Cut to child benifit for people earning over 100k to help fund childcare

Wanderer78

fits in nicely here, me thinks!;)

VinLieger

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly, its all well and good to coldy describe it as "they inherited wealth" or calling it "an income they didnt earn" but to the children they inherited their parents house that their parents spent their lives making a home, they grew up in it and loved it all their lives, however they have no hope of keeping it in the family due to the tax cost so immediately have to sell it.

Many people might easily see it as a betrayal or a failure on their part to their parents to so quickly be selling the house.

Saying it shouldn't be an emotive issue is ignoring the realities of the situation and pretty cold tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

50k CAT would be a property worth 460k.

If an individual inherits a house and you qualify for this relief, then you do not have to pay CAT on the value of the inheritance if:
The property was the main home of the disponer (person that died)
Beneficiary lived in property as main residence for 3 years before persons death
Individual does not own or have interest in another dwelling house
Individual must live in the property for 6 years after receiving inheritance

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

Many places can have sentimental meaning but if you are still living there for the last 3 years you're all clear.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

maybe the issue is far more complex than this, maybe theres something fundamentally wrong with our financial and economic systems, causing the rise in the cost of living? the government and ultimately democracy cant always be the villain!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who's the left? It's not me anyway.

You could equally argue that "the right" has no problem being non-supportive of the "most vulnerable in society" but ask for sympathy when it comes to affairs of taxation. There's a reason it's called white collar crime, it's like regular crime but only for rich people.


Some people might have sympathy, some people might not....

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't you argue that everyone, even the lowest paid workers in Ireland should pay some form of income tax?

They ain't super wealthy either, and I'd imagine most would be delighted with 310k tax free.

What actual reform to the inheritance/CAT situation are you looking for?

facehugger99

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But the question remains - why should you have to pay the state for something which has already been bought and paid for?

Why should you have to pay tax on anything?

Because the State needs money to run services obviously.

What should be taxed and at what rates is an argument that everyone has an opinion on. I don't seen any issue with inheritance being one of the sources the State taxes to revenue-raise and I think the current thresholds are reasonable. I also don't have any issues in principle with property tax or water charges.

I'm a firm believer in broadening the tax base as much as possible. I think even low earners should be brought into the income tax net albeit at a low level.

There's far too much dependence on cyclical taxes in this country which leave us vulnerable to downturns. There's also far too many political parties that sell different brands of populism, wanting to be all things to all men (and women). But the Irish political parties are mainly a reflection of the short-term desires of the electorate.

As I say, I'm to the right of the political spectrum. And I stand to be taxed on inheritance when my parents pass away and quite likely on the other side when I bequeath to my kids. But I also recognize that life is about more than the personal accumulation of wealth and the society that my kids will live in is important. That society needs to be funded.

I'd be happy to pay more tax if it could go into health services, education infrastructure and amenities but like most of the electorate I don't trust that it wouldn't be gobbled up by the narrow self-interest groups or spent on vanity and populist projects by the gombeens we elect.




Can't remember what my point was but sometimes you just need to offload.

BrokenArrows

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Small bit of childrens allowance trivia -

A mate of mine just had twins.

You get paid for 3 kids if you have twins. Not sure why?

Probably just generally more expensive to have two babies at the same time.
All costs are doubled which puts extra strain on your regular income. Child care doesn't cover everything.

2 car seats, double the amount of clothes, food and doctors bills.
Travel and child care.
Stress.

um7y1h83ge06nx

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/it-doesnt-matter-if-your-child-lives-on-a-farm-in-donegal-or-a-mansion-in-donnybrook-everyone-should-get-child-benefit-36985782.html

The headline - 'It doesn't matter if your child lives on a farm in Donegal or a mansion in Donnybrook - everyone should get child benefit'

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Can anyone explain what Ibec and / or Siptu would gain from their suggestion?

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wouldnt be quite so sure left wing politicos are in favour of inheritance tax either.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mixed-response-over-plan-to-cut-inheritance-tax-bills-1.2648419?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fmixed-response-over-plan-to-cut-inheritance-tax-bills-1.2648419

I think RBB might be in favour of a cut to it, I need to find a better link.

