I'm sick to death of being taxed to death !

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

I think you may have misconstrued my point. ...

Yes you should get them. No you should not stop working altogether in the pursuit of them.

I don't think I did; I made a caveat to your point with regard to their worth on CVs.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So?

The tax can only be applied to living people...... and they earn up to €300k tax free from it.

Remember, the VAT you pay this week will be with money that will have already been subject to income tax!

I'm sorry, but CAT is insane in Ireland. I can understand a 5% or even 10% estate tax, but 33% on everything over €300k is bonkers; especially when you see what the farmers get away with!

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think I did; I made a caveat to your point with regard to their worth on CVs.

Where did i say dont do your masters?

My whole point was in relation to quiting actual paying work to pursue the masters. It is not sensible.

It appears yourself and sir captitan did not get that point at all.

Radiosonde

listermint wrote: »

No starting out its not, these credentials are obtained on the way. By trying to frontload all the credentials you walk into the job with zero experience. Does not matter the field you are in bar some of the more academically focused ones research, possible law. But on the job coupled with seeing to be furthering you education whilst doing so pays far more dividends in an interview.

Its just the way it is.

As opposed to fresh faced masters graduate who pops in the door with no regard to practicalities and expecting 45K straight out the door.

No offense, but perhaps you aren't a good judge of the value of academic qualifications?

Good part-time postgraduate courses that won't conflict with a full time job are rare. Most part-time masters programs involve daytime classes during the week.

Yourself isit

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry, but CGT is insane in Ireland. I can understand a 5% or even 10% estate tax, but 33% on everything over €300k is bonkers; especially when you see what the farmers get away with!

Why is that insane compared to income tax?

NovemberJersey

Yourself isit wrote: »

Increased if anything.



35% is reasonable but you don't pay full PRSI.



Impoverished people won't help the economy



Road tax isn't enough to fund the roads. Here is one place where you do want redistribution - from Dublin to every booreen in the West.



Its high but reducing it now will harm lots of hard working families.



Instead let's cut workers tax in December? If feasible.



Classroom hours aren't just the job you know. In the private sector the best teachers would be worth much more



Won't save that much.



The aim of an worthwhile economic system is to make people better off - even the unskilled.



Very American. I've never been on the dole but I want money if I ever have to be.



Yes.

No offence but it's people like you and with your attitude that are wrong with the economy and I'm by no means a trump supporter but it's the likes of you who scares people into having to vote for far right candidates… do you even know what CGT is or what rate it's at? It's at 33% and you want it higher, that's actually sick - also if it got any higher people would just hold onto their assets so there'd be less money being collected from CGT, the govt. would have to come up with other ways to keep every waster in the country lying down and not working

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

Where did i say dont do your masters?

listermint wrote: »

Can you explain in detail why you decided to not work while doing a masters.

Frankly masters means very little on a cv to me I read them all the time I'm looking for continous employment and practical experience.

If you were really interested in bettering yourself you'd get better advice. The advantages you perceive to get by doing the masters are taken away by your removing yourself from the workforce and fully into acadamia.

People who have degrees and 2 3 years experience will already be a step up on you.

That might be your experience in whatever field you work in, but in law a professional qualification and a bit of work experience at a corner firm doesn't help you much when you want to play with the big boys and girls.

I'd also love to see someone go try to get a job working in biotech or the sciences without at least a masters degree. Unless you're suggesting a science undergrad with 5 years under the belt will be more employable and make more money than a PhD?


I don't disagree with you that there are certainly some areas where a masters isn't worth much, but those areas are few and far between these days in most areas. I also don't necessarily disagree that working whilst doing a masters if you can is a good idea.

I don't agree, however, that one can make a blanket statement as you have above.

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

Why is that insane compared to income tax?

Apologies: I typed CGT, but meant CAT - I presume your question still applies?

Yourself isit

NovemberJersey wrote: »

No offence but it's people like you and with your attitude that are wrong with the economy and I'm by no means a trump supporter but it's the likes of you who scares people into having to vote for far right candidates… do you even know what CGT is or what rate it's at? It's at 33% and you want it higher, that's actually sick - also if it got any higher people would just hold onto their assets so there'd be less money being collected from CGT, the govt. would have to come up with other ways to keep every waster in the country lying down and not working

Nobody voted for trump because of the Irish CGT. CGT should be taxed the same as waged income allowing us to reduce waged income. Although I'd reduce the rate for entrepreneurs but not just passive holders of stock or other assets.

