair or good idea to not allow people to give their own money to their children and I would imagine that if there was a ridiculous law of 100% tax on inheritance after a certain level it would probably force people to find very creative ways around paying inheritance tax.

All income is taxable.

Why should children getting money from their parents be an exception ?

What about companies paying generous bonuses to executives at Christmas? Should they be exempt from tax?
If not, what's the difference?

Ronaldinho

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The parasites are the people inheriting tens/hundreds of millions - sometimes billions - and many of (not all) those parasites are helping to destroy the society we live in, by trying to massively increase and lock-in increasing income/wealth inequality.

I can't imagine there are many people in this country inheriting such large sums of money. I mean we're probably talking about a handful of cases a year?

We could sit here all day moralising about this but a really punitive rate of inheritance tax simply wouldn't work in practice in my view. The top 1% would simply migrate to tax havens.

I do think there is a problem with wealth inequality but a better solution would be a higher rate of corporate tax globally and greater tax harmonisation*. To me that would be preferable than going after the people and the kids of people many of whom have personally built businesses which have served the public very well through employment and taxes. That is taking the thread further off topic though...

*which would probably be very detrimental to local Irish interests

KomradeBishop

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Absolutely but it doesn't make it a fair or good idea to not allow people to give their own money to their children and I would imagine that if there was a ridiculous law of 100% tax on inheritance after a certain level it would probably force people to find very creative ways around paying inheritance tax.

It does allow people to give their own money to their children...up to a limit.

This is already how things are - there is already a limit in place, just not in the form of a cut-off.

How is it fair that anyone be allowed to receive free money, without doing anything to earn it - without a limit being placed on that?

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

You understand even working people find creche fees extremely expensive?

They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford crèche fees or one partner isn't willing to stay at home. Either way this should be a factor in their decision to have children not a post facto whinge.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Valetta wrote: »

All income is taxable.

Why should children getting money from their parents be an exception ?

What about companies paying generous bonuses to executives at Christmas? Should they be exempt from tax?
If not, what's the difference?

Because their parents have already paid tax on this money when they accumulated it through their lives.By taxing the inheritance it is essential double taxing money.

Bonuses are a top up to your salary you earn at work for good performance , they are written into your contract as an incentive to do a good job and so are essentially the same as your monthly wage and therefore should be treated as such.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It does allow people to give their own money to their children...up to a limit.

This is already how things are - there is already a limit in place, just not in the form of a cut-off.

How is it fair that anyone be allowed to receive free money, without doing anything to earn it - without a limit being placed on that?

How is it fair that a normal farmer with assets in excess of 1 million have their assets stripped by the government upon death?

Dirty Dingus McGee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It does allow people to give their own money to their children...up to a limit.

This is already how things are - there is already a limit in place, just not in the form of a cut-off.

How is it fair that anyone be allowed to receive free money, without doing anything to earn it - without a limit being placed on that?

It's fair because their parents decided to reward their children like most parents like to do.It's basically a present from your parents.

KomradeBishop

Ronaldinho wrote: »

I can't imagine there are many people in this country inheriting such large sums of money. I mean we're probably talking about a handful of cases a year?

We could sit here all day moralising about this but a really punitive rate of inheritance tax simply wouldn't work in practice in my view. The top 1% would simply migrate to tax havens.

I do think there is a problem with wealth inequality but a better solution would be a higher rate of corporate tax globally and greater tax harmonisation*. To me that would be preferable than going after the people and the kids of people many of whom have personally built businesses which have served the public very well through employment and taxes. That is taking the thread further off topic though...

*which would probably be very detrimental to local Irish interests

The problem is the powerful and their influence over politics - and power is gained and perpetuated through wealth - and if you cut-off the worst of the wealth transfer from generation to generation, then you can do a lot (over the course of a generation) to help cut the head off established powers, and remove their influence over politics.

That means tackling individuals - people - not just corporations; and putting a cap on inheritances is one of the best ways to do this (as well as LexieOnRale's great idea of a Maximum Wage ).

Eugene Norman

Ronaldinho wrote: »

I can't imagine there are many people in this country inheriting such large sums of money. I mean we're probably talking about a handful of cases a year?

