Why inheritance is the dirty secret of the middle classes – harder to talk about than sex

This is bizarre logic.

First off, you're going for an ideal world as a cop out - assuming that it's somehow possible to predict the death of a parent (or blaming people for bad planning if the death was sudden) and even then you're condoning inheriting without tax while trying to argue for the exact opposite in the first place....?

Then you're advising people to sell off the house they already own (eh???!) and telling people that they should actually have to pay 1 million euro to move into a house that they legally already own....?? That's actually beyond bizarre.

And even 33% of 350k is something in the region of 115,000 euro. Not everyone has that kind of cash lying around - what makes you think they do??

The only think I can take from this post is that you seem to be of the belief that everyone who inherits either already owns houses or has hundreds of thousands of cash on hand. At which point I've proven the flaws in your thinking that I highlighted in my initial post.

1) You don't need two houses. If you inherit a house that you want to live in, you won't need your current house.

2) I think you misunderstand the basics. If you inherit the 350k house from your parents, you will pay zero tax on it.

The idea behind 100% relief for inheriting a house if living in it, is not for a person to cynically guess when their parent will die so that they can move in in time. It is meant for people who are genuinely living in a house and sharing with a parent so that they can keep living there. If you have your own house, then it isn't aimed at you

How about we just tax money and property involved in commercial transactions?

I've delt with no 1 more than once, I'm not dealing with it again.

Regarding no. 2 - aren't you arguing that the recipient should have to pay the 33% tax in this scenario? or have I picked you up wrong?

Example: I pay rent and live on a modest income, I own no other properties - my parents pass away leaving me their house - I want to cancel my lease and move into what is now my legally owned house - you're saying I should pay 1/3 of the value of the house to revenue to do this - yes or no?

Either take out a loan to pay off the tax (you now have an asset you can secure that loan against) or if you can't afford the repayments sell the house and use the remainder to buy a smaller house. At a minimum you've gained €335,000 + 67% of anything over that.

I really don't get it, am I supposed to feel sorry for the small amount of people in this situation beyond feeling sorry for the death of their loved one? Like, having to sell the family home, if it comes to that, isn't great in an emotional sense but as far as real problems go, it's not high up there compared to say, never being able to afford a home at all.

You have a lifetime CAT threshold of 335k. If your parents gift, or bequeath, you a house, worth 335k, then you pay zero tax. Are you getting that part?

I am merely telling you that that limit is there which means that the majority of people won't have to pay much, if any, inheritance tax. I didn't give any opinion on whether that should be lower or higher. Just that it is there

Because it's not a commercial or financial transaction, that's why not. Just because something has value and changes hands doesn't mean you're entitled to a percentage of it. This is governemnt going beyond it's remit and dictating to private citizens how conduct there affairs.

It's not that tax hasn't been paid on middle class people's savings it's just that they decide to do a bit of the heavy lifting for someone else when they are gone.

I get that people want to create legacy, they want to set their progeny up for success because they have evolved to propagate their genetics as far as possible for as long as possible, this is the genetic competition of life. But as a social agreement, I think it makes sense to shut this down. All it does is further exacerbate inequality of opportunity and actually weakens humanity as a whole. So it's fine people want to be selfish, it's our nature but our society should overcome individual selfishness for the sake of society.

There is one argument against too much inheritance tax that you haven't made but that I agree with. If you have say 100% inheritance tax, it will be bad because as people approach the end of life, they will lose all motivation and maybe degrade or destroy their own business and assets, that's why there is a balance, to keep people invested until the end of their lives.

When it comes to financial matters, I generally veer towards the right and feel that taxpayers could get better value for what they pay.

However I think that inheritance tax is the most important thing to ensure (as far as it is possible) equal opportunities for all.

Some claim that the deceased's assets have already been taxed; this is true, but over their lifetime they have had the benefits from this taxation - education, healthcare, roads, police, welfare etc.

The inheritor has done nothing whatsoever to earn that money.

Why should they think they have more entitlement than someone with less rich parents. Hopefully they have benefited from their parents' example of sound financial management.

Isn't the point that you don't own the house, you own 66% of the house?

Congrats on the free 66% of a house by the way. Luckily you were born in the right family.

I think you are trying to hard to associate IHT with some form of Darwinism, I doubt most parents think of inheritance as a form of protection of their bloodline. Passing on what you have toiled for isn’t selfish any more than buying what you want to for your children, or paying for their education is. For most parents, society can look after itself, but we want to look after our children. Family first.

I gave you a scenario in which inheritance tax was unfair, you agreed with it.

My final word, again, goes back to my initial assessment: you seem to think most people who inherit are already rich (which is not always the case). And I'm done here - I proved what I set out to prove.

I mean it's not hard for me to associate this with darwinism, you just ended your post with "family first", where do you think that desire comes from?

I'm sure they don't care about society but they have benefitted from it and they are part of it. Society should impose a tax not out of some form of envy or spite but because it is better for society to try as best we can to create equal opportunity for all people so that the competition drives us all to greater output and innovation.

If you leave money or property to someone in your will Revenue don't care about their personal circumstances.

They could be unemployed or have a sick kid but it is all the same to Revenue.