GE Exit Poll 10 pm

lawred2

[HTML][/HTML]

lawred2 wrote: »

most people buy their own homes

so houses inherited results in people owning multiple homes. Why should a second/third home be exempt simply because it's inherited?

An offspring renting would be liable to that inheritance tax too.

Dravokivich

lawred2 wrote: »

most people buy their own homes

so houses inherited often results in people owning multiple homes. Why should a second/third home be exempt simply because it's inherited?

When the main point in the election was housing?

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

Making a note to myself to not strive to better myself, spend all my money and leave my offspring financially insecure.

that's the message you took from that?

Leaving your children an asset that the first 335k is tax free (and the balance is taxed at 33%) would be leaving them financially insecure?

Dry your eyes. You're all over the place.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]
An offspring renting would be liable to that inheritance tax too.

They are now in possession of all or not part of a house worth in excess of 335k...

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Making a note to myself to not strive to better myself, spend all my money and leave my offspring financially insecure.

Spend all your money on making sure your offspring can keep themselves financially secure rather than relying on parental handouts. Because once your money is spent, they'll have to leech off the rest of us.

The nastiest people I've ever known are the ones obsessed with inheritance.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Making a note to myself to not strive to better myself, spend all my money and leave my offspring financially insecure.

Imagine how people feel working all their lives only to be told they need sign on for a year before receiving a pension, to be viewed as a waster or sponger by the supporters of the people wanted that policy and to have no assets to leave your children because you've never been able to afford to buy a house.

lawred2

Dravokivich wrote: »

When the main point in the election was housing?

fair point

generally speaking however - those in receipt of properties worth in excess of 335k can usually afford their own homes

It will only affect those who don't have a tax adviser. The wealthy tax plan aggressively and won't be paying it regardless of whether it is 33 or 36 or 100%.

Still this wealth tax sounds great to those who pay local authority rent with 15% of the social welfare payment which they are gifted each week.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]
An offspring renting would be liable to that inheritance tax too.

Yes, the inheritor could be a millionaire with 3 houses or a renter on his uppers with financial woes and Revenue will come knocking just the same.

namloc1980

FF getting pipped at the line for the last seat in a lot of remaining counts. They won't make 40 seats at the rate things are going.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Making a note to myself to not strive to better myself, spend all my money and leave my offspring financially insecure.

You better yourself by working for something, you think you better yourself by inheriting something?

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

that's the message you took from that?

Leaving your children an asset that the first 335k is tax free (and the balance is taxed at 33%) would be leaving them financially insecure?

Dry your eyes. You're all over the place.

Parents have already paid tax multiple times on that money, it’s the families money now and should be free to pass around among them the same as a married couple can. A parent is more closely related to their child than a married couple yet they get taxed on anything over the very small 335k threashold. It’s a joke and the tax should be totally abolished between family members.

Plenty of counties have no inheritance or far lower rates/higher threasholds so it’s for from a crazy suggestion. Anyone complaining about it are just begrudging others as they aren’t getting anything themselves.

Parents who strive to make their children’s lives as comfortable as possible, try to have it so they never worry about money etc should be commended not taxed.

Sir Oxman

The last few seats are eluding FF in droves.
This is a wonderful day two, the rejection of the FG-FF duopoly is proven.


The FF losses and failures on top of the FG collapse is very satisfying.
If FF or FG deign to return SF's contact when it comes and a coalition comes out of this election, there will be no junior party in that arrangement.
SF won't be going the way of the Greens and Labour.


If a coalition doesn't come about with SF involved, the only alternative is the rejected FF-FG combo otherwise it's another election and prepare for an even bigger shift left to SF, SD and Green.

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

You better yourself by working for something, you think you better yourself by inheriting something?

Do I better myself when this same party will be quite happy to tax me at above 50% for the sweat of my brow once I go above a certain level and if I want to save my offspring the same life of toil they'll be forced to get a job to pay off the tax bill on the inheritence. I don't see my purpose in life being to work and wouldn't want to consign it on the offspring either.

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The last few seats are eluding FF in droves.
This is a wonderful day two, the rejection of the FG-FF duopoly is proven.

Yes, I've observed this too. It is like they've become transfer toxic. distributions from counts are very small. People weren't numbering their way through the ballot paper.

Feisar

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The last few seats are eluding FF in droves.
This is a wonderful day two, the rejection of the FG-FF duopoly is proven.


The FF losses and failures on top of the FG collapse is very satisfying.
If FF or FG deign to return SF's contact when it comes and a coalition comes out of this election, there will be no junior party in that arrangement.
SF won't be going the way of the Greens and Labour.


If a coalition doesn't come about with SF involved, the only alternative is the rejected FF-FG combo otherwise it's another election and prepare for an even bigger shift left to SF, SD and Green.

