Wealth distribution through property taxation

Idbatterim

Sure why tax somebodies windfall? They are happy to throw out obscene amounts to Margaret cash for life and her ilk , no questions asked!

Boredstiff666

And bringing that one back from Syria and the dosh which will be spent on her from now on.

LuckyLloyd

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sure why tax somebodies windfall? They are happy to throw out obscene amounts to Margaret cash for life and her ilk , no questions asked!

Kind of amazing we can have a post like this so soon after a detailed and reasoned submission on the topic like that of Umaro a few posts above it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Umaro wrote: »

This has been a really interesting topic to read. It's a really emotive issue and there's so many little battlegrounds of discussion within it in regard to society, wealth and inequality. I'm going to touch on a few different threads I've seen mentioned in here.


1. I'll burn the money before I pay CAT.

Slow your roll. Your kids don't have to pay CAT if you don't want them to.

The most thanked post in this thread is a diatribe about how awful CAT is and calling for it to be abolished. Well I have great news, you don't need to wait for it to be abolished. If you don't want your kids to pay CAT then give a tax advisor a call. There is a huge industry in Ireland built on estate planning. If you're expecting that you'll be so laden with wealth by the time you pop your clogs then you can already start the process of protecting it.


2. Gripes about redistribution of wealth in the form of taxes

From the moment you came into the world you've been benefiting from the taxes paid by previous generations. Nobody pulls themselves up by their boot straps - the actual phrase exists because it's impossible, but somewhere along the way its been corrupted into "i EARNED this ALL BY MYSELF". Taxes paid for the nurses and doctors that delivered you, the teachers that taught you and the roads you traveled to your first job on. You took and took, long before you were able to pay in. Fair play if you worked hard in the years since and if you've generated enough wealth that you now have to take estate planning into account, congrats to you!

If you haven't been hoarding that wealth exclusively, you've likely been spending it in ways that give your offspring a headstart in life that you didn't get. Private education from playschool to primary to secondary. Private health insurance and dental for the whole family. Healthy food, a stable home, and a roof over their head. Sports camps, holidays and the Gaeltacht during the summer. Your children don't require loans or grants to get through 3rd Level education. They don't have to work part-time, or save for years for their post-grad. When they get their first professional job you sort them out with a deposit for a house.

These are the benefits of your wealth. You are living in them right now. These are incentive to work hard and smart in your life. Wealth is not about the jackpot that is payable on your death.

But here's the rub. You didn't create all that wealth by yourself. You generated it from other people. You owned a successful factory? Good for you. Did you birth the workforce yourself? Educated them too? Did you singlehandedly build the roads that delivered goods to and from the factory? No, no and no. But you and your family have benefited massively from taxes that did, and that's why the government wants a bigger cut from you every step of the way. If you don't like it, tough - this is the price of your wealthy successful life.


3. I'm getting double-taxed here

No you aren't. You're dead.

Your beneficiaries might be getting taxed if you've left them sums in excess of €335,000 and didn't do any estate planning. But that'd be your own stupid fault, so I refer to point #1.


4. I'll be damned if I'm giving scroungers/Margaret Cash more money to sit on their hole

As far as I know, the funds generated from CAT don't get siphoned off directly to whatever social welfare boogeyman these people are griping about. Taxes go toward improving society, that is nurses, Gardai, roads, teachers, carers for disabled people, jobseeker payments for those out of work, Further Education grants and courses etc etc

Obviously nobody is thrilled that there are people working the system, but does anyone think Margaret Cash's children would have even half a chance at escaping poverty without intervention? They have none of the advantages that hardworking parents give their children and their mother is a dope. So do we leave them penniless on the streets? Put each of her children into protective services at even greater expense to the taxpayer? Or give her the means to feed, clothe and raise them in a safe home, and allow them to have a somewhat normal life as they move through the education system?

I pay about €25k in income taxes each year. Margaret Cash is getting about €1.50 of that according to the site the user Sheeps linked earlier. Is she really worth the ire? Is she really the backbone of the argument about why you shouldn't have to pay more tax if you're doing well in life? She'd be the furthest thing from my mind when I look at my payslip.


