Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Using Property Taxes to Encourage Redistribution of Family Homes
Options
Comments
-
At modest levels it's fine. But it's easy to see the problems at higher levels; Paris Hilton being a commonly cited example. In the US the tax-free threshold from Federal Estate tax is like $11m or so. At those levels, generations and generations are born in to wealth, with no requirement to work.
It's all well and good someone working hard and passing something down. But is that still fine if it's great grandchildren etc.? Why should people be able to "earn" large amounts of money untaxed, when someone a similar age, who's had a similar life have to pay 50% tax when they "earn" the same amount from their labour?
I'm not sure why tax on labour income seems so much fairer than tax on capital income? Particularly when the first requires far more work on the part of the recipient.
I don’t care if it’s 11 billion there should be zero inheritance or gift tax within the family and people who pass on enough wealth to make their family wealthy for generations should be held up as example on how to do it and rewarded for it rather then robbed of massive amounts of tax as they are here.Assetbacked wrote: »There are a lot of exemptions to this to the point where it is more accurate to say that the general rule is that pensions are not actually subject to tax.
This is nonsense, I know people paying the higher rate of tax on their pension never mind the standard rate.
Anyone who had planned properly for retirement and has enough of a pension which will enable them to live a decent life in retirement will be paying at least the standard rate of tax the same as they would earning a similar amount in a job.0 -
I can see what your saying however the current pension is worth in excess of 250k+ and I highly doubt many of the people receiving it contributed that much. It should be based on your own contribution ,the more you work. The more you can maintain your current standard of living. The less you work. They less you shall receive
I fell for you. That’s 3 years of your golden years that you can’t get back.
In order to receive 250K from a pension I would have to collect for approximately 10 years, based on family history that's unlikely, few men in my family have made it past the three score and ten (70).
However some jobs still have a mandatory retirement at 65 so perhaps I will have a few years on the dole instead.0 -
Rayan Gorgeous Apostrophe wrote: »I don’t care if it’s 11 billion there should be zero inheritance or gift tax within the family and people who pass on enough wealth to make their family wealthy for generations should be held up as example on how to do it and rewarded for it rather then robbed of massive amounts of tax as they are here.
Typically most people who inherit large sums like that manage to squander it and the money trickles back down again.
http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/0 -
I can see how you come to that conclusion but the effect is to make it very difficult for low to middle earners to afford to live acceptably in cities. I saw a lot of this in a London - find a cop who lives within 10 miles of his/her station and you get a prize. Central city hospitals cannot hold onto experienced nurses who need family rather than sharing accommodation.There's already a property tax.
Let's not force old people out of a house they have worked for for years/decades. It's not their problem. It's a poor governance problem combined with a social welfare class.
Social Welfare housing needs to be provided where it is cheapest to the state. If you want a better/bigger house or a better location then obtain gainful employment and, you know, pay for it!
Personally I think that there should be social housing in all locations but I agree that prioritising those who work - just not sure that it should be a blunt tool.
As regards potential downsizes, these need to be incentivised - carrot or stick is the choice. “Fair deal” interferes with the market as property is treated more fairly thannotger assets with the result that it us better to leave it empty than sell it.
These are all multifactorial analyses which are beyond the Ken if many of our politicians and policy makers.0 -
So take people in this situation.
They've invested in a pension, paid their mortgage, and have a decent income, but not enough to pay an increased property tax.
It's probably better for society if they sell the house that is now too big for them and move somewhere smaller, but they don't want to do that, and they don't have to.
They can do the reverse mortgage/equity release thing, and stay in their house as long as they like.
They don't lose out at all.
Who loses out? Who complains? The kids who wanted to inherit. Inherit a house that they didn't pay for. Get something that they didn't work hard for all their lives.
This isn't about protecting hard-working old people. It's about people who want something for nothing, and don't want to lose any of it to tax.
If that's the kind of tripe you want, then i'll get one of your free houses, take the money I was going to spend on a house for myself and blow it on whatever... does that work?