Colonel Claptrap

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Can anyone explain what Ibec and / or Siptu would gain from their suggestion?

Media headlines.

It's quiet season in the industrial relations calendar.

They're just reminding us they exist.

djan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

fits in nicely here, me thinks!;)

This is quite frankly a ridiculously misleading video. First of all America as we know it showed the most progress under very neoliberalist models of the wild west era. Subsequent crashes were mostly caused by extreme bail outs and permanent printing of money.

The world (western) that we live in now is leaning much more to communist socialist tendencies of trying to redistribute the wealth at a huge cost to efficiency and development. The EU is a great example of this. What started as a trade agreement framework has turned into a political communistic machine.

In my opinion, there is no need for any new narratives but only for there to be guaranteed ownership of assets, immediate halting of quantitative easing etc (go back to the gold standard) and a free market which has, as history has shown promoted the highest growth in both economic and social measures.

Wanderer78

djan wrote: »

This is quite frankly a ridiculously misleading video. First of all America as we know it showed the most progress under very neoliberalist models of the wild west era. Subsequent crashes were mostly caused by extreme bail outs and permanent printing of money.

The world (western) that we live in now is leaning much more to communist socialist tendencies of trying to redistribute the wealth at a huge cost to efficiency and development. The EU is a great example of this. What started as a trade agreement framework has turned into a political communistic machine.

In my opinion, there is no need for any new narratives but only for there to be guaranteed ownership of assets, immediate halting of quantitative easing etc (go back to the gold standard) and a free market which has, as history has shown promoted the highest growth in both economic and social measures.

no such thing as a free market, anywhere on this planet, as all markets are subject to rules and regulations. neoclassical theory and its subsequent models such as dsge models continually fail to foresee bubbles as these models are based on the idea, particularly at the macro level, of continually moving towards 'equilibrium', upon reaching equilibrium, effectively, all humans behave rational, hence the term 'rational expectations', the only problem is, there is in fact no such thing as a rational human being.

Geuze

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Probably just generally more expensive to have two babies at the same time.
All costs are doubled which puts extra strain on your regular income. Child care doesn't cover everything.

2 car seats, double the amount of clothes, food and doctors bills.
Travel and child care.
Stress.

Costs are doubled, yes.

But you get triple CB.

I propose a grant for multiple birth, to cover the extra cot, car seats, etc.

But triple CB for 18 years seems too generous.

Geuze

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I wouldnt be quite so sure left wing politicos are in favour of inheritance tax either.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mixed-response-over-plan-to-cut-inheritance-tax-bills-1.2648419?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fmixed-response-over-plan-to-cut-inheritance-tax-bills-1.2648419

I think RBB might be in favour of a cut to it, I need to find a better link.

We have an odd bunch of left-wing politicians in Ireland.

They are against property taxes, even though the LPT is a wealth tax.

Surely they should be for wealth taxes, as most socialists are?

And now you show that RBB is for a cut in CAT...!!!!!????

NotTotallySure

Geuze wrote: »

Costs are doubled, yes.

But you get triple CB.

I propose a grant for multiple birth, to cover the extra cot, car seats, etc.

But triple CB for 18 years seems too generous.

There was a grant for multiples for this reason but Joan Burton abolished it as Minister for Social Protection in 2012.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/special-benefit-for-twins-expected-to-be-abolished-in-budget-1.559515?mode=amp

Colonel Claptrap

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no such thing as a free market, anywhere on this planet, as all markets are subject to rules and regulations. neoclassical theory and its subsequent models such as dsge models continually fail to foresee bubbles as these models are based on the idea, particularly at the macro level, of continually moving towards 'equilibrium', upon reaching equilibrium, effectively, all humans behave rational, hence the term 'rational expectations', the only problem is, there is in fact no such thing as a rational human being.

Which is why the very first assumption in the model is that humans behave rationally.

It's a supposition and completely theoretical. Nobody in economics has he ever said it is to be taken as gospel.