5. The CAT thresholds make no sense and some are way too low

Fully agree. The Group A thresholds are fine, but B and C are a joke. I think it's user anewme that brought it up. A person with no children would see any gifts they give start to incur tax at €32k (nieces, nephews) or €16k (non-relatives). That's an absolute piss take, and even more reason to start talking with a tax advisor. That definitely needs to be reformed, but until then it's back to point #1 for anyone in this position.

Excellent post. The bolded passage especially. Everyone here has benefitted from taxes and there are numerous motivators for creating wealth. I’m bemused at the notion that someone wouldn’t want to be wealthy if they couldn’t pass it on as if there are no benefits otherwise. And, as you say, their offspring will benefit from that wealth throughout their lives.

Boredstiff666

I pay tax on everything I do work and spend. I am classed as a single person as not married.........until I want something back...........then I am told no because although single my partners earnings and assets are taken into account and I am told 'she can look after you'.

We have no kids so have never availed of the generous amounts of cash handed out for kids in all forms.

Now if my partner dies you are telling me that I should pay property tax to look after others which means as I have no money I would have to sell and ??????

One fella on here said if I dont like it then f*ck off.

Some of you have really lost the plot. You will get less and less for your brain storming schemes because people will just leave or hide. It's all been done before, they tried to tax people to death in the UK in the 70's and everybody with any wealth just got up and left. One of the reasons why Ireland gained so many celeb superstars of all kinds living here until their tax system changed.

But now you want to impose the same unworkable ideas that the 'Looney Left' have tried elsewhere and failed every time.

Bif

Umaro wrote: »

This has been a really interesting topic to read. It's a really emotive issue and there's so many little battlegrounds of discussion within it in regard to society, wealth and inequality. I'm going to touch on a few different threads I've seen mentioned in here.


1. I'll burn the money before I pay CAT.

Slow your roll. Your kids don't have to pay CAT if you don't want them to.

The most thanked post in this thread is a diatribe about how awful CAT is and calling for it to be abolished. Well I have great news, you don't need to wait for it to be abolished. If you don't want your kids to pay CAT then give a tax advisor a call. There is a huge industry in Ireland built on estate planning. If you're expecting that you'll be so laden with wealth by the time you pop your clogs then you can already start the process of protecting it.


2. Gripes about redistribution of wealth in the form of taxes

From the moment you came into the world you've been benefiting from the taxes paid by previous generations. Nobody pulls themselves up by their boot straps - the actual phrase exists because it's impossible, but somewhere along the way its been corrupted into "i EARNED this ALL BY MYSELF". Taxes paid for the nurses and doctors that delivered you, the teachers that taught you and the roads you traveled to your first job on. You took and took, long before you were able to pay in. Fair play if you worked hard in the years since and if you've generated enough wealth that you now have to take estate planning into account, congrats to you!

If you haven't been hoarding that wealth exclusively, you've likely been spending it in ways that give your offspring a headstart in life that you didn't get. Private education from playschool to primary to secondary. Private health insurance and dental for the whole family. Healthy food, a stable home, and a roof over their head. Sports camps, holidays and the Gaeltacht during the summer. Your children don't require loans or grants to get through 3rd Level education. They don't have to work part-time, or save for years for their post-grad. When they get their first professional job you sort them out with a deposit for a house.

These are the benefits of your wealth. You are living in them right now. These are incentive to work hard and smart in your life. Wealth is not about the jackpot that is payable on your death.

But here's the rub. You didn't create all that wealth by yourself. You generated it from other people. You owned a successful factory? Good for you. Did you birth the workforce yourself? Educated them too? Did you singlehandedly build the roads that delivered goods to and from the factory? No, no and no. But you and your family have benefited massively from taxes that did, and that's why the government wants a bigger cut from you every step of the way. If you don't like it, tough - this is the price of your wealthy successful life.


3. I'm getting double-taxed here

No you aren't. You're dead.

Your beneficiaries might be getting taxed if you've left them sums in excess of €335,000 and didn't do any estate planning. But that'd be your own stupid fault, so I refer to point #1.