Why should a day trader get 0% tax?

Yourself isit

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apologies: I typed CGT, but meant CAT - I presume your question still applies?

Is that inheritance tax? My feeling is that if anything unearned income should be higher than earned - the exception would be earned CGT (ie your own business) and family homes or businesses until sold.

NovemberJersey

Yourself isit wrote: »

Nobody voted for trump because of the Irish CGT. CGT should be taxed the same as waged income allowing us to reduce waged income.

Why should a day trader get 0% tax?

Oh okay I see what your saying now. Have a nice day because there's clearly no point in me trying to explain any of this to you. If your wealthy some day you'll probably understand where I was coming from with what I said.

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

Is that inheritance tax? My feeling is that if anything unearned income should be higher than earned - the exception would be earned CGT (ie your own business) and family homes or businesses until sold.

It's not "unearned" income to inherit money from your parents. They earned it and paid all sorts of different taxes on it. It is not "new" money to the economy and the government is simply raking in "unearned" taxation.

It is morally and economically insane to tax inheritance at 33% over €300k (p.s. that includes your home) unless you're a farmer, in which case you pay next-to-nothing.

Yourself isit

NovemberJersey wrote: »

Oh okay I see what your saying now. Have a nice day because there's clearly no point in me trying to explain any of this to you. If your wealthy some day you'll probably understand where I was coming from with what I said.

You can try explain, and my wealth or not is irrelevant to the economic theory.

As a high income earner I am not on the side of wealth. Not yet. I don't think bob who buys shares merely because he is rich and makes a 100k a year should be taxed at 0%.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not "unearned" income to inherit money from your parents. They earned it and paid all sorts of different taxes on it. It is not "new" money to the economy and the government is simply raking in "unearned" taxation.

It is morally and economically insane to tax inheritance at 33% over €300k (p.s. that includes your home) unless you're a farmer, in which case you pay next-to-nothing.

You can't inherit your own house. It may be your home but somebody else must own the house. Assuming you believe in redistribution of wealth to a greater or lesser degree, what would you replace inheritance tax with in order to redistribute wealth?

Idbatterim

It is morally and economically insane to tax inheritance at 33% over €300k (p.s. that includes your home) unless you're a farmer, in which case you pay next-to-nothing.

bit of a grey area, given how generous the state pension is here, I don't have a big issue with it. How is 33% insane, where does that leave the marginal rate?

LirW

Especially in the case of my man, who's an only child and the parents own a house in a good area that they bought decades ago. If he'd ever inherit the house, he simply couldn't pay this tax unless he just sells it. 33% over 300k are absolutely insane.

The_Captain

The_Captain wrote: »

Your argument is that a candidate with 5 years experience and a masters degree is better than a candidate with 1 year of experience and a masters degree.

listermint wrote: »

You may need a brain to understand no where did i say dont do a masters.

But sure read out of it what you will ,or perhaps you typed too soon without reading it fully.

You might want to brush up on the old schooling yourself before you start badmouthing the value of education

pilly

LirW wrote: »

Especially in the case of my man, who's an only child and the parents own a house in a good area that they bought decades ago. If he'd ever inherit the house, he simply couldn't pay this tax unless he just sells it. 33% over 300k are absolutely insane.

Was there not plans to put the 300k figure up at one point or has it already gone up?

RedPandaDan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not "unearned" income to inherit money from your parents. They earned it and paid all sorts of different taxes on it. It is not "new" money to the economy and the government is simply raking in "unearned" taxation.

It is morally and economically insane to tax inheritance at 33% over €300k (p.s. that includes your home) unless you're a farmer, in which case you pay next-to-nothing.

It absolutely is unearned by the person who inherited it.

If today I found out that I had a long lost relative who left me a million euro, that's money I didn't have yesterday that I did nothing to earn.

Why shouldn't it be taxed as income?

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You can't inherit your own house. It may be your home but somebody else must own the house. Assuming you believe in redistribution of wealth to a greater or lesser degree, what would you replace inheritance tax with in order to redistribute wealth?