Your crusade to provide enlightenment for us mere mortal boards users is getting old very fast.

It's like listening to a broken record.

Wanderer78

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Which is why the very first assumption in the model is that humans behave rationally.

It's a supposition and completely theoretical. Nobody in economics has he ever said it is to be taken as gospel.

Your crusade to provide enlightenment for us mere mortal boards users is getting old very fast.

It's like listening to a broken record.

once again, boards has as an ignore function, may i suggest you use it and ignore my posts, thank you.

dsge models are more or less accepted as gospel

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, its clearly obvious, that the neoliberial/neoclassical economic ideology is the most predominate one in the western world, including ireland.

You mean the economic polices that make the western world the best place to be on earth, that ideology?

Wanderer78

markodaly wrote: »

You mean the economic polices that make the western world the best place to be on earth, that ideology?

... the extent of the delusion!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

hearing about how good libertarian ideologies from such believers, is rather boring also!

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

... the extent of the delusion!

Where is the best place to live then?

Where do you want to live?

Wanderer78

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Where is the best place to live then?

Where do you want to live?

ireland isnt too bad of a country, ive been to far worse

sbsquarepants

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why should you have to pay tax on anything?

Because the State needs money to run services obviously..

I've no problem with that - my issue is why should it be paid multiple times.

You say you stand to inherit money (lucky you!) why should the state take a chunk of that and spend it on someone else - your parents have already paid that tax?

facehugger99 wrote: »

Can't remember what my point was but sometimes you just need to offload.

I do like a good auld rant myself sometimes!

ted1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As a dad of twin girls born in late 2016, I would agree with this.

There's quite a bit of extra initial outlay -- as people mentioned, you need two car seats, two cribs, two strollers (or a double stroller), etc.

After that, though, the cost of twins is not that much different than for two kids relatively close in age.

Therefore, I'd favor either a one-time grant or triple child benefit for the first year only.

Giving 50% extra child benefit to each child for 18 years does not seem warranted.[/quote]
Your twins are 1.5 years Old, you have a lot of learning ahead if you with regards the cost of kids.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ireland isnt too bad of a country, ive been to far worse

"isnt too bad"

Its one of the best, and one of the best periods in history to live in.
(antibiotics, fossil fuels, relatively peaceful, plentiful food, increased lifespans and better living conditions)


Besides I asked where you wanted to live?

Wanderer78

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

"isnt too bad"

Its one of the best, and one of the best periods in history to live in.
(antibiotics, fossil fuels, relatively peaceful, plentiful food, increased lifespans and better living conditions)


Besides I asked where you wanted to live?

ireland, lovely country

markodaly

Wanderer78 wrote: »

... the extent of the delusion!

...and the better places to be on earth are....where exactly?

Wanderer78

markodaly wrote: »

...and the better places to be on earth are....where exactly?

highly subjective, isnt it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

Wanderer78 wrote: »

highly subjective, isnt it?

Try us, go on, list a few.

sbsquarepants

ted1 wrote: »

Your twins are 1.5 years Old, you have a lot of learning ahead if you with regards the cost of kids.

I have Irish twins:D - 2 kids within a year of each other. I have all of those costs - 2 car seats, 2 cots, 2 of everything.

I can't really see how 2 actual twins would cost anymore or am I missing something?

Wanderer78

markodaly wrote: »

Try us, go on, list a few.

i told where i want to live, what places do you like?

facehugger99

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've no problem with that - my issue is why you should it be paid multiple times.

You say you stand to inherit money (lucky you!) why should the state take a chunk of that and spend it on someone else - your parents have already paid that tax?

Because taxes have to come from somewhere and the system should be set up in the fairest way possible.

If someone is going to inherit several hundred thousand euro worth of assets, I don't think it's unreasonable that some tax be levied against that person - how much is up for debate, but I don't see any merit in an argument that it should be all completely free from taxation no matter how much the amount.

I don't buy the argument that the money has already been taxed - most money is taxed multiple times.

markodaly

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i told where i want to live, what places do you like?

You want to live in Ireland, a western country with 'neo-liberal' economic polices, even though you bemoan how bad the West has become.

So, in other words, you are all mouth and no trousers.

Your like one of those conservative religious politicians over in America, forever going on about family values to the masses but riding the housekeeper and the pool boy at home.

Cyrus

facehugger99 wrote: »

I don't buy the argument that the money has already been taxed - most money is taxed multiple times.

you dont get 'most' money from your parents though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

I'd be all in favour of replacing CA with universal childcare. I know a single mother getting SPA who would love to work instead of depending on welfare but cannot because of the cost of childcare.

Of course it could never happen because of the outcry from people who want to stay at home. But it should be at least discussed. As we reach full employment, there's never been a better time.

Sore_toe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Living in America I imagine you missed the furore last year when Leo varadkar in one of his early speeches as leader made the following statement

"I want to help those who get up early in the morning to go out and work"

The media roasted him and labelled him a thatcherite, to this day on twitter there is a coordinated meme by lefties to refer to this speech as often as possible, how dare someone suggest those who work see a better return

Electric Sheep

Lily Melodic Squeegee wrote: »

yet there are many many countries who have 0% inheritance tax, so its not really that ridiculous at all. Many of the counties are ones people are constantly saying we should be trying to emulate also.



Within the family should not count though, its not a transfer imo as it is collectively owned money or property the very same as a husband and wife can transfer back and forth money to their hearts content.

If parents have money to gift or leave as an inheritance that should 100% go to improving their children's future and giving them the most comfortable life possible. They in-turn try to do the same for their own children thus across generation contributing large amounts to society from having good jobs, owning houses and cars and never having the paw out for social welfare, dole, council houses, college grants etc.

A family building up wealth should be looked on has how it should be done not the bedgrudging horse s*it you see being posted by a few in this thread (and other threads on the topic).

The thing is Ive never encountered a person in real life with these types of opinion, everyone I've ever heard mention gift or inheritance tax thought it was despicable and should never have existed. As I said the small few who agree with it are just jealous simple as that.

I can assure you that my family don't collectively own my wealth. It's mine, and should I choose to set up a charitable foundation with it on my death I can and will.

ted1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We have two older children as well, although all of them are under 10.

My point is that the cost of two 1.5 year-olds is not hugely different from having a 1 year old and a 3 year old. You could argue that the 1-year-old could wear hand-me-downs from the 3-year-old if they are of the same gender -- but you can't exactly dress a 1-year-old boy in his sister's old clothes.[/quote]
You can pass down bikes, cots , beds, school uniforms , toys, car seats, etc
School fees and college fees can be staggered. Junior and leaving cert grinds will fall at the same time as will expensive class trips. I could go on

McMurphy

Sore_toe wrote: »

Living in America I imagine you missed the furore last year when Leo varadkar in one of his early speeches as leader made the following statement

"I want to help those who get up early in the morning to go out and work"

The media roasted him and labelled him a thatcherite, to this day on twitter there is a coordinated meme by lefties to refer to this speech as often as possible, how dare someone suggest those who work see a better return

And to top it off, he ended up getting roasted by the people who got up early in the morning too, because they appeared to be getting less than those who didn't work in many cases.

djan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no such thing as a free market, anywhere on this planet, as all markets are subject to rules and regulations. neoclassical theory and its subsequent models such as dsge models continually fail to foresee bubbles as these models are based on the idea, particularly at the macro level, of continually moving towards 'equilibrium', upon reaching equilibrium, effectively, all humans behave rational, hence the term 'rational expectations', the only problem is, there is in fact no such thing as a rational human being.

The reason there isn't a free market on a wider scale than small markets is simply due to state intervention. The boom bust cycle is caused by printing of money as it keeps funding debt until it collapses and then added to that are the state bail/buy outs. The less regulated a market is, the quicker it adapts to changes.

Humans behave irrationally, this is true. And what best to serve these irrational decisions than a free market that instantly adapts supply to fit these decisions unlike a regulated one which aims to magically set prices and fix supply.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.