4. I'll be damned if I'm giving scroungers/Margaret Cash more money to sit on their hole

As far as I know, the funds generated from CAT don't get siphoned off directly to whatever social welfare boogeyman these people are griping about. Taxes go toward improving society, that is nurses, Gardai, roads, teachers, carers for disabled people, jobseeker payments for those out of work, Further Education grants and courses etc etc

Obviously nobody is thrilled that there are people working the system, but does anyone think Margaret Cash's children would have even half a chance at escaping poverty without intervention? They have none of the advantages that hardworking parents give their children and their mother is a dope. So do we leave them penniless on the streets? Put each of her children into protective services at even greater expense to the taxpayer? Or give her the means to feed, clothe and raise them in a safe home, and allow them to have a somewhat normal life as they move through the education system?

I pay about €25k in income taxes each year. Margaret Cash is getting about €1.50 of that according to the site the user Sheeps linked earlier. Is she really worth the ire? Is she really the backbone of the argument about why you shouldn't have to pay more tax if you're doing well in life? She'd be the furthest thing from my mind when I look at my payslip.


5. The CAT thresholds make no sense and some are way too low

Fully agree. The Group A thresholds are fine, but B and C are a joke. I think it's user anewme that brought it up. A person with no children would see any gifts they give start to incur tax at €32k (nieces, nephews) or €16k (non-relatives). That's an absolute piss take, and even more reason to start talking with a tax advisor. That definitely needs to be reformed, but until then it's back to point #1 for anyone in this position.

Great post. Thanks. Can you give any pointers re CAT avoidance / estate planning mentioned?

Boredstiff666

Nobody can argue that others or even all have benefitted from the tax paid by citizens but it is the way tax is taken that is the problem. It would be easier and simpler to increase income tax than apply property taxes for many reasons.

Idbatterim

“Obviously nobody is thrilled that there are people working the system, but does anyone think Margaret Cash's children would have even half a chance at escaping poverty without intervention? They have none of the advantages that hardworking parents give their children and their mother is a dope. So do we leave them penniless on the streets? Put each of her children into protective services at even greater expense to the taxpayer? Or give her the means to feed, clothe and raise them in a safe home, and allow them to have a somewhat normal life as they move through the education system?“ a fortune will be spent on these kids and they still dont stand a chance. The parents failed them and The state will stand by while they drop out of school early and just pay them off on welfare from cradle to grave and you will have people here supporting that !

AndrewJRenko

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sure why tax somebodies windfall? They are happy to throw out obscene amounts to Margaret cash for life and her ilk , no questions asked!

Sure why tax anything - income or capital or assets or windfall?


And please tell me more about this scheme where I can get obscene amounts with no questions asked please.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I pay tax on everything I do work and spend. I am classed as a single person as not married.........until I want something back...........then I am told no because although single my partners earnings and assets are taken into account and I am told 'she can look after you'.

We have no kids so have never availed of the generous amounts of cash handed out for kids in all forms.

Now if my partner dies you are telling me that I should pay property tax to look after others which means as I have no money I would have to sell and ??????

One fella on here said if I dont like it then f*ck off.

Some of you have really lost the plot. You will get less and less for your brain storming schemes because people will just leave or hide. It's all been done before, they tried to tax people to death in the UK in the 70's and everybody with any wealth just got up and left. One of the reasons why Ireland gained so many celeb superstars of all kinds living here until their tax system changed.

But now you want to impose the same unworkable ideas that the 'Looney Left' have tried elsewhere and failed every time.

There's certainly a good argument for consistent treatment. If SW recognises your relationship, then so should Revenue.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Nobody can argue that others or even all have benefitted from the tax paid by citizens but it is the way tax is taken that is the problem. It would be easier and simpler to increase income tax than apply property taxes for many reasons.

It might be easier, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty much every western civilisation has some form of property tax, most of them much more substantial than Ireland.

Boredstiff666

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It might be easier, but that doesn't make it right. Pretty much every western civilisation has some form of property tax, most of them much more substantial than Ireland.

This is misleading and actually now incorrect.

In the UK where this idea was tried to the hilt where 9 years ago it was even proposed that no one should be allowed to leave an inheritance and it should go to the state. It was certainly not a vote winner.

But in the UK now it is deemed so unpopular and not really working at all that Inheritance tax is going to reduced to basics or abolished.