Can FF and FG not form a coalition?

namloc1980

Sir Oxman wrote: »

The last few seats are eluding FF in droves.
This is a wonderful day two, the rejection of the FG-FF duopoly is proven.


The FF losses and failures on top of the FG collapse is very satisfying.
If FF or FG deign to return SF's contact when it comes and a coalition comes out of this election, there will be no junior party in that arrangement.
SF won't be going the way of the Greens and Labour.


If a coalition doesn't come about with SF involved, the only alternative is the rejected FF-FG combo otherwise it's another election and prepare for an even bigger shift left to SF, SD and Green.

Went through the remaining counts and I have FF getting 38/39, SF 36/37 and FG on 35. Greens picking up a lot of transfers in late counts and I have them on 13. On that basis FF and FG short of a majority and will need someone else like the Greens.

Feisar

Feisar wrote: »

Can FF and FG not form a coalition?

It’s the only hope the country has for a bit of stability and a decent outlook going forward. People are total idiots voting so much for SF. Totally ignoring how well the county has done under FG.

The only positive of SF getting into gov is to allow themselves demonstrate they haven’t a clue and can’t even nearly achieve anything they have claimed and put them back under their rock at the next election.

namloc1980

Grayson Tasty Springboard wrote: »

It’s the only hope the county has for a bit of stability and a decent outlook going forward. People are total idiots voting so much for SF. Totally ignoring how well the county has done under FG.

FF and FG will be 6 or 7 seats short of majority the way things are going.

A lot of people aren't feeling the impact of the economy doing well.

ricero

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF getting pipped at the line for the last seat in a lot of remaining counts. They won't make 40 seats at the rate things are going.

Amazing. Just goes to show that SF should lead the next dail.

Plumbthedepths

Grayson Tasty Springboard wrote: »

It’s the only hope the country has for a bit of stability and a decent outlook going forward. People are total idiots voting so much for SF. Totally ignoring how well the county has done under FG.

People are idiots because they didn't vote for FG? This typifies the arrogance which FG and their supporters can barely conceal.

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Increase inheritance tax from 3% to 36%!!!

Wow!!!

And what is wrong with that? I think its a reasonable idea but I would like to see the thresholds that FG and FF savagely cut restored

group A thresholds have been totally decimate under FF and FG

2009 €542,544 FF in government
2010 €414,799 CUT by FF
2011 €250,000 CUT by FG
2012 €225,000 CUT by FG
2016 €280,000 INCREASED by FG
2018 €310,000 INCREASED by FG
2019 €320,000 INCREASED by FG

Personally I think a 3% increase would be a moderate and acceptable increase if the threshold was adjusted so it was inline with the the value of a typical family home and that threshold only applied to the first home bequeathed

The problem with the system as it stands is that a typical home in Dublin could be valued at well over€320,000 potentially forcing an inheritor to sell the property if they cannot afford the tax.

The problem with the system though is that the threshold applies to ALL homes bequeathed. A multimillionaire that leaves 3 or 4 homes to family members results in that threshold being applied 3 or 4 times, which is wrong in my opinion. Surely it would be fairer to raise the threshold significantly for the first home bequeathed but not applied to subsequent properties. The result is yet again its a tax that benefits the very wealthy but penalises those of modest or moderate incomes.

But for FF or FG, or their supporters, to criticise the SF proposal is pure hypocrisy.
3% of a home valued at €400,000 is €12,000, far far less than the savage cuts to the threshold made by both FF and FG
Personally I think €4000,000 would be a fair threshold as it would protect the family home for the vast majority of inheritors

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

FF and FG will be 6 or 7 seats short of majority the way things are going.

A lot of people aren't feeling the impact of the economy doing well.

Most independents will work with FF and FG so they can help make up the numbers. I don’t want to see the greens anywhere near Gov either if possible.

McMurphy

Grayson Tasty Springboard wrote: »

It’s the only hope the country has for a bit of stability and a decent outlook going forward. People are total idiots voting so much for SF. Totally ignoring how well the county has done under FG.

The only positive of SF getting into gov is to allow themselves demonstrate they haven’t a clue and can’t even nearly achieve anything they have claimed and put them back under their rock at the next election.

People are idiots because they voted for a party you didn't want them to?

Did I read somewhere that FG and their supporters have a reputation for being extremely condescending, and dripping with arrogance?

I'm sure I did.

Yurt2

Grayson Tasty Springboard wrote: »

It’s the only hope the country has for a bit of stability and a decent outlook going forward. People are total idiots voting so much for SF. Totally ignoring how well the county has done under FG.

The only positive of SF getting into gov is to allow themselves demonstrate they haven’t a clue and can’t even nearly achieve anything they have claimed and put them back under their rock at the next election.

I love the hubris and conceit in this post. The licking that FG are taking should be a big red flashing light that a huge swathe of the population aren't feeling the benefit of the economy expanding, and in many cases, their lives are getting more difficult.