Why do some people absolutely HATE the idea of inheritance? It's a disgusting level of jealousy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Savanna Stale Prizefighter wrote: »If that's the kind of tripe you want, then i'll get one of your free houses, take the money I was going to spend on a house for myself and blow it on whatever... does that work?
Why do some people absolutely HATE the idea of inheritance? It's a disgusting level of jealousy.
What you see as jealousy I would look back and see as entitlement.
The dead are gone, they have no use for their assets. The inheriting person has, out of nothing but luck, been given something for nothing. It's the equivalent of hiding assets in offshore accounts to avoid paying lawful taxes. Wealth should not flow so easily through a generation without decent taxation to ensure appropriate redistribution.
At the same time, I absolutely detest the waste of taxpayers money so would prefer to scrub up current tax expenditure before going after workers and home owners for more tax. My increased property tax proposal would, for me, only be implemented if there was a genuine need to collect the tax. However, as a starting point, we pay enough tax in this country, through all the various avenues. It is just not spent properly and the starting point would be to clean up the sheer waste and inefficiency in public expenditure.0 -
You probably should avoid that word...
You need to broaden your horizons both in looking at the issues. But also in looking at solutions.
Increasingly people have to look at the options for living not in Dublin and possibly not in Ireland. Also look whats happening elsewhere.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-housing-crisis-cbi-survey-workers-quit-capital-house-prices-rent-a8321551.html
Personally, I'm saving and working hard in order to have some flexibility to work remotely and be able to live on the West Coast, when the time comes to secure the future in the form of owning land. Maybe I'm thinking down the line in terms of what I'm talking about implementing, if the current crisis is not resolved, in which case I'll end up being a property owner just in time to start hurting from the new landowner targeting government of Sinn Fein/AAA.
14 pages into this thread and I've run my course.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »What you see as jealousy I would look back and see as entitlement.
The dead are gone, they have no use for their assets. The inheriting person has, out of nothing but luck, been given something for nothing. It's the equivalent of hiding assets in offshore accounts to avoid paying lawful taxes. Wealth should not flow so easily through a generation without decent taxation to ensure appropriate redistribution.
.
There is no “appropriate redistribution” it simply shouldn’t be redistributed, it should be the families to keep and not given to anyone else (aside from being spent which of course will generate plenty of taxes). I detest the entire idea of redistribution as it’s simply begrudgers feeling entitled to another families money.
It’s not a wealthy families problem that someone else is poor and should not be their responsibly to give money to them which should be going to the next generation of their own family to give them the best possible life.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »What you see as jealousy I would look back and see as entitlement.
The dead are gone, they have no use for their assets. The inheriting person has, out of nothing but luck, been given something for nothing. It's the equivalent of hiding assets in offshore accounts to avoid paying lawful taxes. Wealth should not flow so easily through a generation without decent taxation to ensure appropriate redistribution.
At the same time, I absolutely detest the waste of taxpayers money so would prefer to scrub up current tax expenditure before going after workers and home owners for more tax. My increased property tax proposal would, for me, only be implemented if there was a genuine need to collect the tax. However, as a starting point, we pay enough tax in this country, through all the various avenues. It is just not spent properly and the starting point would be to clean up the sheer waste and inefficiency in public expenditure.
But that logic could be applied to many things parents do to ensure their children have the best chances: their education could be paid by parents, their license or their cars, their accommodation costs when they live abroad for their studies, private school fees. Wouldn't these children be just lucky to get things paid by their parents out if pure luck and no contribution on their own?
I'm always wondering where do you draw a line? As it stands law does with a lifetime threshold on inheritance you can receive.
Is there a difference between a rural family where the parents leave their house valued at 100k to their 4 children, a family leaving their house worth 500k to their 2 children or some rich git leaving his cash and empire worth millions to his son? Where exactly is this line drawn?
Nobody gives a crap when someone inherits 25k but everyone is up in arms when someone inherits 250k. Why is that?0 -
Deleted User wrote:1. Incentivise building with tax breaks 2. Enforce the social & affordable housing planning conditions that have been around 20 years but which builder's have been allowed to buy their way out of 3. Locate all social housing outside the M50
Point 2 is terrible. All it does is make people buying houses privately have to pay extra to provide the free houses for their SW neighbours.