We could sit here all day moralising about this but a really punitive rate of inheritance tax simply wouldn't work in practice in my view. The top 1% would simply migrate to tax havens.

I do think there is a problem with wealth inequality but a better solution would be a higher rate of corporate tax globally and greater tax harmonisation*. To me that would be preferable than going after the people and the kids of people many of whom have personally built businesses which have served the public very well through employment and taxes. That is taking the thread further off topic though...

*which would probably be very detrimental to local Irish interests

Corporate tax isn't really going to stop inequality. All savings general end up as household savings. Taxing corporations just makes the corporations slightly poorer, or stops then accumulating cash reserves as fast as they do now. holding cash does not really have a major effect on stock prices, in fact the stock market can penalise companies with large cash reserves.

it's the owners of the stock and the recipients of the dividends that are the personal rich. Taxing capital gains, dividends and capital (even to force it to productive use) is more redistributive.

Eugene Norman

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's fair because their parents decided to reward their children like most parents like to do.It's basically a present from your parents.

It's fair because it's fair. Is your argument.

KomradeBishop

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It's fair because their parents decided to reward their children like most parents like to do.It's basically a present from your parents.

All presents over a certain limit are already taxed.

Eugene Norman

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because their parents have already paid tax on this money when they accumulated it through their lives.By taxing the inheritance it is essential double taxing money.

Bonuses are a top up to your salary you earn at work for good performance , they are written into your contract as an incentive to do a good job and so are essentially the same as your monthly wage and therefore should be treated as such.

When somebody buys something I produce (or my company does) they have already paid tax on their earnings. This doesn't stop me getting taxed.

thattequilagirl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford crèche fees or one partner isn't willing to stay at home. Either way this should be a factor in their decision to have children not a post facto whinge.

While I agree that people shouldn't have kids until they can afford to, that doesn't alter the fact that the cost of childcare in this country is extortionate.

Iwasfrozen

thattequilagirl wrote: »

While I agree that people shouldn't have kids until they can afford to, that doesn't alter the fact that the cost of childcare in this country is extortionate.

Well that's the free market rate. What do you want?

Sh1tbag OToole

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

At the turn of the previous century in Dublin a large percentage of the population were employed as pole barge men. These men were replaced by truck drivers and the fear of large scale unemploymened men in the city was a real concern. But it didn't happen. Again technology created new jobs to fill the gap.

In America in the 1900s a lot of intellectuals would have said what you're saying now. That they were wrong is not their fault. They couldn't have predicted the new technologies that would fill the gap and neither can you.

One thing that is certain though. People will not receive a decent standard of living without working for it. Tax payers won't stand for it.

The next generation truck won't need anyone behind the wheel, and there is only a certain number of social media ninjas the company that owns the truck will employ. The intellectuals have a lot more information to base their prediction on than they did 100 years ago.

Tax payers won't stand for a lot of things but in the end they will pay up, just like the property tax - they all shat their pants when the Revenue hounds were unleashed.

Even as it is, if you got rid of all the scroungers you'll see a whole lot of working people going bust as a result. They usually spend their money somewhere local, the money doesn't vanish when it's given to them

Tasden

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford crèche fees or one partner isn't willing to stay at home. Either way this should be a factor in their decision to have children not a post facto whinge.

And what about those parents who could afford it until the other parent up and left?
Or those who had a well paid job only to be made redundant and now on a lower wage with the childcare fees remaining the same?
Or those who could afford childcare and rent when they had kids but now their rent is 300 more expensive?

The Backwards Man

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's the free market rate. What do you want?

It's a regulated market. Heavily regulated, in fact.

lawlolawl

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's the free market rate. What do you want?

A government subsidy.

In other words, the classic Irish trait of using other peoples money to pay for something you can't afford or aren't willing to pay for.

Iwasfrozen

Tasden wrote: »

And what about those parents who could afford it until the other parent up and left?
Or those who had a well paid job only to be made redundant and now on a lower wage with the childcare fees remaining the same?
Or those who could afford childcare and rent when they had kids but now their rent is 300 more expensive?

What if the child takes sick and dies?
What if there's an earthquake and the parents house is destroyed?
What if the parent is paralysed in a car accident or has a mental breakdown or becomes an alcoholic?