Instead of taking a few days to gather their thoughts to see where things are going wrong, blue supporters deride people as idiots.

I've never been so glad to see party bomb at election. They really are just a Tory-boy treehouse club.

efanton

efanton wrote: »

And what is wrong with that? I think its a reasonable idea but I would like to see the thresholds that FG and FF savagely cut restored

group A thresholds have been totally decimate under FF and FG

2009 €542,544 FF in government
2010 €414,799 CUT by FF
2011 €250,000 CUT by FG
2012 €225,000 CUT by FG
2016 €280,000 INCREASED by FG
2018 €310,000 INCREASED by FG
2019 €320,000 INCREASED by FG

Personally I think a 3% increase would be a moderate and acceptable increase if the threshold was adjusted so it was inline with the the value of a typical family home and that threshold only applied to the first home bequeathed

The problem with the system as it stands is that a typical home in Dublin could be valued at well over€320,000 potentially forcing an inheritor to sell the property if they cannot afford the tax.

The problem with the system though is that the threshold applies to ALL homes bequeathed. A multimillionaire that leaves 3 or 4 homes to family members results in that threshold being applied 3 or 4 times, which is wrong in my opinion. Surely it would be fairer to raise the threshold significantly for the first home bequeathed. The result is yet again its a tax that benefits the very wealthy but penalises those of modest or moderate incomes.

But for FF or FG, or their supporters, to criticise the SF proposal is pure hypocrisy.
3% of a home valued at €400,000 is €12000, far far less than the savage cuts to the threshold made by both FF and FG
Personally I think €4000,000 would be a fair threshold as it would protect the family home for the vast majority of inheritors

Using your own stats don't you think that FG should be commended for having the humility to acknowledge their mistake and gradually raising the threshold again over the years. Except for the uncertainty over BREXIT this pattern would have continued.

namloc1980

Grayson Tasty Springboard wrote: »

Most independents will work with FF and FG so they can help make up the numbers. I don’t want to see the greens anywhere near Gov either if possible.

After the useless Shane Ross and Katherine Zappone experience I truly hope no independent is given a ministry ever again. I'd like to see the Greens in with FF and FG. Otherwise we'll get the same old road centric and dispersed housing shiite we've had for generations.

efanton

Deleted User wrote: »

Using your own stats don't you think that FG should be commended for having the humility to acknowledge their mistake and gradually raising the threshold again over the years. Except for the certainty over BREXIT this pattern would have continued.

I agree it was a step in the right direction, but bear in mind those increase barely matched the increases in property values.
FG never really fixed the problem, had they tried to do that the thresholds would have increased dramatically more.
Like I have said, surely the smart move would have to applied the threshold to the first property but restored it to around €400,000.
The way it works at the moment, the typical family is penalised but the very wealthy benefit.

Muahahaha

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Yep


I remember poster insisting that FG had been given the go-ahead/the all-clear/a big thumbs up by the Commemoration external expert group for the loony RIC/Tan ceremony even as Diarmuid Ferriter was on the news saying the exact opposite (and that arch FGer Maurice Manning, chair of the Expert group confirming same)
This was repeated over the next few hours on that thread by yer man.
Oh and he threw in about ten posts saying every party had agreed with it as well at the All-Party Ctte just cos y'know, someone might believe that and think FG were in the right.



So, file under delusional FG.;)

And just a few other things we can file under Fine Gael delusion from this campaign-

-Mary Lou did not win the debates and there is a bang of cordite coming off her. Clearly Mary Lou won the debates and it played a large part in the SF bounce in the polls, they went from 19% to 24% during the campaign alone. Martin and Varadkar spent much of the debates explaining themselves and as we know when you're explaining you' re losing. Yet according to many on here Leo won the debates hands down, wrong, very, very wrong

- A completely misplaced belief that the public cares about IRA mudslinging when the reality is they are sick and tired of hearing it. Lots of posters here were getting giddy at the Paul Quinn affair and predicting Sinn Feins demise. Despite a concerted 48 hour media onslaught right before polling day this did not happen. Time for some people to take their heads out of the past

- That Sinn Fein voters are "dole scroungers","mouth breathers" and "want everything for free". In this election Sinn Fein topped the poll in every single age category from 18 to 65. Sinn Fein voters are people who are in good jobs but cannot afford child care, are crippled with rents higher than Sydney and Tokyo and see their chances of ever buying their own home (just like their parents did) quickly evaporating after 9 years of FG policy of pumping the market. Thats the new reality but Fine Gael delusion still doesnt quite get it

thequarefellow

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I've observed this too. It is like they've become transfer toxic. distributions from counts are very small. People weren't numbering their way through the ballot paper.

I have to admit I didn't do this myself. But this is one of the few times in many elections that my first preference vote has got a seat so I have been following the count very closely and now see the importance of it. There should be more guidance on this pre-election. Many people don't fully understand how vote transfers work.