Point 3 had a point. The government could provide more social housing by selling off inner city squalid estates to developers for a good profit.
But the bleeding heart brigade thinks its better to fix social problems though hugely expensive mixed integration of social housing instead of dragging with the core issue of getting rid of problem tenants.
Bad apples are the same regardless of what box they are placed in0 -
Advertisement
-
I actually dont understand why some people begrudge people that have been gifted houses by their family. Its another form of providing for your family, similar to putting them though college, paying their rent when they are younger, providing food, health etc. Parents want the best for their children. Some parents sacrifice their own luxuries so their kids have a better upbringing and are catered for even after they are gone. What is wrong with that?
If you want an equal society you need to clamp down on the sources of inequality and the biggest one is family.
Personally I kinda prefer the sort of world where parents read books to their children and give them a good start in life but that's just me.0 -
I can see how you come to that conclusion but the effect is to make it very difficult for low to middle earners to afford to live acceptably in cities. I saw a lot of this in a London - find a cop who lives within 10 miles of his/her station and you get a prize. Central city hospitals cannot hold onto experienced nurses who need family rather than sharing accommodation.
Personally I think that there should be social housing in all locations but I agree that prioritising those who work - just not sure that it should be a blunt tool.
As regards potential downsizes, these need to be incentivised - carrot or stick is the choice. “Fair deal” interferes with the market as property is treated more fairly thannotger assets with the result that it us better to leave it empty than sell it.
These are all multifactorial analyses which are beyond the Ken if many of our politicians and policy makers.
There should be no social housing while it is impossible to buy a house in that area on the average industrial wage. Or even the minimum wage. We need to make work pay, not idleness.
I'm far from a low earner, and I was forced out. I can only imagine how difficult it is for those on average 30-35k jobs to buy property in Dublin (not possible really) and to see instead free houses handed to others who dont work under the guise of social housing which is in reality funded off the backs of the endeavors of those who it forcibly displaces in the first place! Nonsense.0 -
If you want an equal society you need to clamp down on the sources of inequality and the biggest one is family.
Personally I kinda prefer the sort of world where parents read books to their children and give them a good start in life but that's just me.
Ireland is very equal imo/progressive already. You will never have a perfect world and honestly that’s the way it should be. If everyone was equal in monetary terms, why would people ever work harder to get ahead. Likewise, some people are more gifted that others in various fields, their smarter than others, their luckier than others and time the market well etc. These are all just facts of life and if it’s optional and people like bill gates want to give it all away. That’s their prerogative, however when the people that don’t have the money want others to give it away, it’s a bit hypocritical to me.
Everyone is offered free health care for major surgeries. Education is very cheap here relative to other countries. The government offer several incentives for rent, and other people on lower income. You don’t pay much tax until you start earning over 15k and even then. You pay about 20-25pc until you hit the higher tax bracket.
That is another form of caring for your children. Should we start giving people another handicap if they didn’t have good parents or they didn’t provide for their kids in that way... I don’t think so.0 -
Ireland is very equal imo/progressive already. You will never have a perfect world and honestly that’s the way it should be. If everyone was equal in monetary terms, why would people ever work harder to get ahead. Likewise, some people are more gifted that others in various fields, their smarter than others, their luckier than others and time the market well etc. These are all just facts of life and if it’s optional and people like bill gates want to give it all away. That’s their prerogative, however when the people that don’t have the money want others to give it away, it’s a bit hypocritical to me.
Everyone is offered free health care for major surgeries. Education is very cheap here relative to other countries. The government offer several incentives for rent, and other people on lower income. You don’t pay much tax until you start earning over 15k and even then. You pay about 20-25pc until you hit the higher tax bracket.
That is another form of caring for your children. Should we start giving people another handicap if they didn’t have good parents or they didn’t provide for their kids in that way... I don’t think so.