Do you expect the government to cover every eventuality in your life? Shít happens.

BarryD

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Western world has built it's prosperity on the back of stringent property rights.

The inherent lack of stability in that statement should set off alarm bells in your head though. Things can and do change, peoples sometimes lose all. Usually in war torn parts of the world but over time as well. Ownership, whatever that is, is not absolute - it has and can be taken away. Our own government in recent years decided they could 'put their hands in your pocket' and take a portion of peoples pension savings. A future government could equally legitimately decide to slap thresholds on inheritance of assets and take the balance..

on_my_oe

Here's an honest question... Family with three kids; both parents working low income jobs (€10/phr max). Should they

A) spend most of their money on private housing
receive some assistance towards housing
C) receive most of their housing paid for

My neighbours are social housing tenants... For people who can't afford to pay the full market rent, I'm astonished how they stretch their pay packets far enough to afford two cars, a campervan, a quad motorbike and the kids all have iPads.

Tasden

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What if the child takes sick and dies?
What if there's an earthquake and the parents house is destroyed?
What if the parent is paralysed in a car accident or has a mental breakdown or becomes an alcoholic?

Do you expect the government to cover every eventuality in your life? Shít happens.

I never said that the government should do anything?

You said people should factor in if they could afford it before having a child. How could they have factored any of those situations into whether they can afford it or not.
Like you just said, **** happens, you can't factor in every possible eventuality in your life, so your whole "they shouda thought of that before they had kids" argument is bull****.

Eugene Norman

lawlolawl wrote: »

A government subsidy.

In other words, the classic Irish trait of using other peoples money to pay for something you can't afford or aren't willing to pay for.

That's hardly an Irish trait is it? It's more a social democratic trait. And since we are talking about working families it would no more be using "other people's" money than free secondary school education is.

steddyeddy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford crèche fees or one partner isn't willing to stay at home. Either way this should be a factor in their decision to have children not a post facto whinge.

You realise we'd take in more tax as an economy if creche fees weren't so expensive people didn't have to skip work?

BarryD

Put another way, a burglar breaks into your house and takes your fancy TV which you 'own'. They take it their own house and use it, who 'owns' it now? Ownership ain't guaranteed and the state could democratically decide to take your inheritance above a certain amount.

Spanish Eyes

Can someone justify this for me please?

My late father worked hard all his life, was made redundant in the eighties, set up his own company, employed people, never took dole. We were all provided for education wise.

He died sadly at age 64. My mother was ill and is now in a nursing home.

It costs the guts of 4.5k per month. Nothing from the Fair Deal. Drug charges 144 pm and all the rest of it. Why? Because my Dad worked and provided through bad times and good.

So I look around me in the Nursing Home where my lovely mam is now. I know from talking to the management that the majority are there under the FD. We are not.

So if my Dad had p*ssed his money up against a wall everything would be free now for my Mam. Instead she has to pay for everything. Everything.

Now I know this is subjective, but does anyone thing that is fair at all?

I don't, and before anyone lights on me, our family is not interested in the loss of our inheritance due to the fees etc. It just seems a bit out of kilter, and there is no incentive to work and pay your way.

steddyeddy

lawlolawl wrote: »

A government subsidy.

In other words, the classic Irish trait of using other peoples money to pay for something you can't afford or aren't willing to pay for.

Like the private schools subsidy?

BarryD

on_my_oe wrote: »

Here's an honest question... Family with three kids; both parents working low income jobs (€10/phr max). Should they

A) spend most of their money on private housing
receive some assistance towards housing
C) receive most of their housing paid for

Dirty Dingus McGee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

All presents over a certain limit are already taxed.

I know.Which in my opinion is not fair.

Christy42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What if the child takes sick and dies?
What if there's an earthquake and the parents house is destroyed?
What if the parent is paralysed in a car accident or has a mental breakdown or becomes an alcoholic?

Do you expect the government to cover every eventuality in your life? Shít happens.

We need your kids and not just from rich people. Who is going to pay all these pensions?

Secondly if we subsidise childcare then more parents will go back to work and the economy will benefit. Not helping out in this regard is stupidity. Helping out with childcare only benefits the economy in the long term. Finally people are always going to have sex and contraception doesn't always work. Screwing these people over only limits their chance of employment and again hurts the economy.

