# CAT Group A threshold from €320k to €335k



## Brendan Burgess (8 Oct 2019)

lll


----------



## Sarenco (8 Oct 2019)

This threshold has been increased by almost 50% since 2015.

Why?


----------



## Easel (8 Oct 2019)

Pascal's explanation said it was to do with the CAT payable on the transfer of the family home. With this increase the allowance is down 38% since the 2009 level of €542,544.


----------



## Blackrock1 (8 Oct 2019)

why not? it was decreased from a more sensible 542k in 2009 to 250k by 2011


----------



## Sarenco (8 Oct 2019)

Blackrock1 said:


> why not?


Well, it seems very regressive to me.

I've never understood why kids should expect to inherit their "family home" tax-free in any event.


----------



## Easel (8 Oct 2019)

Sarenco said:


> Well, it seems very regressive to me.
> 
> I've never understood why kids should expect to inherit their "family home" tax-free in any event.



Regressive in what way? Would decreasing the threshold have been progressive?

I do agree with the family home point you make none the less. People using the fair deal scheme to subsidise their retirement care while the house sits empty is a misuse of the allowance.


----------



## 24601 (8 Oct 2019)

Easel said:


> Regressive in what way? Would decreasing the threshold have been progressive?
> 
> I do agree with the family home point you make none the less. People using the fair deal scheme to subsidise their retirement care while the house sits empty is a misuse of the allowance.



Surely the inheritance of property is one of the most inequitable transfers of wealth imaginable? It's extremely regressive.


----------



## Blackrock1 (8 Oct 2019)

a regressive tax is one that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. Its not regressive by that definition. I dont understand why family wealth which is ordinarily been subject to tax already should be taxed again to prop up our welfare state.


----------



## RedOnion (8 Oct 2019)

Blackrock1 said:


> I dont understand why family wealth which is ordinarily been subject to tax already should be taxed again to prop up our welfare state.


I think if there wasn't an exemption from CGT on death, then I'd fully agree with your point.


----------



## Easel (8 Oct 2019)

RedOnion said:


> I think if there wasn't an exemption from CGT on death, then I'd fully agree with your point.


Are you proposing that a PPR should be subject to CGT on the death of the owner? This is a decent compromise but it would certainly lead to a dramatic increase in the sale of properties by wealthy pensioners in order to downsize to reduce tax bills for their estate


----------



## Sarenco (8 Oct 2019)

Easel said:


> Regressive in what way?


Regressive in the sense that the tax forgone by the State has to be collected from those that won't benefit from a tax-free inheritance.

Personally, I would prefer to see a lower tax burden on earned income.


----------



## 24601 (8 Oct 2019)

Blackrock1 said:


> a regressive tax is one that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. Its not regressive by that definition. I dont understand why family wealth which is ordinarily been subject to tax already should be taxed again to prop up our welfare state.



Why should 100s of thousands of unearned wealth pass intergenerationally with no tax? I'd much rather we taxed these sorts of transfers of wealth rather than charging a ~50% marginal rate on income.


----------



## 24601 (8 Oct 2019)

Sarenco said:


> Regressive in the sense that the tax forgone by the State has to be collected from those that won't benefit from a tax-free inheritance.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer to see a lower tax burden on earned income.



It's all upside down. We punish work in Ireland but perpetuate this weird policy that taxing property is immoral. Taking 52% of someone's income is immoral.


----------



## nad (8 Oct 2019)

Blackrock1 said:


> why not? it was decreased from a more sensible 542k in 2009 to 250k by 2011


Have to agree,
Personally I'd like to see this increase overtime  back nearer  to where it was in 2009 as if I have an asset which I have built up the value in and most likely having paid a lot of tax on doing that ( vat,stamp duty, Lpt etc,)then why should more tax be paid when passing it on to an offspring..


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Oct 2019)

The typical family inheritance is to 2 to 3 children in Ireland.

The threshold is per recipient, not on the estate.

It means three children can now share the inheritance of a €1m house and not pay a cent of CAT!

That is far from a typical 'family home'.


----------



## john luc (9 Oct 2019)

The bigger problem is the B and C rates are downright theft. There are many people paying taxes all their lives and because they do not have children have their after taxed wealth stolen from them by an  insatiable  tax system. I  know of one such estate where it was distributed to 15 people and the total value was €750K. The taxthief got the biggest chunk. I do not subscribe to the view that the taxman is an honourable and worthy entity.


----------