And that higher bracket is 15k lower than the comparable £50k threshold in the UK. Another issue. We penalise the "rich" which are in reality just above the average industrial wage0 -
If you want an equal society you need to clamp down on the sources of inequality and the biggest one is family.
Personally I kinda prefer the sort of world where parents read books to their children and give them a good start in life but that's just me.
You do know the two things aren't mutually exclusive, right? Parents can have assets that they can pass to children and read books to them and give them a good start in life.jimmycrackcorm wrote: »Point 2 is terrible. All it does is make people buying houses privately have to pay extra to provide the free houses for their SW neighbours.
Point 3 had a point. The government could provide more social housing by selling off inner city squalid estates to developers for a good profit.
But the bleeding heart brigade thinks its better to fix social problems though hugely expensive mixed integration of social housing instead of dragging with the core issue of getting rid of problem tenants.
Bad apples are the same regardless of what box they are placed in
I live in a new estate where there is social housing in the middle of it. Only difference is that the houses are of a slightly different design. Honestly I've no idea how they were allocated or anything but I've seen no sign of problem neighbours really. In fact I just view them as neighbours. Everyone in the estate seems nice enough and I'm not going to distinguish between the social housing and the others because I don't know their history and why they need social housing. I think ghetto-ising the social housing just leads to problems. Look at what happened in Ballymun. Realistically integrating the social housing into all estates is the better idea.0 -
witchgirl26 wrote: »
I live in a new estate where there is social housing in the middle of it. Only difference is that the houses are of a slightly different design. Honestly I've no idea how they were allocated or anything but I've seen no sign of problem neighbours really. In fact I just view them as neighbours. Everyone in the estate seems nice enough and I'm not going to distinguish between the social housing and the others because I don't know their history and why they need social housing. I think ghetto-ising the social housing just leads to problems. Look at what happened in Ballymun. Realistically integrating the social housing into all estates is the better idea.
In my experience you don't normally have any issues in new estates until children start to come along and they turn into teenagers. Where I used to live the local shops were demolished and council houses built.
What then happened was the houses became a dumping ground for those council tenants who needed to be moved from where they were because of their anti social behavior.
Councils have a responsibility to house people, they don't have to live with the consequences of where these people are housed.
I should mention that 99.9% of council tenants are the hardest working most decent people you will ever meet. it is just that .01% that will ruin an area.
You would not even need integration of social housing if the .01% of society was actually dealt with.
Sorry for the rant but I have seen the effects of this on the decent people.0 -
The Student wrote: »In my experience you don't normally have any issues in new estates until children start to come along and they turn into teenagers.
Actually most of the social housing in our estate seem to already have teenagers. It's a bit obvious as most of the rest are just starting families or have young enough kids. Only issue that arose was teenagers playing football on the green area and the younger kids being afraid to go over. One of the parents was approached and the teenagers apparently felt quite bad that the kids were intimidated. They invited the young kids to play football and moved to a smaller area themselves.0 -
Rayan Gorgeous Apostrophe wrote: »There is no “appropriate redistribution” it simply shouldn’t be redistributed, it should be the families to keep and not given to anyone else (aside from being spent which of course will generate plenty of taxes). I detest the entire idea of redistribution as it’s simply begrudgers feeling entitled to another families money.
It’s not a wealthy families problem that someone else is poor and should not be their responsibly to give money to them which should be going to the next generation of their own family to give them the best possible life.
That’s making a big assumption that people who don’t mind the idea of inheritance tax aren’t in line to receive a large inheritance themselves and are simply envious.
Personally, I’ve looked on any inheritance I’ve received thus far as a bonus and had any of those inheritances taken me above one of the thresholds, I wouldn’t have cared about paying a bit of tax on something I didn’t earn and was pleasantly surprised to receive. Maybe this mindset is odd to you, but I’m just not all that fixated on money and I certainly don’t begrudge anyone their inheritance.0 -
Savanna Stale Prizefighter wrote: »If that's the kind of tripe you want, then i'll get one of your free houses, take the money I was going to spend on a house for myself and blow it on whatever... does that work?