Nobody minds paying tax as long as it is fair, but to save and go without and then have your frugalness seized by the government is just a discouragement and certainly not an incentive.

c.p.w.g.w

The Student wrote: »

Targeted wealth distribution might work but that will never happen. We have a cohort of people who feel entitled to everything and that won't change. We have some families who look upon social welfare as a lifestyle while working in the black economy.

The inheritance tax threshold should be increases to ensure the majority of families should never have to pay anything. I find it unacceptable that an only child (even an adult child) should have to pay tax on the inheritance of their family home.

My grand uncle put cash away for years and years. Before he passed, his child was given €90,000 in cash and the house, if he left the cash in a bank his son would have be raped with inheritance tax on it. I do remember his son having trouble with such a large chunk of cash

relax carry on

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

My grand uncle put cash away for years and years. Before he passed, his child was given €90,000 in cash and the house, if he left the cash in a bank his son would have be raped with inheritance tax on it. I do remember his son having trouble with such a large chunk of cash

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

Spleerbun

relax carry on wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

The house might have been worth more than the threshold

c.p.w.g.w

relax carry on wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on when your uncle died his son would have had the a threshold amount where no CAT was payable. His son would only paid CAT on the amount above the threshold at whatever the CAT tax rate was at the time. That's hardly getting "raped".

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

anewme

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

This is the point though. These are not wealthy people.

An ordinary working person with an average value house and even a half decent job could end up with a pot of 700-800k, especially if they get a tax free lump sum out of their pension.

Boredstiff666

anewme wrote: »

if they get a tax free lump sum out of their pension.

You see that is all a big con and always will be.

What will happen is that the state pension will be deducted or taken from those people who get private pensions as it will all be classed as unearned income.

Then all pensions will become taxable.

Was always the plan and private pensions was just set up to suit the banking sector in late 80's.

Assetbacked

Diarmuid wrote: »

I honestly don't understand the logic of "I worked hard for the money", "I made lots of sacrifices for my money" "others are just scrounging" hence CAT should be removed.
I totally agree that those who work hard for their income should be rewarded for their toil. Reduce income tax and give those who do work hard a break. Balance that out by taxing those who got their wealth by an accident of birth, those who ended with 300k without lifting a finger.

That is what redistribution of wealth is. Referring to dole scroungers as a way to justify reducing or abolishing inheritance tax is cognitive dissonance at its finest from the triggered in this thread.

relax carry on

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

His house was valued at around the €450,000 I believe, along with his other assets the inheritance was pretty sizable... Inheritance tax is around 33% rate isn't it

Ok so assume the threshold was 310000. That's 450000 minus 310000 which is 140000 @ 33%. Add on the 90000 cash you mentioned earlier that's 210000 at 33%. Add in another 100000 for other assets, that's 310000 at 33%. So all in all the son inherits assets and cash totalling 620000 and pays 102300 leaving net value of assets valued 517700. I don't know about you but I'd be delighted with that. Think the rest of us will just continue to play the lotto and live in hope.

c.p.w.g.w

relax carry on wrote: »

Ok so assume the threshold was 310000. That's 450000 minus 310000 which is 140000 @ 33%. Add on the 90000 cash you mentioned earlier that's 210000 at 33%. Add in another 100000 for other assets, that's 310000 at 33%. So all in all the son inherits assets and cash totalling 620000 and pays 102300 leaving net value of assets valued 517700. I don't know about you but I'd be delighted with that. Think the rest of us will just continue to play the lotto and live in hope.

He worked very hard all his life, never on the dole. He worked a lot of really terrible jobs and only had 5 years of retirement before cancer took him...his jobs in all likelihood lead to his cancer.

The fact he had inheritance tax on his property was a sore point for him. He grow up poor and earned every penny he had, and he wanted to maximize how much he passed onto his son. He also paid tax on his income already, inheritance tax is almost a double taxation in his mind. It's not like he was a millionaire

Cyrus

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

boring accountant

Cyrus wrote: »

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

That’s not true. Anyone leaving an estate above the threshold can afford estate planning advice.

kippy

Cyrus wrote: »

Umaros post about estate planning is a little glib

It works for multi millionaires because they have the means to pay for the advice and the wealth to make it cost effective what we are talking about here is well off regular folk leaving amounts above the threshold

I’d be surprised if many at that level are engaging in estate planning

So what would be the point you would determine someone to be a well off regular folk who wouldn't be able afford or make such things cost effective?

