Dublin men to marry to avoid inheritance tax

Cee-Jay-Cee

Good for them! Fück the government.

splinter65

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Good for them! Fück the government.

**** the citizens you mean.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

splinter65 wrote: »

**** the citizens you mean.

No, the govenrnment. Not like citizens were ever going to see a red cent of it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

splinter65 wrote: »

**** the citizens you mean.

No. They’re not doing me or you or anyone else out of anything. It’s absolutely galling to think that someone pays taxes on everything they earn, they pay tax on their savings and then the government tax the hell out of it when it’s left to someone else. The government have had more than their fare share of it at that stage so fück them abd more power to anyone who finds ways around the them screwing the country out of more money/tax.

splinter65

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, the govenrnment. Not like citizens were ever going to see a red cent of it.

Did you go to school?

splinter65

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

No. They’re not doing me or you or anyone else out of anything. It’s absolutely galling to think that someone pays taxes on everything they earn, they pay tax on their savings and then the government tax the hell out of it when it’s left to someone else. The government have had more than their fare share of it at that stage so fück them abd more power to anyone who finds ways around the them screwing the country out of more money/tax.

Where did the government get the money to pay the doctors and nurses on duty tonight in the hospital you would be taken to if you needed it tonight?

dxhound2005

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

No. They’re not doing me or you or anyone else out of anything. It’s absolutely galling to think that someone pays taxes on everything they earn, they pay tax on their savings and then the government tax the hell out of it when it’s left to someone else. The government have had more than their fare share of it at that stage so fück them abd more power to anyone who finds ways around the them screwing the country out of more money/tax.

That's wild funny, sir.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

They used the law, that is what it is there for.

Marriage as a concept would be better off being abolished.
We have enough technology that marriage as a concept for financial benefits is not needed.
Single people shouldn't be financially worse off for being single.

btw I know a lot of people like having the state regulating love...

NollagShona

They are committing fraud and have admitted as much

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dxhound2005

RobertKK wrote: »

We have enough technology that marriage as a concept for financial benefits is not needed.

I have no idea what that means.

grumpy_mick

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

A 420,000 house will not be hit with 100,000 in tax maybe roughly 30,000 but it depends on each case. 100,000 is way off though

i know that , i meant within the context of a hefty hike in inheritance tax as some are salivating over

NollagShona

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes they are. See my earlier quoted tweet

Cee-Jay-Cee

NollagShona wrote: »

They are committing fraud and have admitted as much

Don’t talk shíte! Where in the laws governing fraud does it say that two people can’t get married? There is no law or rule that states people getting married must love each other or be attracted to each other so kindly point out where the fraud is being committed!

anewme

Geuze wrote: »

My parents are fairly typical, they have maybe 500-600k assets.

But with three adult children, the CAT will be nil.

The majority of people never pay CAT, as the gift or inheritance is below the limit.

I’m single, no children and will probably leave assets worth in the region of 500- 600k to my sister and 2 nieces. Single people get no breaks.

Having been a PAYE and only a PAYE worker all my life, it sickens me that tax will be charged again on my after tax income. This is mine. I’ve paid tax, it should be mine to do what I like with, even if that means give it away.

I don’t believe it equals up society at all, those multi millionaires with lawyers and tax advisors pay for tax avoidance structures.

This is a case again where ms. Middle income earner gets fleeced. We pay for everything in this country. Those above little, those below pay nothing, but we pay Everything.
I’ll spend it on strippers and cocaine even if I’m on a zimmer frame rather than give the government money again.

Fair fcks to the two lads in the Op,

splinter65

NollagShona wrote: »

They are committing fraud and have admitted as much

There is tax avoidance which is completely legal, and then there is fraud which obviously is illegal.
Getting married to get tax breaks is tax avoidance, not fraud.
It’s been happening for a long long time.

dxhound2005

NollagShona wrote: »

Yes they are. See my earlier quoted tweet

It's not a matter for Revenue. It's a matter for the Registrar & Superintendent Registrar. Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2014 was commenced in Aug. 2015, it amends s.58 of the Civil Registration Act 2004, prohibiting marriages of convenience. You're completely wrong here.