Why do some people absolutely HATE the idea of inheritance? It's a disgusting level of jealousy.
Given I'm personally in-line for a 7 figure inheritance, I don't think my being supportive of reasonable and appropriate levels of inheritance tax is in any way a sign of jealousy. Some level of inheritance tax is necessary to constrain the growth of inequality, hence why pretty much every nation in the OECD has one. The question is just at what level is it fair and reasonable.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
witchgirl26 wrote: »Actually most of the social housing in our estate seem to already have teenagers. It's a bit obvious as most of the rest are just starting families or have young enough kids. Only issue that arose was teenagers playing football on the green area and the younger kids being afraid to go over. One of the parents was approached and the teenagers apparently felt quite bad that the kids were intimidated. They invited the young kids to play football and moved to a smaller area themselves.
If that is the case you are very lucky. As I mentioned 99% of people are decent it only takes the .1%0 -
witchgirl26 wrote: »You do know the two things are mutually exclusive, right?
Unless you are saying family and an equal society are mutually exclusive (which I'm pretty sure you aren't) I have literally no idea what you are saying.0 -
Unless you are saying family and an equal society are mutually exclusive (which I'm pretty sure you aren't) I have literally no idea what you are saying.
Apologies typo (typing too quickly) in my previous post - it should have said "aren't mutually exclusive". Parents can provide both money and inheritance while also providing the other.0 -
Given I'm personally in-line for a 7 figure inheritance, I don't think my being supportive of reasonable and appropriate levels of inheritance tax is in any way a sign of jealousy. Some level of inheritance tax is necessary to constrain the growth of inequality, hence why pretty much every nation in the OECD has one. The question is just at what level is it fair and reasonable.
Most of it is jealousy though. Any time people get ahead in life be it personal or professional, you will always have some that don’t like that. Even with friends I can see certain types like that. You might not be like that but the majority are. Even for myself. I can see some people that are wealthier than myself and I would to be in their situation.you might be ok with someone else taking your money however I am not and sure if you feel like your not being taxed enough, you can always give to a charity. Why force it on people to take their money if some want to give more. They can. I highly doubt you or many would give more away but at least it’s an option. When you have the likes of Mary cash still complaining that government are taking everything off us and they are still not happy, it does t exactly instill a feeling of gratitude even though they are being given everything0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: ». Maybe this mindset is odd to you, but I’m just not all that fixated on money and I certainly don’t begrudge anyone their inheritance.
It's a completely alien mindset to be honest, I have never encountered someone in person, family, friend or acquaintance who if the topic of tax was ever discussed didn't absolutely detest paying it do anything they could to avoid paying as much as possible. Things like CAT, dirt and the very low threshold where the higher rate of tax kicks (and the very high rate of tax that follows) in are particular areas that would stand out. The desire to see a total abolition of CAT would be pretty much universal desire in the people I would know or come across in my life.
Personally I do everything I can to avoid (not evade) as much tax as possible and pay for advice at times. Even if I broke even on paying for advice vs paying the tax Id rater pay a tax advisor than give money to revenue.Given I'm personally in-line for a 7 figure inheritance, I don't think my being supportive of reasonable and appropriate levels of inheritance tax is in any way a sign of jealousy. Some level of inheritance tax is necessary to constrain the growth of inequality, hence why pretty much every nation in the OECD has one. The question is just at what level is it fair and reasonable.
Inheritance tax is totally unnecessary and should be totally abolished, in fact I think its probably the most disgusting tax there is. Its totally wrong and if I was you I would be doing absolutely everything I possibly could to minimise that tax bill as much as possible and have the inheritance structured to avoid as much tax as possible.