Cyrus

boring accountant wrote: »

That’s not true. Anyone leaving an estate above the threshold can afford estate planning advice.

Really so anyone with a house worth more than 330k can afford 10s of thousands of professional advice ?

Cyrus

kippy wrote: »

So what would be the point you would determine someone to be a well off regular folk who wouldn't be able afford or make such things cost effective?

See my last post

Sheeps

the_syco wrote: »

I've not much against the current system, but why would I have to give what I sacrificed to save, to those that don't save?

You don't. You and everyone else pay into a giant pot which gets spent by the central and local government on things that result in prosperity for everyone. You're indirectly enabled to prosper through the spending/investing of tax funds in things like infrastructure, people etc.

kippy

Cyrus wrote: »

See my last post

You do realise that the taxman doesn't tax everything about the 330 odd K at a hundred percent?

boring accountant

Cyrus wrote: »

Really so anyone with a house worth more than 330k can afford 10s of thousands of professional advice ?

It’s not 10s of thousands to get estate planning advice. Not even close.

Boredstiff666

No houses around my woods sell anywhere near 330k. Less than half that and you want that for your tax pot?

Ronin247

Sheeps wrote: »

You don't. You and everyone else pay into a giant pot which gets spent by the central and local government on things that result in prosperity for everyone. You're indirectly enabled to prosper through the spending/investing of tax funds in things like infrastructure, people etc.

The thing is "everyone else " isn't paying into the giant pot.... some of us put lots into it and some of us put nothing. So now when I have spent a lifetime putting money into the pot people want me to hand over anything else I have left, to give more to those who never put anything in the pot??
To help the people who were born into poverty they need to make a bit of effort themselves, but that doesn't happen because they get everything handed over for nothing so why would they bother?? Oh I know what we should do hand them more!!!!

Umaro

Umaro wrote: »

But here's the rub. You didn't create all that wealth by yourself. You generated it from other people. You owned a successful factory? Good for you. Did you birth the workforce yourself? Educated them too? Did you singlehandedly build the roads that delivered goods to and from the factory? No, no and no. But you and your family have benefited massively from taxes that did, and that's why the government wants a bigger cut from you every step of the way. If you don't like it, tough - this is the price of your wealthy successful life.

There is tax at every step towards building up savings and assets, taxed when it’s earned, taxed when it’s spent, taxed when invested, taxed on interest etc etc. On top of all that those use who contribute the most benefit the least.

Your narrative is trying to sell something that I don’t buy, you can’t go around claiming that someone should pay a load of inheritance tax because their parents were privileged enough to employ people., it’s stretching beyond the beyonds altogether. It’s the other way around that you should be sending your compliments, complimenting the employer for creating jobs which in turn means more taxes paid etc etc. The money they earn should be the families to do as they please without having to fork out more tax. As far as I’d be concern money earned by a parent is money earned by the child the same as it is for married couples.

People rattle on that money being transferred between parents and children is this and that, to me it’s not even really transferring, it’s the families money and certainly between parents and children it should be totally outside the tax net the same as between married couples, blood relatives are closer than married couples after all. Now id push out to the wider family and say no tax should be liable but for the purposes of the discussion let’s just keep it to parents to children.

Also you can only laugh at people saying, “I only wish I had to pay 100k in inheritance tax as I’ll never be in that situation”. What a load of nonsense! Typical of someone who will never be in a situation to have this opinion. Trust me if you were forking out 100k in inheritance tax you would be sick to the core.

John_Rambo

Jaysus lads, it's xmas night.

Be thankful for you family and their success instead of stressing about the money the leave you when they die.

Merry xmas, be you a landlord or a tenant.

oceanman

John Proud Outfielder wrote: »

There is tax at every step towards building up savings and assets, taxed when it’s earned, taxed when it’s spent, taxed when invested, taxed on interest etc etc. On top of all that those use who contribute the most benefit the least.