So even from a purely selfish point of view it should be subsidesed.

Iwasfrozen

Tasden wrote: »

I never said that the government should do anything?

You said people should factor in if they could afford it before having a child. How could they have factored any of those situations into whether they can afford it or not.
Like you just said, **** happens, you can't factor in every possible eventuality in your life, so your whole "they shouda thought of that before they had kids" argument is bull****.

Then adapt, survivers adapt.

steddyeddy wrote: »

You realise we'd take in more tax as an economy if creche fees weren't so expensive people didn't have to skip work?

Well first off taking in more tax is not necessarily a good thing. Secondly any increases in tax would need to be balanced against the cost of providing a subsidy. Thirdly you would need to stop crèches increasing their fees in line with the subsidy which would be impossible to do without putting a cap on the market.

Christy42 wrote: »

We need your kids and not just from rich people. Who is going to pay all these pensions?

Secondly if we subsidise childcare then more parents will go back to work and the economy will benefit. Not helping out in this regard is stupidity. Helping out with childcare only benefits the economy in the long term. Finally people are always going to have sex and contraception doesn't always work. Screwing these people over only limits their chance of employment and again hurts the economy.

So even from a purely selfish point of view it should be subsidesed.

No one is going to pay the pensions, I'm in my early 20s. I won't have a public pension. No one will, that's the reality.

Secondly the cost of subsidizing childcare needs to be balanced against the benefits. You have no way of proving, based on the information you have that we will receive a net gain from subsidizing childcare. But the lack of proof won't stop you arguing you're correct.

Thirdly the type of person to have an unplanned pregnancy is less likely to be very concerned with their career.

Finally, how do you propose to stop crèches increasing their costs in line with the subsidy?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Eugene Norman wrote: »

When somebody buys something I produce (or my company does) they have already paid tax on their earnings. This doesn't stop me getting taxed.

Your earnings are being taxed. Earnings should be taxed.Gifts should not be as once people pay tax on their earnings they should be entitled to do what they want with their money.

BarryD

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Can someone justify this for me please?

My late father worked hard all his life, was made redundant in the eighties, set up his own company, employed people, never took dole. We were all provided for education wise.

He died sadly at age 64. My mother was ill and is now in a nursing home.

It costs the guts of 4.5k per month. Nothing from the Fair Deal. Drug charges 144 pm and all the rest of it. Why? Because my Dad worked and provided through bad times and good.

So I look around me in the Nursing Home where my lovely mam is now. I know from talking to the management that the majority are there under the FD. We are not.

So if my Dad had p*ssed his money up against a wall everything would be free now for my Mam. Instead she has to pay for everything. Everything.

Now I know this is subjective, but does anyone thing that is fair at all?

I don't, and before anyone lights on me, our family is not interested in the loss of our inheritance due to the fees etc. It just seems a bit out of kilter, and there is no incentive to work and pay your way.

Been there and seen that. I guess that's why it's called 'Fair Deal' - it's not necessarily fair to your family but it's fair across the whole cross section of elderly people.

The whole 'elder care' business is one of the really big social changes in my lifetime, I think. When I was younger, we had a number of elderly relatives in the house, living out their last years. It was done in family and although I wouldn't be partial to the details, presumably some reward by inheritance. Nowadays, the elderly are more likely to be moved to state or commercial nursing homes and/ or 'home care' and the costs of these are a means of using up the assets and savings that they've built up over their lives. Big change. It's a transfer from private savings to state and business interests - also a new source of employment, so some money going back to younger people as well.

Tasden

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then adapt, survivers adapt.

Ok go on. How do you propose they adapt? How do they adapt in order to afford rent of 1200 and childcare of 900 from one income of say 2000 a month?

Iwasfrozen

Tasden wrote: »

Ok go on. How do you propose they adapt? How do they adapt in order to afford rent of 1200 and childcare of 900 from one income of say 2000 a month?

One income implying one parent isn't working? That's the 900 taken care of.

As for rent. Move and commute. Do you really expect me to plan another person's life on a forum?

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One income implying one parent isn't working? That's the 900 taken care of.