That tweet is off the mark. The regulation it refers to is concerned with sham marriages where one or both parties are foreign national. There is no law to stop two Irish citizens marrying, provided they are old enough and are not already married to another person.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

anewme wrote: »

Geuze wrote: »

My parents are fairly typical, they have maybe 500-600k assets.

But with three adult children, the CAT will be nil.

The majority of people never pay CAT, as the gift or inheritance is below the limit.

I’m single, no children and will probably leave assets worth in the region of 500- 600k to my sister and 2 nieces. Single people get no breaks.

Having been a PAYE and only a PAYE worker all my life, it sickens me that tax will be charged again on my after tax income. This is mine. I’ve paid tax, it should be mine to do what I like with, even if that means give it away.

I don’t believe it equals up society at all, those multi millionaires with lawyers and tax advisors pay for tax avoidance structures.

This is a case again where ms. Middle income earner gets fleeced. We pay for everything in this country. Those above little, those below pay nothing, but we pay Everything.
I’ll spend it on strippers and cocaine even if I’m on a zimmer frame rather than give the government money again.

Fair fcks to the two lads in the Op,

This world make no difference whether you or they were married.

anewme

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This world make no difference whether you or they were married.

If they are paying less tax by getting married, then it’s a huge difference to those involved.

wrangler

anewme wrote: »

I’m single, no children and will probably leave assets worth in the region of 500- 600k to my sister and 2 nieces. Single people get no breaks.

Having been a PAYE and only a PAYE worker all my life, it sickens me that tax will be charged again on my after tax income. This is mine. I’ve paid tax, it should be mine to do what I like with, even if that means give it away.

I don’t believe it equals up society at all, those multi millionaires with lawyers and tax advisors pay for tax avoidance structures.

This is a case again where ms. Middle income earner gets fleeced. We pay for everything in this country. Those above little, those below pay nothing, but we pay Everything.
I’ll spend it on strippers and cocaine even if I’m on a zimmer frame rather than give the government money again.

Fair fcks to the two lads in the Op,

You're dead right, those that are supposed to look after us will just waste it anyway.
We've no children either and anything we leave will be taxed to the hilt.....great incentive to waste it ourselves

raze_them_all_

The very idea of inheritance tax is a joke. So someone earns money all their life, pays tax on it, buys a house, pays stamp duty aka a tax, pays property tax, then they leave it to the or kid/kids and the ****ers want to tax it again

dxhound2005

wrangler wrote: »

You're dead right, those that are supposed to look after us will just waste it anyway.
We've no children either and anything we leave will be taxed to the hilt.....great incentive to waste it ourselves

Best advice so far. Don't turn into grumpy old people worrying about what will happen their fortune when they are gone.

splinter65

anewme wrote: »

If they are paying less tax by getting married, then it’s a huge difference to those involved.

Every married couple in employment pay less tax then an unmarried couple in similar circumstances.

anewme

splinter65 wrote: »

Every married couple in employment pay less tax then an unmarried couple in similar circumstances.

I know that, but it would not have ever crossed my mind to look at it they way these gents have.

Good on em

dxhound2005

anewme wrote: »

I know that, but it would not have ever crossed my mind to look at it they way these gents have.

Good on em

It comes with maturity. When you get to 85.

anewme

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It comes with maturity. When you get to 85.

I am saved so, once I don’t croak at 84

dxhound2005

I hope Matt lives to be 100.

anewme

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I hope Matt lives to be 100.

Fair play to him to want to look after his best friend for 30 years, who has probably cared for him better than some sons care for their father, more power to them.

baylah17

Dr Brown wrote: »

This is one of the reasons I didn't vote for same sex marriage.

It was inevitable people would use it to avoid paying tax but anyone who tried to say this around the time of the referendum would been branded a "homophobe" by the PC brigade.