Your narrative is trying to sell something that I don’t buy, you can’t go around claiming that someone should pay a load of inheritance tax because their parents were privileged enough to employ people., it’s stretching beyond the beyonds altogether. It’s the other way around that you should be sending your compliments, complimenting the employer for creating jobs which in turn means more taxes paid etc etc. The money they earn should be the families to do as they please without having to fork out more tax. As far as I’d be concern money earned by a parent is money earned by the child the same as it is for married couples.

People rattle on that money being transferred between parents and children is this and that, to me it’s not even really transferring, it’s the families money and certainly between parents and children it should be totally outside the tax net the same as between married couples, blood relatives are closer than married couples after all. Now id push out to the wider family and say no tax should be liable but for the purposes of the discussion let’s just keep it to parents to children.

Also you can only laugh at people saying, “I only wish I had to pay 100k in inheritance tax as I’ll never be in that situation”. What a load of nonsense! Typical of someone who will never be in a situation to have this opinion. Trust me if you were forking out 100k in inheritance tax you would be sick to the core.

if your only obsession was money.

Boredstiff666

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

boring accountant

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

If everyone rented homes there would still be people owning them.

Boredstiff666

boring accountant wrote: »

If everyone rented homes there would still be people owning them.

Yeah the council or the state and none of you would like paying them.

Back in the USSR.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The obsession is envy. Just plain simple he's got more than me so I am gonna take it.

If everybody rented homes to live in then their money would easily be given away or used elsewhere so you wouldn't get this inheritance grab ever coming up.

Jeez Netflix is ****e!

Revenue is envious?

Boredstiff666

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Revenue is envious?

Trying to twist words which were never implied.

Revenue isn't envious. But the way 'some' want it applied is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Trying to twist words which were never implied.

Revenue isn't envious. But the way 'some' want it applied is.

That’s supposition. It’s simply an assumption that anyone in favour of CAT has never had to pay it. Many people simply aren’t all that obsessed with money and don’t take it as a big affront to have to pay some tax on a windfall. Many of us realise that tax is a necessary evil that everyone benefits from.

Somebody indulged in whataboutery upthread, saying that the same people in favour of CAT probably opposed water charges but outside of a small, intense group, most people seemed fine with paying them.

Boredstiff666

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s supposition. It’s simply an assumption that anyone in favour of CAT has never had to pay it. Many people simply aren’t all that obsessed with money and don’t take it as a big affront to have to pay some tax on a windfall. Many of us realise that tax is a necessary evil that everyone benefits from.

Somebody indulged in whataboutery upthread, saying that the same people in favour of CAT probably opposed water charges but outside of a small, intense group, most people seemed fine with paying them.

This time you havent twisted but generalised.

Regards revenue the point about inheritance tax is that it is money which has already been fairly taxed, but the point that it is a big posh house in a nice area which may or may not have been shrewdness by the owner gets up other peoples noses so they think it should be taxed.

Regards water charges.......again it wasnt being done properly possibly for obvious reasons and I did hear it mentioned that this money was already being taxed in the tax system.

Point is that tax has to be collected but you cant discriminate by saying your rich so you should pay more than me, because if you do, mr rich will go. So you aim is instantly defeated. This was tried with high tax by the Loony Left in the UK much to Irelands benefit.

Again now you want inheritance taxes higher. So the point is dont die in Ireland, sell up and move away. Again self defeating.

Perhaps supporters of more and more tax should look what others have done and history to find out if their ideas are feasible instead of thinking....'oh arent we clever and invented a new way.'

Instead before any more taxes or stealth taxes like 'levy's are bought in. They should look at savings and the pure waste of hundreds of millions that happens in Ireland which would raise extra money.

Cyrus

kippy wrote: »

You do realise that the taxman doesn't tax everything about the 330 odd K at a hundred percent?

Yes

Any reason you felt the need to restate the obvious

Cyrus

boring accountant wrote: »

It’s not 10s of thousands to get estate planning advice. Not even close.

If you want more than a rehash of the revenue guidelines it is.

I have been involved in estate planning for a business owner and he spent well into 6 figures for advice and set up of various vehicles and trusts

AndrewJRenko

Ronin247 wrote: »

The thing is "everyone else " isn't paying into the giant pot.... some of us put lots into it and some of us put nothing.