I obviously didn't mean "your" house I meant the house you were inheriting.

Most countries have some form of flat estate tax payable by each beneficiary. 5-10% sounds fair as I said above.

I actually do not believe in excessive wealth redistribution, if any.

LirW

pilly wrote: »

Was there not plans to put the 300k figure up at one point or has it already gone up?

Afaik it's 310k for immediate family relationships since 2016 (daughter/son).
But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yourself isit

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not "unearned" income to inherit money from your parents. They earned it and paid all sorts of different taxes on it. It is not "new" money to the economy and the government is simply raking in "unearned" taxation.

It is morally and economically insane to tax inheritance at 33% over €300k (p.s. that includes your home) unless you're a farmer, in which case you pay next-to-nothing.

It is unearned. You didn't earn it. Your parents are not you.

FreudianSlippers

pilly wrote: »

Was there not plans to put the 300k figure up at one point or has it already gone up?

It's up to €300k from €280k for children

pilly

LirW wrote: »

Afaik it's 310k for immediate family relationships since 2016 (daughter/son).
But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe that was the raise I was thinking of but jesus the way they went on about it I thought it would be put up to 500k or something.

FreudianSlippers

Yourself isit wrote: »

It is unearned. You didn't earn it. Your parents are not you.

...and they paid tax on it, stamp duty, DIRT, etc.

MeatTwoVeg

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's up to €300k from €280k for children

So if someone inherits €1million they pay €233k in tax and keep €767k

Don't really see anything morally repugnant in that myself if anything if seems rather generous.

RayCun

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...and they paid tax on it, stamp duty, DIRT, etc.

and you didn't.
They aren't paying inheritance tax, you are.

FreudianSlippers

RedPandaDan wrote: »

It absolutely is unearned by the person who inherited it.

If today I found out that I had a long lost relative who left me a million euro, that's money I didn't have yesterday that I did nothing to earn.

Why shouldn't it be taxed as income?

That's such an outlandish proposal that it actually highlights how absurd inheritance tax is.

A child inheriting their parents family home and some money is a far cry from a long lost grand-nephew inheriting a million Euro.

1) You are not "earning" you are inheriting;
2) The property has already been taxed;
3) It penalises success and wealth;
4) It is a highly distortionary tax

and specifically to your point...

5) It disproportionately impacts those who have less money (i.e. less estate planning advice) or who are unaware of the inheritance.


It's not as black-and-white as saying you get a million Euro in cash. That never happens.

Siblings inherit their parents' home with some cash and they are forced to sell it to cover the tax bill to give money to the government for doing nothing.

FreudianSlippers

LirW wrote: »

Afaik it's 310k for immediate family relationships since 2016 (daughter/son).
But please correct me if I'm wrong.

It is €310, forgot about that.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I obviously didn't mean "your" house I meant the house you were inheriting.

Most countries have some form of flat estate tax payable by each beneficiary. 5-10% sounds fair as I said above.

I actually do not believe in excessive wealth redistribution, if any.

Nobody believes in excessive wealth redistribution. It's a question of how you define 'excessive' and if you believe in wealth distribution.

Presently, if I inherit up to 310k then I pay no tax. Under your proposal of, say a flat 10%, I would be paying 31k. Given that the vast majority of people won't inherit more than 310k, your proposal would only benefit a small minority.

RayCun

LirW wrote: »

Especially in the case of my man, who's an only child and the parents own a house in a good area that they bought decades ago. If he'd ever inherit the house, he simply couldn't pay this tax unless he just sells it. 33% over 300k are absolutely insane.

So let's assume this house is worth 500k
He gets 300k tax-free, so he has to pay 66k in tax.

So he would be getting a house that is worth 500k for a cost to him of 66k, and this is too expensive? He should get it for less? Why? Where is the hardship here?

And he wouldn't have to sell it. He now has an asset worth half a million euro. He could get a mortgage on it - he only has to raise 66k. He could continue as he is, rent out the house, and the mortgage would be paid in 10 years. Or he could move into this house, pay a mortgage instead of rent (I assume he is renting now), and he would be paying much less per month for much more house than he could rent.