I said at the time that same sex marriage would cost the tax payer millions of euro in lost tax.




https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1215/927697-tax-marriage/

Two men who have been 'best friends' for 29 years have announced they are to get married next month in Co Tipperary.
While that in itself is not an unusual development, the story is made more interesting by the fact neither man is gay.
Michael O'Sullivan has been best friends with his 85-year-old neighbour Matt for almost three decades, and is now his carer.
Speaking on RTÉ's Liveline on Radio 1, Mr O'Sullivan said that Matt told him he was planning on leaving his house in Dublin's Stoneybatter to him when he died.
Mr O'Sullivan said this posed a potential problem as "because of tax reasons I'd have to pay half of that to the Government" in Capital Acquisitions Tax.
However, people who are married or in civil partnerships are exempt from Capital Acquisitions Tax on items of inheritance from their partner.
Speaking on the same programme, Matt said "he's my best friend, we're getting married so whatever I have in my home he can have."
The pair had planned on getting married on 22 December in Co Tipperary, but say that due to weather conditions the nuptials may be postponed until January.

This is a great advert for equality
A heterosexual couple are free to exploit tax loopholes but the small minded think it should be exclusive to them?

splinter65

baylah17 wrote: »

This is a great advert for equality
A heterosexual couple are free to exploit tax loopholes but the small minded think it should be exclusive to them?

No I think it’s that people had no idea that not all marriages start out with a gooey eyed pair who can’t keep their hands off one another.
Up till quite recently farming Ireland was ridden with arranged marriages between farming families often with considerable age gaps between the spouses.
Very little romance involved.

dxhound2005

There is no reference in marriage law to romantic love. Marriage is a legal contract designed mainly to regulate the transfer of property between generations. It goes back hundreds of years. This is the 1844 version, later transposed into our legislation.

http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/View?path=Browse/Legislation%20(by%20date)&active=yes&mno=4047

Geuze

splinter65 wrote: »

Every married couple in employment pay less tax then an unmarried couple in similar circumstances.

This statement is false.

If two workers earning 40k each marry, their tax will not change.

If a worker marries a non-worker, then yes, the worker's tax will fall.

splinter65

Geuze wrote: »

This statement is false.

If two workers earning 40k each marry, their tax will not change.

If a worker marries a non-worker, then yes, the worker's tax will fall.

That’s why I said “in similar circumstances “.
If the same couple decided to co habit instead of marrying then the workers tax will not fall.

server down

baylah17 wrote: »

This is a great advert for equality
A heterosexual couple are free to exploit tax loopholes but the small minded think it should be exclusive to them?

Well 1) this isn’t a loophole and 2) they are heterosexual. That’s the story.

Fair play to them anyway.

RayM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note:
RayM banned from posting on this thread.

Buford T. Justice.

From a brief-but-enlightening PM exchange with Buford T. Justice V this evening, I learned that calling a very obvious racist a 'racist' and suggesting, because of his homophobic thread, that he might also (shock-horror) be a homophobe, is a breach of the curiously arbitrary "don't be a dick" rule (something that has always struck me as akin to making the rules up as you go along).

It's a real shame that the "don't be a dick" rule can't be extended to cover racism, because really, really bad moderation seems to be turning AH into a sort of weird Stormfront-lite, overrun with nasty, humourless little far-right malcontents, with an unpleasant, unkind opinion for every topic.

*drops mic*

*picks mic back up, checks that it's not damaged and puts it back in its stand*

*shuffles off awkwardly*

Mod-Banned.

amtc

I was born april 5, my friend april 4, my cousin april 6 (but registered as april 5).... in the time when the tax ran from april 6. We were all induced to come out before the end of the tax year so parents got refunds!

Is that tax fraud? Was suggested by consultant in all cases.