Everyone pays tax. Everytime they go into a shop, they pay tax.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

This is misleading and actually now incorrect.

In the UK where this idea was tried to the hilt where 9 years ago it was even proposed that no one should be allowed to leave an inheritance and it should go to the state. It was certainly not a vote winner.

But in the UK now it is deemed so unpopular and not really working at all that Inheritance tax is going to reduced to basics or abolished.

Nobody minds paying tax as long as it is fair, but to save and go without and then have your frugalness seized by the government is just a discouragement and certainly not an incentive.

I was referring to general property taxes, like the LPT here, not inheritance taxes.


Where did you see that the UK was going to reduce or abolish inheritance tax. It wasn't mentioned at all in the Tory manifesto.


https://portfolio-adviser.com/conservative-manifesto-light-on-tax-proposals/

Cyrus wrote: »

If you want more than a rehash of the revenue guidelines it is.

I have been involved in estate planning for a business owner and he spent well into 6 figures for advice and set up of various vehicles and trusts

For what size of estate was that?

cosybeach

contributors to that so called tax pot don't have any say or value as it is wasted to a large part by politicians and senior PS staff.
Which is why same contributors get nothing or a lot less while paying more are becoming more vocal.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

cosybeach wrote: »

contributors to that so called tax pot don't have any say or value as it is wasted to a large part by politicians and senior PS staff.
Which is why same contributors get nothing or a lot less while paying more are becoming more vocal.

Well, yeah, that’s how taxation works. Nobody gets a say in how any of their taxes are used.

elperello

Cyrus wrote: »

If you want more than a rehash of the revenue guidelines it is.

I have been involved in estate planning for a business owner and he spent well into 6 figures for advice and set up of various vehicles and trusts

Of course estate planning for a large estate can be expensive but for most with a house and a few hundred k it can be reasonable and worthwhile.

In some cases it can be DIY if you have a little financial savvy yourself.

Worth noting that the so called "fair deal" will eat away your cash pile in short order so is another incentive to plan ahead.

Bif

elperello wrote: »

Of course estate planning for a large estate can be expensive but for most with a house and a few hundred k it can be reasonable and worthwhile.

In some cases it can be DIY if you have a little financial savvy yourself.

Worth noting that the so called "fair deal" will eat away your cash pile in short order so is another incentive to plan ahead.

Can you give some more details of what the average person can do to minimise CAT? Thanks.

AndrewJRenko

cosybeach wrote: »

contributors to that so called tax pot don't have any say or value as it is wasted to a large part by politicians and senior PS staff.
Which is why same contributors get nothing or a lot less while paying more are becoming more vocal.

Apart from the democratic elections that happen every five years or so, yes, you're completely right.

beauf

Bif wrote: »

Can you give some more details of what the average person can do to minimise CAT? Thanks.

I'd be curious about this also.

elperello

Bif wrote: »

Can you give some more details of what the average person can do to minimise CAT? Thanks.

Sorry, no can do.

You might as well be listening to a guy on a bar stool as listening to me.
Besides I might cause an avalanche of contrary opinions and we'd be here till the New Year arguing and no wiser in the end.
Do a bit of online research and apply common sense.
Discuss what you are doing with family if you think it's appropriate.
Don't do anything illegal.

It's either that DIY approach or get professional advice.
Don't forget the old saying that the advice you pay for is the only advice worth considering.

Bif

Bif wrote: »

Can you give some more details of what the average person can do to minimise CAT? Thanks.

First place to start is to use the small gifts exemption of 3k per year. Each parent can give 3k to each child tax free per year so that’s 6k each child can get per year.. If their child has a wife/partner they can give them 6k also so. In this scenario 12k per year can be gifted tax free without using any thresholds. Start doing this fairy early and you can spend many many years (from the minute the child is born 6k per year if you wish) transferring money to reduce any potential tax liability.

Other things would be if you are to inherit a business or farm ensure you are eligible for business/agri relief. In this context it’s better to be giving land than cash as it can fall under the exemption therefore if a large amount of cash is to be gifted it might be better to buy land and gift that instead.

These are just some examples. But any sort of tax planning helps reduce what is stolen from you so it’s worth doing anything you can.