As for rent. Move and commute. Do you really expect me to plan another person's life on a forum?

Moving and commuting isn't that easy. Also why would tax paying renters have to move when non mortgage payers don't?

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Moving and commuting isn't that easy. Also why would tax paying renters have to move when non mortgage payers don't?

Very good point. They shouldn't.

BarryD

Tasden wrote: »

Ok go on. How do you propose they adapt? How do they adapt in order to afford rent of 1200 and childcare of 900 from one income of say 2000 a month?

If it's two parents and one income then drop the childcare obviously. If it's a single parent, things are trickier - neighbour or granny/ granddad etc. If all else fails, they won't be able to work and will have to look after their child(ren).

Dirty Dingus McGee

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One income implying one parent isn't working? That's the 900 taken care of.

As for rent. Move and commute. Do you really expect me to plan another person's life on a forum?

That's part of a much bigger problem in this country which should have been fixed (or at least attempted to be fixed a long time ago) it's disgraceful the amount of people who are forced to play ridiculous prices and rent for homes in Dublin or face a very long commute.If this country was run properly and there was a plan put in place to actually spread out the development of this country more equally property and rental prices in Dublin would fall and not as many people would be forced into arduous commutes.

Eugene Norman

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Your earnings are being taxed. Earnings should be taxed.Gifts should not be as once people pay tax on their earnings they should be entitled to do what they want with their money.

A gift is still income. If anything unearned income should be taxed higher.

You argument makes no sense except to you. Once I pay tax on my income I can give away my income to a relative untaxed but if he provides a service or a job it should be taxed.

alb

BarryD wrote: »

The inherent lack of stability in that statement should set off alarm bells in your head though. Things can and do change, peoples sometimes lose all. Usually in war torn parts of the world but over time as well. Ownership, whatever that is, is not absolute - it has and can be taken away. Our own government in recent years decided they could 'put their hands in your pocket' and take a portion of peoples pension savings. A future government could equally legitimately decide to slap thresholds on inheritance of assets and take the balance..

It's going to get interesting as more currency becomes digital. many millennials are already hardly using physical cash at all so sooner or later you're likely to see some countries abolish it completely and if that becomes the norm it makes it simple to implement new taxes, negative interest rates or just outright confiscation.

If you think you should have absolute right to ownership of your own digital money or assets, look into bitcoin and cryptocurrency. If a government wants to put their hand in that particular pocket it'll be a little bit more difficult.

Tasden

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

One income implying one parent isn't working? That's the 900 taken care of.

As for rent. Move and commute. Do you really expect me to plan another person's life on a forum?

One income because the other parent upped and left. And as you pointed out earlier **** happens.

Move away from the job and pay out more money on travel expenses? And that's providing they can actually find somewhere to rent that is within a commuting distance.

I'm not asking you to plan anybodys life but you're the one claiming that "survivors adapt" so I'm looking for your opinion on how they actually do that.

Tasden

BarryD wrote: »

If it's two parents and one income then drop the childcare obviously. If it's a single parent, things are trickier - neighbour or granny/ granddad etc. If all else fails, they won't be able to work and will have to look after their child(ren).

And depend on social welfare just like everybody on here constantly berates single mothers for doing.

Iwasfrozen

Tasden wrote: »

One income because the other parent upped and left. And as you pointed out earlier **** happens.

Move away from the job and pay out more money on travel expenses? And that's providing they can actually find somewhere to rent that is within a commuting distance.

I'm not asking you to plan anybodys life but you're the one claiming that "survivors adapt" so I'm looking for your opinion on how they actually do that.

Then look to extended family to look after the kid. If that's not an option they'll have to give up their job and move to a cheaper part of the country.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Eugene Norman wrote: »

A gift is still income. If anything unearned income should be taxed higher.

You argument makes no sense except to you. Once I pay tax on my income I can give away my income to a relative untaxed but if he provides a service or a job it should be taxed.

It's quite simple it's a gift and people should be entitled to give loved ones gifts if they wish. They have earned their money and and the money has already been taxed and now it gets taxed when they want to leave them something after they pass away, it's a concept akin to saying whenever you have money it is never actually fully yours which should not be the case in my opinion.