Btw I'm an only child. No cousins. Nada. Two parents. No children. I'm in for a tax bill!

riffmongous

RayM wrote: »

From a brief-but-enlightening PM exchange with Buford T. Justice V this evening, I learned that calling a very obvious racist a 'racist' and suggesting, because of his homophobic thread, that he might also (shock-horror) be a homophobe, is a breach of the curiously arbitrary "don't be a dick" rule (something that has always struck me as akin to making the rules up as you go along).

It's a real shame that the "don't be a dick" rule can't be extended to cover racism, because really, really bad moderation seems to be turning AH into a sort of weird Stormfront-lite, overrun with nasty, humourless little far-right malcontents, with an unpleasant, unkind opinion for every topic.

*drops mic*

*picks mic back up, checks that it's not damaged and puts it back in its stand*

*shuffles off awkwardly*

Maybe see you over on Reddit Ray!

animaal

Gbear wrote: »

The only questions are whether all are taxed equitably and whether the things the tax is for are worth taking money out of people's pockets to support.

I agree with the second part, not so much with the first.

I don't think the money gathered through taxation is well spent.
I also don't think there's a correct definition of what's equitable taxation. Depending on one's leanings, it might be:

- The same absolute amount of tax from everybody
- The same percentage from everybody
- Whatever amount leaves everybody with the same net income

or something completely different.

I also think it's wrong to impose heavy taxes on a group just because the govt can get away with it. It's no different to removing state supports just because they can get away with it (e.g. carers)

dxhound2005

Is it equitable for taxpayers who never use Dublin Bus to have to subsidise every journey made on that service? Would it not be better to charge the economic fare and give the money saved to carers?

Geuze

I'm happy to see people discussing tax.

CAT is an interesting tax.

Socialists call for a 100% CAT to equalise every child.

Others point to the massive disincentive effects of a 100% inheritance tax.

Look for a YouTube video of a young Micheal Moore asking question about inheritance tax.

animaal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Is it equitable for taxpayers who never use Dublin Bus to have to subsidise every journey made on that service? Would it not be better to charge the economic fare and give the money saved to carers?

I think it's a valid argument. But I think a stronger argument is that it's a relatively small issue; in the bigger overall picture, the Dublin area subsidises the rest of the country.

Geuze

Discussion about CAT seems to bring out people's key philosophies about how society should be arranged.

kippy

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Seriously?

They have openly admitted they are only doing it to avoid tax.

I dont see the issue with this so long as it's a legal method of doing so - which it appears to be.
Multinationals avoid tax legally all the time, as do individuals by using pensions etc to legally avoid paying a portion of tax.

dxhound2005

animaal wrote: »

I think it's a valid argument. But I think a stronger argument is that it's a relatively small issue; in the bigger overall picture, the Dublin area subsidises the rest of the country.

But it's nearly all country people doing the work in Dublin and paying the taxes there.

bilbot79

I don't believe this is the reason you voted against. I'd say you're a bit homophobic

animaal

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But it's nearly all country people doing the work in Dublin and paying the taxes there.

Over 1,000,000 people live in the Dublin city & suburbs. They pay higher property tax to subsidise the rest of the country. They pay higher average income taxes to subsidise the rest of the country. They pay higher parking charges and rates to provide services for their area.

Where they spent their childhoods isn't relevant.

kippy

animaal wrote: »

Over 1,000,000 people live in the Dublin city & suburbs. They pay higher property tax to subsidise the rest of the country. They pay higher average income taxes to subsidise the rest of the country. They pay higher parking charges and rates to provide services for their area.

Where they spent their childhoods isn't relevant.

Not sure what any of the points being made are here.
This is pretty standard type stuff all across the developed world.

animaal

kippy wrote: »

Not sure what any of the points being made are here.
This is pretty standard type stuff all across the developed world.

Agreed.

It was in response to the question:

Is it equitable for taxpayers who never use Dublin Bus to have to subsidise every journey made on that service?

server down

kippy wrote: »

Not sure what any of the points being made are here.
This is pretty standard type stuff all across the developed world.

Agree. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. In fact in many countries the cities also pay for their own infrastructure.