Or he could sell the house, and walk away with 434,000 euro, that he didn't have to work a day for. He could live for 15 years without working, as if he was earning an average industrial wage. He could emigrate to somewhere with a much lower cost of living, and live without working for even longer.

Cry me a ****ing river.

RedPandaDan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's such an outlandish proposal that it actually highlights how absurd inheritance tax is.

A child inheriting their parents family home and some money is a far cry from a long lost grand-nephew inheriting a million Euro.

How so? Would it change if I was best mates with my granduncle and hadn't spoken to my parents in 20 years?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) You are not "earning" you are inheriting;

So you accept its unearned money. Why should unearned income be given preferential tax treatment to that of the earned income of people who work for a living?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

2) The property has already been taxed;

Most sources of income have already been taxed already (customers in shops have paid income tax and yet must also pay vat, that company pays tax on income, staff pay PAYE, and that same taxed income pays for car tax, etc.)

There is nothing about inheritance that should afford it special tax treatment.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

3) It penalises success and wealth;

Preventing the formation of dynastic wealth is a positive thing.

But, lets pretend it isn't for a moment: How is taxing someone who receives large amounts of money from other people, having done no useful work to earn it, punishing success?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

4) It is a highly distortionary tax

How so?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

5) It disproportionately impacts those who have less money (i.e. less estate planning advice) or who are unaware of the inheritance.

There are very very few taxes for which this isn't the case.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not as black-and-white as saying you get a million Euro in cash. That never happens.

Siblings inherit their parents' home with some cash and they are forced to sell it to cover the tax bill to give money to the government for doing nothing.

They sell the house, true, but its not like the entirely of the sale price goes to the government in taxes, the inheritors still receive a large cash windfall.

Why is money going to the government for doing nothing bad if it is good for individuals?

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nobody believes in excessive wealth redistribution. It's a question of how you define 'excessive' and if you believe in wealth distribution.

Presently, if I inherit up to 310k then I pay no tax. Under your proposal of, say a flat 10%, I would be paying 31k. Given that the vast majority of people won't inherit more than 310k, your proposal would only benefit a small minority.

You assumed 10% flat was what I suggested. I don't believe I know of a Western country that does not have an exclusion amount.


For example, the US Federal exclusion is almost €5.5m after which you pay 40%, but in calculating your gross estate you can (for most of the States and DC that have inheritance/estate tax) deduct that tax from your federal gross.

listermint

Radiosonde wrote: »

No offense, but perhaps you aren't a good judge of the value of academic qualifications?

Good part-time postgraduate courses that won't conflict with a full time job are rare. Most part-time masters programs involve daytime classes during the week.

No offence, but that is just not true. I come from the IT industry and part time post grads are bread and butter.

You simply cannot afford to take a year or 2 years out of the industry if you want to keep current with whats going on. And educational courses do not trend with current technologies.

So please, if i see another person on here suggest that at any point i suggest that education should not be pursued then by all means show me an example. Because it is just demonstrating the level of reading ability is a tad sub par because between yourself head the ball slippers and capistan you all appear to think i suggested the OP doesn't get a masters or that it is somehow pointless, i did not that is just tosh.


The OP needs to work and yes the OP needs to further his education. Choosing one of the other will set them back. Choosing both together means a golden CV and is top of the pile.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You assumed 10% flat was what I suggested. I don't believe I know of a Western country that does not have an exclusion amount.


For example, the US Federal exclusion is almost €5.5m after which you pay 40%, but in calculating your gross estate you can (for most of the States and DC that have inheritance/estate tax) deduct that tax from your federal gross.

Well, it wasn't an assumption as you said: "...some form of flat estate tax payable by each beneficiary. 5-10% sounds fair as I said above."

So what exactly do you mean by a flat tax and what amount should be excluded?

FreudianSlippers

RedPandaDan wrote: »

How so? Would it change if I was best mates with my granduncle and hadn't spoken to my parents in 20 years?

No, it shouldn't - there should not be different rates for different relationships (see "distortion" point below)

So you accept its unearned money. Why should unearned income be given preferential tax treatment to that of the earned income of people who work for a living?

It is not income, it is a gift. There is a big difference in economics and taxation. By taxing gifts, you are inherently giving a dis-benefit to both the gift giver and receiver. It has zero impact on the "people who work for a living" - I'm not sure how it could?

Most sources of income have already been taxed already (customers in shops have paid income tax and yet must also pay vat, that company pays tax on income, staff pay PAYE, and that same taxed income pays for car tax, etc.)

VAT is not income tax. I would wholeheartedly favour abolishing income tax in favour of higher VAT rates.

There is nothing about inheritance that should afford it special tax treatment.

There is nothing about inheritance that should not afford it special tax treatment. It is not income, it is not sale of goods.

Preventing the formation of dynastic wealth is a positive thing.

...and inheritance tax does nothing to stop that. It disproportionately impacts poorer people inheriting when compared to the rich.

But, lets pretend it isn't for a moment: How is taxing someone who receives large amounts of money from other people, having done no useful work to earn it, punishing success?

Who says they have done no useful work? You make a lot of assumptions here that don't seem to hold weight.

By that argument, why should farmers be able to effectively escape all inheritance tax by the sole rationale that they're farmers?

How so?

It's an economic definition. It should be clear.

There are very very few taxes for which this isn't the case.

So... we just shrug it off I guess?

They sell the house, true, but its not like the entirely of the sale price goes to the government in taxes, the inheritors still receive a large cash windfall.

If this is your mindset, I don't know what to say. I'm just glad the leftist ilk aren't in power in Ireland. If it's this bad now, I wouldn't like to see the alternative.

Why is money going to the government for doing nothing bad if it is good for individuals?

It's not good for individuals. It's double-taxation by the government.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry, but CAT is insane in Ireland. I can understand a 5% or even 10% estate tax, but 33% on everything over €300k is bonkers; especially when you see what the farmers get away with!

The rate of 33% is too high but there are too many exemptions. A rate of 20% across the board would be fair enough with no exemptions for any inheritance.

If someone inherits a free house, it isn't much to ask them to take out a 20% mortgage to pay the inheritance tax. If they can't afford that, sell and downsize.

FreudianSlippers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, it wasn't an assumption as you said: "...some form of flat estate tax payable by each beneficiary. 5-10% sounds fair as I said above."

So what exactly do you mean by a flat tax and what amount should be excluded?

It was an assumption. You assumed I was suggesting there would be an abolition of the exemption.

The exemption is currently €310k for children, so let's keep that for everyone with the flat 10%. That would be significantly less distortionary for a start.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

The rate of 33% is too high but there are too many exemptions. A rate of 20% across the board would be fair enough with no exemptions for any inheritance.

If someone inherits a free house, it isn't much to ask them to take out a 20% mortgage to pay the inheritance tax. If they can't afford that, sell and downsize.

That would be economically preferable still to different exemptions for different relatives.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It was an assumption. You assumed I was suggesting there would be an abolition of the exemption.

The exemption is currently €310k for children, so let's keep that for everyone with the flat 10%. That would be significantly less distortionary for a start.

Ok. So reducing the rate by 23% and applying the exemption to everyone would seriously reduce income from inheritance tax. This will greatly benefit wealthier people and as you haven't offered an alternative form of wealth distribution as I asked, nor will you define 'excessive', then I must assume you don't believe in wealth redistribution. A valid position but not one I would take.

RayCun

Why shouldn't unearned income be taxed?

I've heard plenty of arguments about income tax being a disincentive to work. This is the opposite situation. Inheritance tax is not a disincentive to inherit. It is not a brake on economic activity.

It is money you get for having the right parents. Why should it be exempt?

RedPandaDan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It is not income, it is a gift. There is a big difference in economics and taxation. By taxing gifts, you are inherently giving a dis-benefit to both the gift giver and receiver. It has zero impact on the "people who work for a living" - I'm not sure how it could?

If people who are working for their money are being taxed at a higher rate than those who are getting money "just because", they are being treated worse for no adequately explained reason.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

VAT is not income tax. I would wholeheartedly favour abolishing income tax in favour of higher VAT rates.

The point being that all money that some party gives another has been taxed somewhere along the line, inheritance isn't any different in that regard.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is nothing about inheritance that should not afford it special tax treatment. It is not income, it is not sale of goods.

But it absolutely is income. If I inherit from someone, I now have money I didn't have yesterday. What else could you possibly call that?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

...and inheritance tax does nothing to stop that. It disproportionately impacts poorer people inheriting when compared to the rich.

You said earlier that inheritence tax "penalises success and wealth;" Which is it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Who says they have done no useful work? You make a lot of assumptions here that don't seem to hold weight.

If they had done something to earn the money, it wouldn't be a gift now would it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

By that argument, why should farmers be able to effectively escape all inheritance tax by the sole rationale that they're farmers?

Honestly, they probably shouldn't, but having a farming sector is necessary so its an inefficiency we have to live with.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So... we just shrug it off I guess?

I'm saying that we can argue against almost every tax if we take the approach that someone will work around it. Good policy is not the enemy of perfect policy.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If this is your mindset, I don't know what to say. I'm just glad the leftist ilk aren't in power in Ireland. If it's this bad now, I wouldn't like to see the alternative.

I know, people paying tax on income. Terrible isn't it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not good for individuals. It's double-taxation by the government.

Sorry, I think we have miscommunicated on this point. I'm asking why is it problem that the government receives money from an inheritance tax ("money to the government for doing nothing") whereas an individual receiving money from an inheritance, money for doing nothing, is something to be given preferential treatment?

NovemberJersey

There's a lot of talk about inheritance tax going on here… I'm a farmer, I own 250 acres and my farm is worth €2,500,000. My son will eventually go on to get the farm tax free off me once he's under the age of 35 when I sign it over… That farm has been in my family since the 1820's, we held onto it during the famine and many a financial crash in the last couple hundred years and even the Black and Tans never tossed us out onto the road but the economists on this website here want to do exactly that, if even a 20% inheritance tax rate (or CAT if I gave it to him while I was still alive) was slapped on the farm when I handed it to my son he'd have to sell the farm to come up with the money to give to the revenue, everyone thinks farmers are multi millionaires. Sure I've got an asset worth a couple million euro but my son shouldn't have to sell it when he inherits it just so the government can send some dolers on another few sun holidays. The money isn't there in farming anymore - I just wanted to clear that up because people seem to be under the impression that if your a farmer money grows on trees for you and that then makes it okay to tax us out of business.

Inheritance tax and CGT are a sick joke… whats the first thing wealthy people do with their money? They invest it. What do people sometimes like to do with their investments when they increase in value? Sell them. I was just about able to stomach CGT at 20% but 33% is what some would call extortion. I work every day of my life and I haven't been on an aeroplane since 2008, I look around and see tonnes of these people who are living off social welfare touring the world and I often ask myself why do I even bother.

I'd say a lot of people here who want inheritance tax to be up around the 100% mark had parents who potentially through no fault of their own had nothing to pass on which is fine but a lot of them also would've had parents who spent their time sitting up on bar stools drunk while my own father was up at 5am working so he could hold onto our farm and eventually pass it onto me. The main reason I work so hard is for my children so they can gain out of it. It's only fair my children get to gain from my hard work, who do ye want to gain from it, some fella who's never worked, has about 15 children and will use his extra social welfare money to buy a 65' TV instead of the 60' TV he has already?

RayCun

NovemberJersey wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about inheritance tax going on here… I'm a farmer, I own 250 acres and my farm is worth €2,500,000.

Even if there were no exemptions for farms...

If it is worth €2,500,000 the annual income must be sizable.
If he has a large annual income and an extremely expensive asset as security, your son should have no problem getting a mortgage to pay the tax bill.

Funny how the same people who give out about idlers and scroungers want some people to get money for nothing

Idbatterim

Even if there were no exemptions for farms...

If it is worth €2,500,000 the annual income must be sizable.
If he has a large annual income and an extremely expensive asset as security, your son should have no problem getting a mortgage to pay the tax bill.

Funny how the same people who give out about idlers and scroungers want some people to get money for nothing

Id have the son receive it with 0 inheritance tax or CGT etc, before Id have a cent given to the wasters...

NovemberJersey

RayCun wrote: »

Even if there were no exemptions for farms...

If it is worth €2,500,000 the annual income must be sizable.
If he has a large annual income and an extremely expensive asset as security, your son should have no problem getting a mortgage to pay the tax bill.

Funny how the same people who give out about idlers and scroungers want some people to get money for nothing

It's not money for nothing. It's our ****ing farm. Type dairy farming into google and have a read for 5 minutes and you'll see how badly off farmers are. The land is disproportionately valued in comparison to what's to be made out of it, that's the easier way to describe the conundrum

Professor Moriarty

NovemberJersey wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about inheritance tax going on here… I'm a farmer, I own 250 acres and my farm is worth €2,500,000. My son will eventually go on to get the farm tax free off me once he's under the age of 35 when I sign it over… That farm has been in my family since the 1820's, we held onto it during the famine and many a financial crash in the last couple hundred years and even the Black and Tans never tossed us out onto the road but the economists on this website here want to do exactly that, if even a 20% inheritance tax rate (or CAT if I gave it to him while I was still alive) was slapped on the farm when I handed it to my son he'd have to sell the farm to come up with the money to give to the revenue, everyone thinks farmers are multi millionaires. Sure I've got an asset worth a couple million euro but my son shouldn't have to sell it when he inherits it just so the government can send some dolers on another few sun holidays. The money isn't there in farming anymore - I just wanted to clear that up because people seem to be under the impression that if your a farmer money grows on trees for you and that then makes it okay to tax us out of business.

Inheritance tax and CGT are a sick joke… whats the first thing wealthy people do with their money? They invest it. What do people sometimes like to do with their investments when they increase in value? Sell them. I was just about able to stomach CGT at 20% but 33% is what some would call extortion. I work every day of my life and I haven't been on an aeroplane since 2008, I look around and see tonnes of these people who are living off social welfare touring the world and I often ask myself why do I even bother.

2500,000? That's an awful lot of money to most people but perspective is everything. To be honest, I couldn't give a crap about your family history. The republic wasn't formed to keep your farm in your family.

20% wealth tax every generation isn't "tossing" you or your family "onto the road". If you can't make enough money out of your farm to go on an aeroplane, then realise your asset and do something more profitable.

NovemberJersey

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

2500,000? That's an awful lot of money to most people but perspective is everything. To be honest, I couldn't give a crap about your family history. The republic wasn't formed to keep your farm in your family.

20% wealth tax every generation isn't "tossing" you or your family "onto the road". If you can't make enough money out of your farm to go on an aeroplane, then realise your asset and do something more profitable.

I suppose your not used to counting millions of euros but it's €2,500,000 not "2500,000" as you said.

Was reading through the posts there and your name kept cropping up. I hope you don't take offence but you shouldn't be so narrow minded and hateful. Nobody can make money out of farming at the moment, have a quick look through Google and you'll see that, what are all us farmers suppose to do, are we all suppose to sell our land is it?

Also, what do you work as or am I correct in presuming you don't work? You seemed to have all day long anyway to keep posting on this thread while I was busy working.

RayCun

NovemberJersey wrote: »

It's not money for nothing. It's our ****ing farm

It's your farm.

You want your son to get it for nothing. No purchase price, no tax paid, nothing.

You want someone to get an asset that costs over two million euro, for no work, no money, no tax - nothing of his own merits, just his luck to be born into your family.

He doesn't have to do anything of benefit to society, the taxpayer, the country, but he should get a fortune tax free.

And then probably go online to complain about scroungers on the dole.

NovemberJersey

RayCun wrote: »

It's your farm.

You want your son to get it for nothing. No purchase price, no tax paid, nothing.

You want someone to get an asset that costs over two million euro, for no work, no money, no tax - nothing of his own merits, just his luck to be born into your family.

He doesn't have to do anything of benefit to society, the taxpayer, the country, but he should get a fortune tax free.

And then probably go online to complain about scroungers on the dole.

Let's get one thing straight, it's not that I want my son to get the farm tax free - he is going to get it tax free as per the law of the land.

And yes he is getting it for free because he's my son, then he can work it for the next 40 years producing food at cost price for the masses and paying over half his profits in tax and then he can hand it onto his son and on it goes. Talk to any farmers or landowners you know, a flat rate of 20% inheritance tax would have us importing a lot of our food before long as the farmers would get taxed out of existence