As for your comment on nearly every nation in the OECD having an inheritance tax, thats is totally incorrect. In fact only 19 of the 34 OECD countries have inheritance tax so just a little over half. Also only 14 of the 34 OECD countries have a tax rate above 10% and there we are right up at the top with one of the highest rates in the world robbing hard working people as usual who have paid mountains of tax all their life and then hit agin when they want to give their money or assets to the next generation. Disgraceful.0 -
Tax man is going to love you!Given I'm personally in-line for a 7 figure inheritance, I don't think my being supportive of reasonable and appropriate levels of inheritance tax is in any way a sign of jealousy. Some level of inheritance tax is necessary to constrain the growth of inequality, hence why pretty much every nation in the OECD has one. The question is just at what level is it fair and reasonable.0
-
witchgirl26 wrote: »Apologies typo (typing too quickly) in my previous post - it should have said "aren't mutually exclusive". Parents can provide both money and inheritance while also providing the other.
The aren't mutually exclusive. They both perpetuate an unequal society. Ultimately I'm fine with that.0 -
Rayan Gorgeous Apostrophe wrote: »It's a completely alien mindset to be honest, I have never encountered someone in person, family, friend or acquaintance who if the topic of tax was ever discussed didn't absolutely detest paying it do anything they could to avoid paying as much as possible. Things like CAT, dirt and the very low threshold where the higher rate of tax kicks (and the very high rate of tax that follows) in are particular areas that would stand out. The desire to see a total abolition of CAT would be pretty much universal desire in the people I would know or come across in my life.
Personally I do everything I can to avoid (not evade) as much tax as possible and pay for advice at times. Even if I broke even on paying for advice vs paying the tax Id rater pay a tax advisor than give money to revenue.
Inheritance tax is totally unnecessary and should be totally abolished, in fact I think its probably the most disgusting tax there is. Its totally wrong and if I was you I would be doing absolutely everything I possibly could to minimise that tax bill as much as possible and have the inheritance structured to avoid as much tax as possible.
As for your comment on nearly every nation in the OECD having an inheritance tax, thats is totally incorrect. In fact only 19 of the 34 OECD countries have inheritance tax so just a little over half. Also only 14 of the 34 OECD countries have a tax rate above 10% and there we are right up at the top with one of the highest rates in the world robbing hard working people as usual who have paid mountains of tax all their life and then hit agin when they want to give their money or assets to the next generation. Disgraceful.
Can’t say I’ve ever talked about it much with anyone. Let this be a lesson to you. Some people who are set to inherit large amounts of money aren’t opposed to inheritance tax. Don’t assume that somebody is envious just because they are in favour of it. Some of us see inheritance as a bonus rather than an entitlement. To be blunt, you should probably get over it. Make your peace with. The abolition of CAT is unlikely. Maybe it will happen but probably not. What’s the point in stewing over it?
As for hating paying tax, how do you think the country is kept running? If everyone did as you do and visited tax advisors regularly to reduce their taxes and the tax take of the country fell substantially, where would the shortfall come from? What would have to be jettisoned with a much lower tax take?0 -
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »Can’t say I’ve ever talked about it much with anyone. Let this be a lesson to you. Some people who are set to inherit large amounts of money aren’t opposed to inheritance tax. Don’t assume that somebody is envious just because they are in favour of it. Some of us see inheritance as a bonus rather than an entitlement. To be blunt, you should probably get over it. Make your peace with. The abolition of CAT is unlikely. Maybe it will happen but probably not. What’s the point in stewing over it?
They may exist but they are a very rare breed that you can be sure. Like turkeys looking forward to Christmas.0 -
Advertisement
-
There should be no social housing while it is impossible to buy a house in that area on the average industrial wage. Or even the minimum wage. We need to make work pay, not idleness.
I'm far from a low earner, and I was forced out. I can only imagine how difficult it is for those on average 30-35k jobs to buy property in Dublin (not possible really) and to see instead free houses handed to others who dont work under the guise of social housing which is in reality funded off the backs of the endeavors of those who it forcibly displaces in the first place! Nonsense.
The difficulty is that we still need people on those incomes to do jobs in city centres. That’s why we need appropriate housing (key worker, social rent, call it what you will) in all areas (within reason, Ringsend not Shrewsbury Road for Dublin 4). Not all inner city or urban village areas can be completely gentrified. If you can’t live within reasonable travelling distance of a school in Ranelagh, why would you teach there when you get paid the same to teach in Bray. Etc etc.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement