# OECD advises Ireland to increase inheritance taxes



## Brendan Burgess (11 May 2021)

Reform inheritance tax to ease inequality, says OECD
					

Report praises elements of Irish tax regime but suggests others need improvement




					www.irishtimes.com
				




_Recommendations_​_Ireland meets several of the criteria that the report suggests for reform of inheritance tax to make it more equitable. These include the taxing of beneficiaries rather than estates. Ireland also operates a cumulative system, where inheritances and large gifts (those above €3,000) are added to each other to see if a beneficiary exceeds a tax-free threshold.

However, that cumulative system is tiered. That means that while lifetime tax-free inheritances are generally modest, there is a disproportionately large threshold for children inheriting from parents.

Successive governments have defended this position on the basis that, for most families, the family home accounts for the majority of one’s estate. A lower threshold was seen as forcing children inheriting a family home from a parent to sell it to meet the tax liability.


Scaling back tax exemptions and reliefs is seen by the OECD as key to strengthening the revenue-raising potential, efficiency and equity of inheritance and gift taxes, as is addressing loopholes or specific tax structures that encourage or facilitate tax avoidance and are generally open to more wealthy families.

It also proposes that tax rates should be “progressive”, meaning they would increase as the amount a beneficiary receives rises._


----------



## noproblem (11 May 2021)

Accountants going to be busy.


----------



## Protocol (11 May 2021)

__





						Inheritance Taxation in OECD Countries | en | OECD
					

The report explores the role that inheritance taxation could play in raising revenues, addressing inequalities and improving efficiency in OECD countries. It provides background on the distribution and evolution of household wealth and inheritances,...




					www.oecd.org
				





Inheritance Taxation in OECD Countries​The report explores the role that inheritance taxation could play in raising revenues, addressing inequalities and improving efficiency in OECD countries. It provides background on the distribution and evolution of household wealth and inheritances, assesses the case for and against inheritance taxation drawing on existing theoretical and empirical literature, and examines the design of inheritance, estate and gift taxes in OECD countries. The report concludes with a number of reform options that governments could consider to improve the design and functioning of wealth transfer taxes.


----------



## Protocol (11 May 2021)

Infograph:

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/inheritance-taxation-in-oecd-countries-infographic.pdf


----------



## Protocol (11 May 2021)

Brochure

Full report


----------



## Mocame (12 May 2021)

I always find it amusing that newspaper articles which criticize inheritance tax suggest it is a tax on the 'family home'.  By the time the vast majority of people inherit they haven't lived in their parents' home for decades (and people who still do live with their parents benefit from exemptions from inheritance tax).  So why is this deliberately emotive term 'family home' used to describe the  transfer of wealth, with in return for a minimal tax payment, on the basis of an accident of birth?  This is a rhetorical question by the way - I know the answer!

Personally I think inheritance tax should be abolished and income tax should just be levied on inherited property.  I don't see why I should pay a much higher rate of tax on the income I work hard for when someone who does no work and inherits a property pays a much lower rate of tax.


----------



## blanketyblank (12 May 2021)

Well hasnt the person who owned the house paid plenty of tax throughout their lifetime and now we want to screw them again when dead?    It's probably the only thing some people leave.   I think it's fine as is.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

blanketyblank said:


> Well hasnt the person who owned the house paid plenty of tax throughout their lifetime


Yes but almost none on the property. CGT exemption for the PPR, maybe mortgage interest relief at some stage which is a subsidy, there were FTB housing grants in the 1970s too.

LPT only since 2013.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

In general the OECD advises something that is already a feature of the Irish system:



> Instead of taxing each wealth transfer separately, *a tax on lifetime wealth transfers would improve equity and reduce tax avoidance*, but could increase complexity.




I would also re-introduce inflation indexation. More complexity, but more fairness too.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 May 2021)

Mocame said:


> I always find it amusing that newspaper articles which criticize inheritance tax suggest it is a tax on the 'family home'. By the time the vast majority of people inherit they haven't lived in their parents' home for decades (and people who still do live with their parents benefit from exemptions from inheritance tax). So why is this deliberately emotive term 'family home' used to describe the transfer of wealth, with in return for a minimal tax payment, on the basis of an accident of birth?



Couldn't agree more.  You will often see references to children "being forced to sell the family home". 

If someone has been living in it and caring for their parents, isn't that allowed for in the CAT rules? 

Other than that, the threshold should be reduced significantly from €330k. 

I would like to see a rebalancing between capital and income taxes. 

Brendan


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes but almost none on the property. CGT exemption for the PPR, maybe mortgage interest relief at some stage which is a subsidy, there were FTB housing grants in the 1970s too.
> 
> LPT only since 2013.


Stamp Duty.
There were rates back until the 1970s also.

The interest relief and FTB grants would need to be balanced against not having to depend on the state for social housing supports.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Stamp Duty.
> There were rates back until the 1970s also.
> 
> The interest relief and FTB grants would need to be balanced against not having to depend on the state for social housing supports.


The real issue is that we have almost no property tax. I'm currently paying one one thousandth of the value of the house I own in annual property taxes.

I fully agree with Brendan that we need a rebalancing of taxes between income and capital. I'd be in favour of a tripling of property taxes but levy it on the value of the home less the value of the outstanding mortgage.


----------



## 24601 (12 May 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Couldn't agree more.  You will often see references to children "being forced to sell the family home".
> 
> If someone has been living in it and caring for their parents, isn't that allowed for in the CAT rules?
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more. As a nation have a weird obsession with leaving fully financially independent adult children in their 40s/50s/60s a few bob, often to the detriment of living our own lives more comfortably in later years. 

CAT and property tax should be much higher with the higher rate of IT kicking in at a much higher level of income.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

blanketyblank said:


> Well hasnt the person who owned the house paid plenty of tax throughout their lifetime and now we want to screw them again when dead?    It's probably the only thing some people leave.   I think it's fine as is.


The person leaving the legacy won't pay any tax on it; they are dead. The people paying the tax didn't contribute anything to the wealth creation and, let's be honest here, given that most of the wealth we are talking about is in the form of property, the person leaving it probably did bugger all to creating the wealth other than just buying their house in the 60's or 70's.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> The real issue is that we have almost no property tax. I'm currently paying one one thousandth of the value of the house I own in annual property taxes.
> 
> I fully agree with Brendan that we need a rebalancing of taxes between income and capital. I'd be in favour of a tripling of property taxes but levy it on the value of the home less the value of the outstanding mortgage.


Interesting idea, as long as it doesn't create more incentive to not pay off mortgage...


----------



## odyssey06 (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> The person leaving the legacy won't pay any tax on it; they are dead. The people paying the tax didn't contribute anything to the wealth creation and, let's be honest here, given that most of the wealth we are talking about is in the form of property, the person leaving it probably did bugger all to creating the wealth other than just buying their house in the 60's or 70's.


Not sure how much wealth they created, but at least they didn't consume far more costly state housing supports for all those decades.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> Not sure how much wealth they created, but at least they didn't consume far more costly state housing supports for all those decades.


Though the inflated value of their property is leading to the need for more costly state housing.


----------



## Sarenco (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> I'd be in favour of a tripling of property taxes but levy it on the value of the home less the value of the outstanding mortgage.


Wouldn't that incentivise the re-mortgaging of property to avoid the tax?


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

Sarenco said:


> Wouldn't that incentivise the re-mortgaging of property to avoid the tax?


Only allow mortgages taken in the first 5 years of ownership (or something like that).


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Only allow mortgages taken in the first 5 years of ownership (or something like that).


Then watch banks offer a product that goes interest only when you hit retirement or an LTV of 20% or whatever.

The tax system should be indifferent to how you finance your purchase IMO and should not encourage leverage.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Then watch banks offer a product that goes interest only when you hit retirement or an LTV of 20% or whatever.
> 
> The tax system should be indifferent to how you finance your purchase IMO and should not encourage leverage.


Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.


Take a retiree with a €1m house, a €2m pension fund, and a €100k outstanding mortgage.

A bank would very happily structure an interest-only product for retirement if it brought down the retiree's tax bill.

It would be a tax subsidy for people rich enough to take on debt.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Take a retiree with a €1m house, a €2m pension fund, and a €100k outstanding mortgage.
> 
> A bank would very happily structure an interest-only product for retirement if it brought down the retiree's tax bill.
> 
> It would be a tax subsidy for people rich enough to take on debt.



So they'll have net wealth of €2.9 million instead of €3 million. Still a considerable amount.


----------



## Itchy (12 May 2021)

The tax advantage that accrues from inheritance should be brought forward to earlier in the lifecycle. And the wealth effect should be redistributed more broadly.

All tax free CAT thresholds could be removed and this could finance a sort of tax advantaged investment account e.g. like the UKs ISA or a flexible PRSA type account (with appropriate limits) that could be used as a pension fund seed or a house deposit savings account. In addition, a scheme whereby the best 5 years of employers PRSI paid on your behalf (up to some age, say 35 and subject to a limit) could be paid into this account. This achieves a broader wealth distribution by giving the ability to unlock wealth, through work, that would otherwise take years to accrue to a less well off young person starting out and who would otherwise never receive a meaningful inheritance anyway. It would level the playing field among young adults and provide a financial foundation/security for the population. 

The IHT situation for farm and family businesses needs to be examined also. It seems overly generous on the face of it.


----------



## The Horseman (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Though the inflated value of their property is leading to the need for more costly state housing.


It is not. The ongoing debate about the housing crisis suggests there is State owned land sufficient to build 114k properties. Raw material prices and labour costs are the only costs applicable. 

Property prices are in the main dictated by location (finish to some degree also) but in the main house prices are based on land value. If a large cost is removed IE the land value how are other properties increasing the price of properties built on State owned land?


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> It is not. The ongoing debate about the housing crisis suggests there is State owned land sufficient to build 114k properties. Raw material prices and labour costs are the only costs applicable.


Who is saying that?
We don't have the capacity to build the houses and the cost of land and construction only account for about 60-70% of the total costs. Hard costs (Construction) account for 52% of total. 



The Horseman said:


> Property prices are in the main dictated by location (finish to some degree also) but in the main house prices are based on land value. If a large cost is removed IE the land value how are other properties increasing the price of properties built on State owned land?


Property prices are determined by the Demand Curve, just like everything else. 
Property development costs are determined by construction costs, land prices, development levies, Taxes, finance costs etc. 

When there is increased demand for existing housing stock and new housing completions are not keeping up with demand because of multiple factors (Labour shortages, raw material inflation, delays in planning etc) then we have inflation driven by supply shortages.


----------



## The Horseman (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Who is saying that?
> We don't have the capacity to build the houses and the cost of land and construction only account for about 60-70% of the total costs. Hard costs (Construction) account for 52% of total.
> 
> 
> ...


If you are building houses on State land then only net cost the State incurs is labour and material costs. All other costs like development levies, VAT etc are costs charged by the State on itself so is net cost to the State. 

Property prices are indeed determined by the Demand curve but what determines the demand curve. In the main its location, why would somebody pay the same price for identical properties one in an area with all the amenities and one with none? Both people will want to get the best value for their euro. 

We need to be utilising our existing housing stock better. There are a whole myraid of schemes which could be utilised to increase how we use the existing stock we have. For example look at the Fair Deals scheme and the properties that are empty because of how the scheme operates. Look at the number of properties where parents have built "Granny Flats" and moved into them to allow their children raise a family in their homes.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> Property prices are indeed determined by the Demand curve but what determines the demand curve. In the main its location, why would somebody pay the same price for identical properties one in an area with all the amenities and one with none? Both people will want to get the best value for their euro.


The primary driver is that there is more demand than supply. 


The Horseman said:


> We need to be utilising our existing housing stock better. There are a whole myraid of schemes which could be utilised to increase how we use the existing stock we have. For example look at the Fair Deals scheme and the properties that are empty because of how the scheme operates. Look at the number of properties where parents have built "Granny Flats" and moved into them to allow their children raise a family in their homes


I agree completely there. I'd also have a needs assessment every 5 years on social housing so that there is maximum bedroom utilisation. We have 235,000 social housing units in this country and there are lots of 3 bed units with a single occupant. State social assets should be used for the greatest social good.


----------



## gianni (12 May 2021)

Perhaps something like the UK 'bedroom tax' is needed in Ireland?


----------



## fistophobia (12 May 2021)

The dwelling house exemption needs to be scrapped.
Tax-free gifting of a house, of any value. This seems very unfair.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (12 May 2021)

It would be pretty easy to stop any fluting around with debt; just mirror the rules around tax deductions against rental income. Unless the borrowing are for the purchase, repair, or improvement of the property, they don’t count.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (12 May 2021)

I think inheritance taxes are high enough TBH. By increasing them, you’re just hitting moderately wealthy people, of which there aren’t that many so I’d question how much it’d really raise.

If I take myself, I’m paying a hell of a lot of tax and there’s not a whole lot that I can do to avoid that. I get to keep 48c out of every Euro I make. If I give that 48c to my kids, they’ll pay 16c of it away in CAT (after their thresholds are gone).

If I invest the money, the State probably takes an average 40% of any return.

And the State takes none of the investment risk on my pension, but gets 50% of any drawdowns from it and 30% of the capital value when my kids get it.

And the State wants more? Why should it get more? I earned €100 and my kids might end up with €32.

The State might be better served if it assessed people based on their domicile, as the bigger leakage is with people who have, say, €10m plus, of which there’s more than you think.

If I had, say, €50m, my family would pay zero inheritance tax.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I think inheritance taxes are high enough TBH.



A good tax system has a broad base and a low rate. A broad base so that everyone pays a bit. A low rate so that incentives to invest and earn are maintained.

CAT in Ireland is kind of the opposite. Very generous tax free thresholds for children and then a high rate on top.

My brother-in-law has paid very little income tax his whole life due to a spotty work history. He had an inheritance of €250k a few years ago and it seems crazy that not a cent of it was taxed.

A structure like the first €100k tax free with 20% after that would be far more equitable.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (12 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I think inheritance taxes are high enough TBH.



A good tax system has a broad base and a low rate. A broad base so that everyone pays a bit. A low rate so that incentives to invest and earn are maintained.

CAT in Ireland is kind of the opposite. Very generous tax free thresholds for children and then a high rate on top.

My brother-in-law has paid very little income tax his whole life due to a spotty work history. He had an inheritance of €250k a few years ago and it seems crazy that not a cent of it was taxed.

A structure like the first €100k tax free with 20% after that would be far more equitable.


----------



## noproblem (12 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Then we need a wealth tax which includes the family home though there are very few people retiring who are still paying off a significant mortgage. Plus banks don't like retirees having mortgages.


Banks may not like it as you say,  but they know only too well that there are plenty of retired people who are paying, or part paying mortgages for "so called" children. No goverment will change the rule on inheritance downward from where it is. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas and you can talk all day long about the rights and wrongs of that, it won't make any difference. Why not incentivise older people to move somewhere smaller while they're alive, that way everyone gains if it was structured and implemented correctly.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

noproblem said:


> Why not incentivise older people to move somewhere smaller while they're alive, that way everyone gains if it was structured and implemented correctly.


Do that as well.



noproblem said:


> Banks may not like it as you say, but they know only too well that there are plenty of retired people who are paying, or part paying mortgages for "so called" children.



Do we want a country where one group of people get massive tax free capital appreciation which they can pass on to their children at very low rates of tax while capital inflation and wage stagnation sees everyone else getting poorer in real terms?

I find is wrong that for a working person to save a net €40k they have to earn €82,000 but someone who owns a house worth €800,000 can make that €40k tax free with a 5% increase in the value of their home. They can then pass it on to their 3 children tax free.

For the record I'm a high earner who will benefit from the generous inheritance tax system we have.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Do that as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But Purple, in most cases they made €82k to net them €40k so they could buy the house.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> But Purple, in most cases they made €82k to net them €40k so they could buy the house.


No they didn't. In most cases they bought the house for a much lower figure and benefitted from tax free capital appreciation. We see from the report the other day that people born in the 60's are twice as likely to own their home than people born in the 80's.

Fundamentally we need to introduce wealth into discussions about income and taxation. If I earn €60k a year but own my home outright and my neighbour earns €120k a year but has a €300k mortgage then not only am I wealthier than him but I also have a much higher discretionary income. There's no way he should be hit with a tax increase before me.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 May 2021)

Purple said:


> No they didn't. In most cases they bought the house for a much lower figure and benefitted from tax free capital appreciation. We see from the report the other day that people born in the 60's are twice as likely to own their home than people born in the 80's.
> 
> Fundamentally we need to introduce wealth into discussions about income and taxation. If I earn €60k a year but own my home outright and my neighbour earns €120k a year but has a €300k mortgage then not only am I wealthier than him but I also have a much higher discretionary income. There's no way he should be hit with a tax increase before me.


But Purple, perhaps that’s the case for the older generation but that ship has sailed in the main for younger people.

There’s a danger that we legislate on the basis of what happened before and just punish people who have fought hard to earn the money to “overpay” for their home.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> But Purple, perhaps that’s the case for the older generation but that ship has sailed in the main for younger people.
> 
> There’s a danger that we legislate on the basis of what happened before and just punish people who have fought hard to earn the money to “overpay” for their home.


That's true and that's why I'd like to see the outstanding mortgage deducted from the property tax.
Even for the people who have overpaid for their homes they will see more significant capital appreciation in the coming years.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

Sinn Fein want to _"Introduce a tax on individual net wealth in excess of €1 million euros, excluding working farmland and business assets."_ That seems utterly pointless from a practical tax raising perspective.
To get in to the top 10% of  earners in this country you have to earn a whopping €69,511.01 a year. To get into the top 1% you have to earn €189,701.69. The Shinners are talking about taxing the top 0.1% of earners, less the value of their home, pension and business. That'll amount to bugger all. They also want to _"Introduce a third rate of income tax on individual earnings over €100,000." _That'll also raise bugger all, and increase wealth inequality.
And they are the only party who are talking about tax increases.


----------



## Peanuts20 (13 May 2021)

Sinn Fein's Wealth tax would include 80% of the value of the family home meaning an awful lot of people in the D4 and other parts of Dublin would get dragged in. I agree however, it won't raise much but there is the political optics of it which would be very popular. It would be self assessed so it's open to abuse however.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

Peanuts20 said:


> Sinn Fein's Wealth tax would include 80% of the value of the family home meaning an awful lot of people in the D4 and other parts of Dublin would get dragged in. I agree however, it won't raise much but there is the political optics of it which would be very popular. It would be self assessed so it's open to abuse however.


Details here.
It kills me to say it but from the initial reading I like it, though I don't agree with the 20% exemption on Family homes. Their latest proposal that tax relief on Pension Contributions should be capped at the lower tax band is probably more significant and, in the interest of fairness and equity, would necessitate a massive increase in the Pension Levy and the imposition of BIK on Defied Benefit Pensions.


----------



## Sarenco (13 May 2021)

Purple said:


> They also want to _"Introduce a third rate of income tax on individual earnings over €100,000." _


We already effectively have a third rate of income tax of 55% (including PRSI and the 3% USC surcharge) on non-PAYE income over €100k. 

It would seem broadly equitable to extend that rate to PAYE income over €100K, although taking more than half of any income in tax seems a bad idea to me.


Purple said:


> It kills me to say it but from the initial reading I like it


I don't understand the reference to a "taxable unit" in the document.  If a jointly-assessed married couple have €2m in relevant assets, does the proposed wealth tax apply and, if so, to what amount?

Are mortgages or other liabilities taken in account?  If they are, what's to prevent a taxpayer from mortgaging an asset to avoid the tax?

IMO, SF's proposed wealth tax will cost the exchequer far more than it will raise in revenue as it will result in the flight of some of our wealthiest individual taxpayers (think Michael O'Leary, etc.).  That was certainly the experience in France, which scrapped their wealth tax a few years ago.


Purple said:


> Their latest proposal that tax relief on Pension Contributions should be capped at the lower tax band is probably more significant and, in the interest of fairness and equity, would necessitate a massive increase in the Pension Levy and the imposition of BIK on Defied Benefit Pensions.


SF have also proposed reducing the SFT to €1.2m (which would bring it in line with the UK's lifetime allowance). 

IMO, that would (indirectly) result in the early retirement of a significant number of high earning State employees (think hospital consultants), which would be a disaster.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2021)

All good points.


Sarenco said:


> We already effectively have a third rate of income tax of 55% (including PRSI and the 3% USC surcharge) on non-PAYE income over €100k.
> 
> It would seem broadly equitable to extend that rate to PAYE income over €100K, although taking more than half of any income in tax seems a bad idea to me.


I agree. I'm not in favour of increasing taxes on wealth creation through work. In fact we should be reducing it.


Sarenco said:


> I don't understand the reference to a "taxable unit" in the document.  If a jointly-assessed married couple have €2m in relevant assets, does the proposed wealth tax apply and, if so, to what amount?


I presume they mean taxable unit the same way Revenue do. That would really hit single people.


Sarenco said:


> Are mortgages or other liabilities taken in account?  If they are, what's to prevent a taxpayer from mortgaging an asset to avoid the tax?


Will people really make out mortgages, with the insurance and interest costs, just to avoid a relatively small tax?
If they take out a mortgage then they get the money so the net change in wealth is zero, no?



Sarenco said:


> IMO, SF's proposed wealth tax will cost the exchequer far more than it will raise in revenue as it will result in the flight of some of our wealthiest individual taxpayers (think Michael O'Leary, etc.).  That was certainly the experience in France, which scrapped their wealth tax a few years ago.
> 
> SF have also proposed reducing the SFT to €1.2m (which would bring it in line with the UK's lifetime allowance).
> 
> IMO, that would (indirectly) result in the early retirement of a significant number of high earning State employees (think hospital consultants), which would be a disaster.


It is already the case that top State Employees on DB schemes enjoy larger pensions than anyone in the private sector can get. Reducing it further without a massive increase in the Pension Levy would be grossly unfair.


----------



## Nermal (13 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Sinn Fein want to _"Introduce a tax on individual net wealth in excess of €1 million euros, excluding *working farmland and business assets.*"_ That seems utterly pointless from a practical tax raising perspective.
> To get in to the top 10% of  earners in this country you have to earn a whopping €69,511.01 a year. To get into the top 1% you have to earn €189,701.69. The Shinners are talking about taxing the top 0.1% of earners, less the value of their home, pension and business. That'll amount to bugger all. They also want to _"Introduce a third rate of income tax on individual earnings over €100,000." _That'll also raise bugger all, and increase wealth inequality.
> And they are the only party who are talking about tax increases.



On that topic, did it occur to the OECD to recommend farmers and business owners pay the same inheritance tax as everyone else?


----------



## joe sod (13 May 2021)

It also had other statistics which were not reported in the media, Ireland had a modestly lower tax wedge for the average single worker of  32.3 % as compared 34.6% for the OECD average , however for a married couple with 2 children the tax wedge was substantially lower 24.2 % for OECD average but only 16.1% tax wedge for that couple in Ireland.
Therefore married people with children are substantially better off in Ireland as regards taxation


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (13 May 2021)

joe sod said:


> for OECD average but only 16.1% tax wedge for that couple in Ireland.
> Therefore married people with children are substantially better off in Ireland as regards taxation



Most of the difference is due to child benefit, not the tax system.

If I'm not wrong for two people earning on >€36.6k each marriage makes no difference to their net income.


----------



## joe sod (13 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Most of the difference is due to child benefit, not the tax system.
> 
> If I'm not wrong for two people earning on >€36.6k each marriage makes no difference to their net income.


yes thats taken into account aswell for all OECD countries but in Ireland it is much more generous and universal
_"Child related benefits and tax provisions tend to reduce the tax wedge for workers with children compared with the average single worker. In Ireland in 2020 this reduction (16.2 percentage points) was greater than the OECD average (10.2 percentage points)."_


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 May 2021)

Child Benefit is only €1,680 per year, handy, but hardly a dial-mover.


----------



## joe sod (13 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Child Benefit is only €1,680 per year, handy, but hardly a dial-mover.


it cost 2 billion euros in 2018 , corporation tax receipts in 2018 were 10 billion, sure whats a billion here or there. The point is that if corporation tax receipts are halved in the future as per the OECD warning then all these extra billions in expenditure are significant. Its not the child benefit per se but that their should be more openess and honesty about the benefits that are given in Ireland in comparison to other OECD countries.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 May 2021)

joe sod said:


> it cost 2 billion euros in 2018 , corporation tax receipts in 2018 were 10 billion, sure whats a billion here or there. The point is that if corporation tax receipts are halved in the future as per the OECD warning then all these extra billions in expenditure are significant. Its not the child benefit per se but that their should be more openess and honesty about the benefits that are given in Ireland in comparison to other OECD countries.


That’s a strawman argument. I never referred to it at a national level; I was discussing it in the context of an individual’s earnings.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2021)

Nermal said:


> On that topic, did it occur to the OECD to recommend farmers and business owners pay the same inheritance tax as everyone else?


That would mean businesses and farms would have to be sold with each generation to pay the inheritance tax. That would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (14 May 2021)

Purple said:


> hat would mean businesses *and farms* would have to be sold with each generation to pay the inheritance tax.


Taxing farmers' inheritances would have precisely zero impact on the amount of arable land in the country, or the incentive to farm it.

Which is why it would be such a good tax


----------



## Purple (14 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Taxing farmers' inheritances would have precisely zero impact on the amount of arable land in the country, or the incentive to farm it.
> 
> Which is why it would be such a good tax


Yes, but it would be much harder to raise a loan against an asset which was worth far less than it is now. 
There are lots of farms which also have businesses attached and those businesses would have to close in order to pay the inheritance tax. 
It would effectively give a massive advantage to publicly quoted companies to buy up farms and family businesses. Is that what we want?


----------



## joe sod (14 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That’s a strawman argument. I never referred to it at a national level; I was discussing it in the context of an individual’s earnings.


It's not a strawman argument, I referred to the benefits to married couples with children of the Irish taxation system relative to other oecd countries, you threw in "ah sure it's only 1680 euros " it doesn't really matter , nothing to see here argument. I put it back into its proper context of total cost to the country in comparison to corporation tax . 
I agree it's not massive but probably bigger than the inheritance tax totals. The point is there should be no sacred cows in the context of radical changes in taxation


----------



## PMU (14 May 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> My brother-in-law has paid very little income tax his whole life due to a spotty work history. He had an inheritance of €250k a few years ago and it seems crazy that not a cent of it was taxed.
> 
> A structure like the first €100k tax free with 20% after that would be far more equitable.


Not to your brother-in-law.  It doesn't really matter if he had a spotty work history or just decided to pass his time in front of the telly swillng Dutch lager.  He is clearly worse off than, for example, others who have had more success in their careers.  Becase he's worse off the inheritance has a higher value to him than to e.g. other beneficiaries who had more successful careers.  An inheritance to him distributes wealth more evenly; it brings him up.  Why should he pay the same amount of tax on it as a better-off beneficiary?

This is the problem where beneficiaries pay inheritance taxes.  It gives rise to all sorts of anomalies.  All governments do or should tax money when it moves.    So the state should just slice off a % of the value of the estate and then let it be distributed as provided for by the will.  Wills distribute wealth where there are multiple beneficiares or where a single beneficiary is worse off than the disponer.  The state should respect the distributional decisions of the disponer, who after all, accumulated the wealth and not try to impose politically determined decisions on how 'wealth' (a rather loaded word to decribe the family home and a few keepsakes) should be inherited.


----------



## Purple (14 May 2021)

PMU said:


> The state should respect the distributional decisions of the disponer, who after all, accumulated the wealth


That seems to imply an intent or action on behalf of the disponer in the accumulation of said wealth, that it was acquired through deliberate action, hard work, planning, intellect and foresight rather than just happening to buy a house in the 1970's or 80's. 
Something that is purchased for €30k (€212k now, adjusted for inflation) and is now worth €650k can and should be considered a form of wealth and calling it such is simply accurate an is in no way loaded.


----------



## The Horseman (14 May 2021)

Purple said:


> That seems to imply an intent or action on behalf of the disponer in the accumulation of said wealth, that it was acquired through deliberate action, hard work, planning, intellect and foresight rather than just happening to buy a house in the 1970's or 80's.
> Something that is purchased for €30k (€212k now, adjusted for inflation) and is now worth €650k can and should be considered a form of wealth and calling it such is simply accurate an is in no way loaded.


No it shouldn't. This is a person who purchased a property to stand on their own two feet. Did not rely on the State for accommodation. Maintained the property probably modernised it etc. 

You now want to penalise someone for actually doing the right thing and worked to take care of themselves rather than rely on the State to do so. 

Based on your stance people would actually be discouraged from trying to look after themselves and would be encouraged to rely on the State.


----------



## noproblem (14 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> No it shouldn't. This is a person who purchased a property to stand on their own two feet. Did not rely on the State for accommodation. Maintained the property probably modernised it etc.
> 
> You now want to penalise someone for actually doing the right thing and worked to take care of themselves rather than rely on the State to do so.
> 
> Based on your stance people would actually be discouraged from trying to look after themselves and would be encouraged to rely on the State.


Purple doesn't like it when a persons assets increase without their back being broken. More so if someone related to the unfortunate broken back person inherits that asset and doesn't pay another whopper of a tax on it, in order to give to someone who doesn't, or won't, work at all. Maybe purple should change colour to RED and learn to speak Russian.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> No it shouldn't. This is a person who purchased a property to stand on their own two feet. Did not rely on the State for accommodation. Maintained the property probably modernised it etc.
> 
> You now want to penalise someone for actually doing the right thing and worked to take care of themselves rather than rely on the State to do so.
> 
> Based on your stance people would actually be discouraged from trying to look after themselves and would be encouraged to rely on the State.


Are you happy that the person who works hard pays over half their marginal income in taxes?

doing the right thing when houses are 3.5 the average income is much easier than when they are 9.5 times the average income. 
What’s happening now is that person who wants to do the right thing and stand on their own two feet can’t, unless they are earning €100k a year and aren’t paying rent. 
we are heading towards a smaller property owning class with people on median incomes priced out of the market.
Is that what you want?


----------



## Purple (15 May 2021)

noproblem said:


> Purple doesn't like it when a persons assets increase without their back being broken. More so if someone related to the unfortunate broken back person inherits that asset and doesn't pay another whopper of a tax on it, in order to give to someone who doesn't, or won't, work at all. Maybe purple should change colour to RED and learn to speak Russian.


That made me laugh. Thanks.
I work, own property and am comfortably within the top few percent of earners.

I don’t believe in a ‘rights based’ society and I think that Equality of Outcome as a government policy is not only wrong, I believe it is evil.

What I do believe in is equality of opportunity, certainly as a driving principal when setting government policy.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Are you happy that the person who works hard pays over half their marginal income in taxes?
> 
> doing the right thing when houses are 3.5 the average income is much easier than when they are 9.5 times the average income.
> What’s happening now is that person who wants to do the right thing and stand on their own two feet can’t, unless they are earning €100k a year and aren’t paying rent.
> ...


But Purple, I work hard and pay more than half my marginal income in taxes.

I then took the 48% that I’m allowed to keep, paid the big multiple you’ve quoted for a house, and feathered some builder’s nest with a costly renovation.

Now you seem to want the State to take a further piece of my pie. That’s pretty annoying when you’re only getting 48% of every extra euro you make in the first instance.


----------



## Purple (15 May 2021)

@Gordon Gekko, but you’ll be dead so it won’t be your pie anymore. Increased property taxes will also reduce property prices so the next guy will pay less for the property.
If you still have the big mortgage from buying the house you’ll be able to deduct that when calculating the tax liability.


----------



## The Horseman (15 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Are you happy that the person who works hard pays over half their marginal income in taxes?
> 
> doing the right thing when houses are 3.5 the average income is much easier than when they are 9.5 times the average income.
> What’s happening now is that person who wants to do the right thing and stand on their own two feet can’t, unless they are earning €100k a year and aren’t paying rent.
> ...


Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay. 

Secondly I am working since I am 16. I have sacrificed for what I have. 

Thirdly people don't have to be earning over €100k to get a house. A bit of foresight when people start working and start saving and you would be surprised the impact on how much less you need to borrow.

Fourthly there are plenty of good properties for sale for less than €350k. People are unwilling to "rough it", they want the property to be energy efficient, solar powered "A" rated but someone else should pay for it. 

Finally I have worked hard for my house and any assets I have amassed. If and when I die it is mine to do with as I want. My family will benefit from my hard work and sacrifice.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 May 2021)

I’ll be shot for saying it, but if you take out the whingers who are afraid of hard graft and sacrifice, plus the wasters who make a living from gaming the system, the housing problem isn’t as big as it’s made out.

I’m sick of stories about nurses and guards who can’t afford houses in Dublin. Why not commute?! I commuted for years and never moaned about it.

As cities grow, they become more expensive nearer the centre. If we all lived in London, I’d love to live in Kensington or Mayfair but I wouldn’t be able to afford it.

If you’re on €40k a year, either work to improve your lot in life or try and meet someone and pool together. But either way, stop moaning about not being able to afford an apartment in Grand Canal Dock and buy a place in Naas, Gorey, or whereever like anyone else in any other country would do.

The problem is, everyone wants to live in Manhattan but that can’t be the case.


----------



## Nermal (15 May 2021)

Purple said:


> That would mean businesses and farms would have to be sold with each generation to pay the inheritance tax. That would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.



Selling a business or farm doesn't cost jobs.



Purple said:


> Yes, but it would be much harder to raise a loan against an asset which was worth far less than it is now.
> There are lots of farms which also have businesses attached and those businesses would have to close in order to pay the inheritance tax.
> It would effectively give a massive advantage to publicly quoted companies to buy up farms and family businesses. Is that what we want?



I don't care. Capital is capital, whether it's a business, a few acres of rushes or a three-bed semi.

Remove the loopholes, lower the rates.


----------



## Itchy (15 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay.


Really, nothing? Absolutely nothing? Cant think of a single thing?


The Horseman said:


> Thirdly people don't have to be earning over €100k to get a house. *A bit of foresight when people start working* and start saving and you would be surprised the impact on how much less you need to borrow.
> 
> Fourthly there are plenty of good properties for sale for less than €350k. *People are unwilling to "rough it"*, they want the property to be energy efficient, solar powered "A" rated but someone else should pay for it.
> 
> Finally *I have worked hard for my house and any assets I have amassed*. If and when I die it is mine to do with as I want. My family will benefit from my hard work and sacrifice.



Maybe your family need a little more foresight or if they were willing to "rough it" they'd get by? Can they not work hard to amasses their own assets? What's wrong with them?

Everyone has a sob story and we've made policy based on individual ideology before. Is it seriously beyond people to examine a policy in the context of its societal benefit? It might actually go someway to address the issues that are being whinged about!



Gordon Gekko said:


> I’ll be shot for saying it, but if you take out the whingers who are afraid of hard graft and sacrifice, plus the wasters who make a living from gaming the system, the housing problem isn’t as big as it’s made out.
> 
> I’m sick of stories about nurses and guards who can’t afford houses in Dublin. Why not commute?! I commuted for years and never moaned about it.
> 
> ...



So I'm confused now. All the hard workers who are willing to "rough it" and sacrifice and who get nothing for their taxes want to either a) receive an inheritance off the back of someone else's hard work or b) want to pass on the fruits of their hard work, to give someone they know a leg up so they don't have to work as hard as everyone else?

So whoever has the wealthiest friends/relations should get an easy ride?


----------



## noproblem (15 May 2021)

A lot of the people who say they can't buy a house today are the very ones who decided to get their degrees and live the high life with Mums and Dads money, and they now find themselves at 35/40 years old frightened and broke and not an idea about life in a lot of cases. The baby has arrived, maybe 2, they haven't a clue what has hit them, don't know how to cope, have friends in the media so can be part of the crew who shout loudest and know they'll get coverage, cry the tears talk to Joe and blame everyone bar look in the mirror at themselves. I guess Purple would love more of parents and grandparents hard earned assets to be used to finance their lifestyles AGAIN.  I've no intention of agreeing that money I have made from property is easy money, I know plenty of people who got burnt over the years with property investment, same people got up again, learnt lessons and invested again, and in some cases again and again. Of course they should be well entitled to their gains, plenty of tax already paid and might I say, squandered by those who took the taxes. You can shout all you want Purple, tell us what a high earner you are, etc. You're still barking up the wrong tree with your take on what easy/soft money is. I once heard that if everyone was given $5 million on their 16th birthday, it would be the same 2/3% that would end up making anything from it. A socialist country is all good and well, until those shouting and breaking the law start being given what they want to shut them up.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay



With respect, regardless of all the societal issues we have, you live in a first world country that is relatively safe and politically stable. That doesn't happen because our renowned spirit of céad míle fáilte.
Lots of people, your neighbours, your community and beyond work hard, paying taxes, to make it a collective reality, over the generations, for most of us.
A consequence of having access to education etc. Your taxes help pay for that, and for others who also pay taxes.


----------



## The Horseman (15 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> With respect, regardless of all the societal issues we have, you live in a first world country that is relatively safe and politically stable. That doesn't happen because our renowned spirit of céad míle fáilte.
> Lots of people, your neighbours, your community and beyond work hard, paying taxes, to make it a collective reality, over the generations, for most of us.
> A consequence of having access to education etc. Your taxes help pay for that, and for others who also pay taxes.


I never said I was the only one paying tax. I am well aware others pay tax aswell. The issue I have is that I and many others are expected to keep giving (the squeezed middle) and others just keep taking. 

When exactly will those who take actually give something back? For example why can't people on unemployment benefit jobseekers allowance work in the community as part of their benefit payment? I work full time and I actually volunteer in my local residents association cleaning the area trimming hedges etc. Work the council should be doing but will not as they don't have the resources and the only way they will get them is by us paying more tax. 

We all know people who have made a career out of scamming the system but when anyone tries to call them out they get a hard time. 

Please spare me this "we are all in this together" mantra. We are not some people are takers and always will be and the more they are given the more they will continue to take.


----------



## 2bmortgagefree (15 May 2021)

Purple said:


> The person leaving the legacy won't pay any tax on it; they are dead. The people paying the tax didn't contribute anything to the wealth creation and, let's be honest here, given that most of the wealth we are talking about is in the form of property, the person leaving it probably did bugger all to creating the wealth other than just buying their house in the 60's or 70's.



People who bought or built their houses in the first instance paid plenty of taxes to begin with development levies, property tax, stamp duty, vat on materials etc. They then spend 25 to 30 years paying back their mortgage from income that is heavily taxed.  Added to that mortgage rates in some instances was around 15 per cent. And now people want to tax the passing of that property onto next generation, that is unfair and unjust. 

Alot of people complaining about not getting on property ladder at the moment in their late 30s or early 40's, what did they do with 20 years of income? I would suggest alot of them took a few years out to Australia, came back broke, borrowed money for the big wedding and for the two PCP cars in the drive of their rented accommodation.  

If the issue is wealth redistribution and wealth inequality Ireland is actually doing okay in that respect as reported in the last few days in the Irish Times. 

We have to look at where our taxes are being spent, giving people who choose not to work social welfare and a free house for life plus a state pension of taxes of people who slaved to put a roof over their heads incentives the welfare state. I don't want to tar all social welfare recipients with the same brush but these issues seem to be skirted over in discussions like this.


----------



## The Horseman (15 May 2021)

Itchy said:


> Really, nothing? Absolutely nothing? Cant think of a single thing?
> 
> 
> Maybe your family need a little more foresight or if they were willing to "rough it" they'd get by? Can they not work hard to amasses their own assets? What's wrong with them?
> ...


You appear to know that I actually do get something so please enlighten me as to what I don't realise I am getting. 

I am old enough to remember when we had no choice but to rough it. 

It appears your societal ideology is that we all should work for the common good and we are all equal. Can I suggest you read animal farm and see how this ideology plays out.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> I never said I was the only one paying tax.



I know, you said you get nothing from the tax you pay.

This is nonsense. As I pointed out to you, you live in a first world developed country. The standard of living you enjoy is not solely because of your own hard graft, it is because of the platform provided to you (and most of us) from the generations of other taxpayers and working people that have gone before us.
You have used that platform to give yourself a standard of living that you seem content with, fair play to you. But do not think the taxes you pay are for your individual benefit, they are not. They are for the collective benefit of us all so that others today, and future generations may be afforded the same opportunities that were afforded to you.



The Horseman said:


> When exactly will those who take actually give something back?



But _you _are a taker. The taxes you pay, relative to standard of living in the country you live in are diddly-squat. It is pure tokenism. Even if you pay €100k in tax, what does that provide? A university professor? The heating bill for a large secondary school? Security guards at a Dublin Bus depot?

Its nothing, on a grand scale it amounts to very little of what is required to run this country. If you were to leave tomorrow and not pay the tax, no-one would miss you (in a tax paying context). The tax you, or I pay, in an individual context are an absolute irrelevance. Completely meaningless. They are only worth something in the context of the overall contribution from everyone, from every source - income tax, USC, VAT, CT, etc, etc.

Your taxes, and mine, are takers giving something back.


----------



## noproblem (15 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Your taxes, and mine, are takers giving something back.


 In a lot of cases. to give to the takers. Hence the anger and i'm not talking about those who do need it, for reasons they can't control or avoid .


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

noproblem said:


> In a lot of cases. to give to the takers



My point is we are all takers, even the highest paying taxpayer. All we are doing is contributing back for what was provided to us so that it will be provided to others in the future.
We can argue to death what % of income, at what income level, should it be higher VAT, or more carbon tax, higher CT, lower CAT etc....etc.. We can argue how much should be spent on health, education, should we cut this service or pay more into some other service etc, etc.

All of that is fair enough, but there is nobody alive today in this country that is paying a level of tax at an individual level that comes anywhere close to being of relevance if it they did not pay it. Some people like to talk as if their taxes pay for teachers, gardai, nurses, roadworks, everything under the sun.
Nonsense. What the combined effort of teachers, nurses, gardai etc provide in return dwarfs anybodys individual tax contribution into near insignificance.

Pre-Covid, I think it cost about €50,000,000,000 to run this country.

I ask anyone to put their individual tax contribution up against that and ask themselves, if they were not here to pay their individual tax contribution would anyone blink an eye?

On an individual basis, our tax contributions are a near irrelevance.


----------



## 2bmortgagefree (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> My point is we are all takers, even the highest paying taxpayer. All we are doing is contributing back for what was provided to us so that it will be provided to others in the future.
> We can argue to death what % of income, at what income level, should it be higher VAT, or more carbon tax, higher CT, lower CAT etc....etc.. We can argue how much should be spent on health, education, should we cut this service or pay more into some other service etc, etc.
> 
> All of that is fair enough, but there is nobody alive today in this country that is paying a level of tax at an individual level that comes anywhere close to being of relevance if it they did not pay it. Some people like to talk as if their taxes pay for teachers, gardai, nurses, roadworks, everything under the sun.
> ...



Of the 50 billion plus to run the country 21 billion goes on social welfare. That is a staggering percentage of our overall budget. The social welfare and community welfare system is spending huge amounts - is it all being spent wisely. Are there people abusing the system whereby they go with a sob story to the community welfare officer and get top ups when added to their social welfare combined they  are better off than the ordinary worker who goes into work. 

You mention on an individual level our tax is irrelevant but combined it is significant. The state collects near 22 billion in income tax so when you see 21 billion spent on social welfare you have to ask questions what is it being spent on. This is not to undermine the genuine entitlements people have to social welfare. 

Furthermore companies pay corporation taxes on the fruits of the ordinary workers labour which often gets overlooked. 

People who have worked all their lives and made sacrifices and saved and scrimped should be allowed pass on their wealth to their children. Reducing inheritance tax thresholds won't necessarily achieve what is intended. What's stopping the parent going to ATM every week and handing over 300 /400/ 500 cash to the child or buying material items for them.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> My point is we are all takers, even the highest paying taxpayer. All we are doing is contributing back for what was provided to us so that it will be provided to others in the future.
> We can argue to death what % of income, at what income level, should it be higher VAT, or more carbon tax, higher CT, lower CAT etc....etc.. We can argue how much should be spent on health, education, should we cut this service or pay more into some other service etc, etc.
> 
> All of that is fair enough, but there is nobody alive today in this country that is paying a level of tax at an individual level that comes anywhere close to being of relevance if it they did not pay it. Some people like to talk as if their taxes pay for teachers, gardai, nurses, roadworks, everything under the sun.
> ...



That’s not a great argument.

However, what if Sinn Fein/IRA get into power and bring in a supertax for incomes over €100k?

Chances are LOTS of people with the scope or capacity to go the extra mile and make a few bob extra won’t bother their backsides.

There are crazy stats in the this country where the top 5% pay half the income tax or something like that.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That’s not a great argument.


 
I think it's a fantastic argument.

I am putting it up to those people who regularly proclaim that _their _taxes pays for the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the welfare, blah...blah...

When in fact, _their _(and mine) taxes, on an individual basis relative to the grand scheme of actual public spending - pay for diddly-squat.
A near irrelevance.

We live off the graft of layers, upon layers, of previous generations. Those who paid for the establishment of our State and before, our education system, healthcare and welfare. For all the flaws within and through the decades, without them and without those who laid the foundations of where we live today, we would have little to nothing today.
Our responsibility as a collective is to maintain what went before, and to sustain and develop that for future generations. That is what tax is for.

Your contribution is only relevant when combined with the contributions of the rest of the citizenry.

So drop the mega-phone, drop the pretentiousness, drop the self-entitlement, as an individual taxpayer you pay for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. You, like me and everyone else, are a taker first and foremost. 
What we pay in tax is our contribution back. 



Gordon Gekko said:


> Chances are LOTS of people with the scope or capacity to go the extra mile and make a few bob extra won’t bother their backsides.



The "LOTS of people with the scope or capacity to go the extra mile and make a few bob extra" have never been deterred by higher taxes, _have_ _never not _bothered their backsides. 
They are the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the grafters, the workers. They will always persevere. It is how humanity has moved from the stone age, the agricultural age, industrial age to the technological age.
Those who don't bother their backsides will simply be replaced by those who will work. 



Gordon Gekko said:


> There are crazy stats in the this country where the top 5% pay half the income tax or something like that.



Meaningless without taking into account earnings and tax credits etc. 

If you earn €100k and I earn €50k and we both pay 50% tax, is that unfair? You pay 66% of tax collected between us. 
If government gives us both a tax free allowance of €10k on both our incomes is that unfair? Even if it means you now pay 72% of tax collected between us?


----------



## The Horseman (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I know, you said you get nothing from the tax you pay.
> 
> This is nonsense. As I pointed out to you, you live in a first world developed country. The standard of living you enjoy is not solely because of your own hard graft, it is because of the platform provided to you (and most of us) from the generations of other taxpayers and working people that have gone before us.
> You have used that platform to give yourself a standard of living that you seem content with, fair play to you. But do not think the taxes you pay are for your individual benefit, they are not. They are for the collective benefit of us all so that others today, and future generations may be afforded the same opportunities that were afforded to you.
> ...


I note you made no response on the part of my post asking why those who are takers don't give anything back. 

Your post speaks volumes about you. You expect people to give to finance the lifestyles of those who take more than they contribute and are not willing to give back (not necessarily financial). 

Your views indicate you are on the left of politics and I am yet to hear a convincing argument of how these policies are going to be funded. 

And before you say tax the rich, tax the multinationals you do realise we are a small open economy who can't dictate trading terms to either sector. They can and will happily go elsewhere. They are here for a reason and if we lose their tax irrespective of how much they pay how do you suggest we fund this shortfall?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> I note you made no response on the part of my post asking why those who are takers don't give anything back.



I did respond. I have highlighted that you and I are both takers, our tax contribution is what we give back.

Perhaps you could acknowledge that instead of claiming that you "get nothing" for your taxes paid, you do in fact get quite a lot? Substantially more than you could ever afford by yourself?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

2bmortgagefree said:


> Of the 50 billion plus to run the country 21 billion goes on social welfare. That is a staggering percentage of our overall budget.



That's not a percentage at all.

You are bringing the political argument into it. How much should we spend, where, who should benefit etc. 
Depending on which side of the political fence you sit at any given time may colour your perspective. 

My only point in this discussion is to knock on the head any illusion that anyone pays tax and do not get any return on it. It is a false argument.


----------



## The Horseman (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I did respond. I have highlighted that you and I are both takers, our tax contribution is what we give back.
> 
> Perhaps you could acknowledge that instead of claiming that you "get nothing" for your taxes paid, you do in fact get quite a lot? Substantially more than you could ever afford by yourself?


You did not and above suggests you won't. I  don't get quite a lot as you describe. I note you omitted to answer how you would fund the shortfall in tax take if multinationals and higher earning people leave Ireland. 

Consider insurance as an example. It works on the principle of the law of large numbers. Everybody contributes so no individual has to pay for a claim.

Extend this analogy to wider society. Not everyone gives (not solely financial but other ways) we have takers who constantly take and continue to take.

You are more interested in defending your stance on everybody is a taker rather than offer an opinion on those who who are takers and give nothing at all in return


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> You are more interested in defending your stance on everybody is a taker rather than offer an opinion on those who who are takers and give nothing at all in return



Your changing the discussion. To be clear this is what you said, which is what I responded to



The Horseman said:


> Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay



Then you repeated the point in answer to another poster


The Horseman said:


> You appear to know that I actually do get something so please enlighten me as to what I don't realise I am getting.



It is clear that you believe you pay tax and get nothing in return for it. 

Despite living in relatively politically stable, safe, first world country you seem incapable of understanding how upon this happened. 
Your taxes are a contribution to sustaining those standards. 
You can argue all you want how that money is to spent, who should benefit most etc, but it is wrong to suggest that you don't get anything in return for the taxes you pay or that your tax contribution is in any way sufficient by itself to sustaining the first world living standards that are provided to you.


----------



## PMU (16 May 2021)

Purple said:


> That seems to imply an intent or action on behalf of the disponer in the accumulation of said wealth, that it was acquired through deliberate action, hard work, planning, intellect and foresight rather than just happening to buy a house in the 1970's or 80's.
> Something that is purchased for €30k (€212k now, adjusted for inflation) and is now worth €650k can and should be considered a form of wealth and calling it such is simply accurate an is in no way loaded.


It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally).  Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life,  investing and reinvesting their profits.  Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase.  Or by winning the Lotto.   Either way it's irrelevant.

The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'.    But this  is a rather loaded term.  It would be better described as 'life-time savings'.  Owning a house and  having some savings doesn't make you wealthy.  It demonstrates you are normal.  It shows you are a responsible person who saves and  in a free society 
it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives.  Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers.  The money is being redistributed.  How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.


----------



## The Horseman (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Your changing the discussion. To be clear this is what you said, which is what I responded to
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are now cherry picking those points you want to respond on and ignoring those you don't want to respond to. 

I will leave you to you opinion.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> I think it's a fantastic argument.
> 
> I am putting it up to those people who regularly proclaim that _their _taxes pays for the schools, the hospitals, the roads, the welfare, blah...blah...
> 
> ...


Well I think it’s a nonsensical argument.

If the State is getting a hell of a lot more from someone than they’re taking out, the State should look after that person.

Where does your nonsensical argument stop? What if someone’s paying €10m of income tax? What if we started looking at cohorts of people? For example, if we took away the Partners of the Big 4 accountancy practices and Big 5 legal practices, the country would have a problem. These people get to keep €45 of every extra €100 they make.

I don’t have a major issue with paying tax per se. What I do have an issue with is scroungers and fraudsters gaming the system and how tax revenues are wasted. And people telling me my contribution is meaningless just to suit their spurious argument.

I’d say if AAM contributors stopped paying tax, Pascal Donohue would notice.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> For example why can't people on unemployment benefit jobseekers allowance work in the community as part of their benefit payment?



The long term unemployed rate in this country is about 1.4%. If you want these people to cut hedges or pick litter as a way of giving back, go for it.

People who are not long-term unemployed, is because they do go to work when it's available and do contribute their share.

What any of that has to do with your assertion that you pay tax and get nothing for it is beyond me.


----------



## WolfeTone (16 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> What if someone’s paying €10m of income tax?



If someone is paying €10m in tax, how much are they earning? How many individuals are we talking about here? <100? <50?

They are paying the same percentage rate of tax on their marginal income as someone on €50k does. So what?



Gordon Gekko said:


> What I do have an issue with is scroungers and fraudsters gaming the system and how tax revenues are wasted. And people telling me my contribution is meaningless just to suit their spurious argument.



I have no issue going after fraudsters gaming the system. By all means we should.
Your tax contribution isn't meaningless as part of the overall tax take. It entitles you to have a say on what should be done with it. But only as part as a collective.

On its own, as an individual contribution it is a near irrelevance. It certainly doesn't by itself pay its way to live in a first world country.  Its delusional to think anyone pays taxes but gets nothing in return for them as Horseman claims.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> Firstly I am one of those people who is in the high tax bracket and gets nothing from all the tax I pay.


Do you have children? If so the State pays €7-€8k a year sending them to school. If you send them to a private school then thanks; you are subsidising the public school system but the State still pays about €4k a year towards their education.
When you flush the toilet does your poo go away?
Do you drive on roads and use footpaths?
Do you live in relative safety without fear of being attacked by bandits or someone moving into your house when you are at work?
Do the streetlights come on when it gets dark?
If you get sick do you go to a hospital or a doctor?
Do you interact with and derive any benefit from anyone who had been educated in this country?

If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then you get something back.


The Horseman said:


> Your post speaks volumes about you. You expect people to give to finance the lifestyles of those who take more than they contribute and are not willing to give back (not necessarily financial).


Most people take more than they give. I don't but I pay loads in taxes. I consider taxes the price of civilisation.


The Horseman said:


> Your views indicate you are on the left of politics and I am yet to hear a convincing argument of how these policies are going to be funded.


I'm a social liberal and an economic centralist. I think we raise more than enough in taxes but waste billions. If you want to save money then go after the structural waste within the health service and the endemic inefficiency in the State Sector generally. Go after the people who buy a house then rent it to their partner who lives there with their children while claiming HAPS. Go after the teachers and solicitors and doctors and plumbers and painters and carpenters and architects and everyone else who does nixers and insists on cash (like so many hospital consultants do). There's loads of black economy stuff going on and it should all be stopped.


The Horseman said:


> And before you say tax the rich, tax the multinationals you do realise we are a small open economy who can't dictate trading terms to either sector. They can and will happily go elsewhere. They are here for a reason and if we lose their tax irrespective of how much they pay how do you suggest we fund this shortfall?


In any discussion about taxing the "rich" we need to define who the rich are. What people really mean is the people in the €2 million houses etc but many of them aren't on high incomes. We already tax high incomes too much so we can't increase marginal rates. So given that we live in a Republic and should seek to create a society with as much equality of opportunity as possible it is my opinion that we should tax wealth retention more and wealth creation less. I don't want to see more taxes, if anything I'd like to see less. What I would like to see is that shift from one to the other. At the moment holding onto wealth is easy but getting wealthy through hard work is very hard and will only get harder.

We certainly can't tax big capital disproportionately as it will just flow elsewhere but there is a global problem with the movement of wealth away from labour and into capital and that will impact on all of us. Personally I'll probably get better off as I'm on the right side of the divide but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> The long term unemployed rate in this country is about 1.4%.


Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud are, in essence, the same thing.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

PMU said:


> It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally). Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life, investing and reinvesting their profits. Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase. Or by winning the Lotto. Either way it's irrelevant.


Of course it's irrelevant. What is relevant is how hard it is to acquire wealth now relative to how hard it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. With capital inflation rates consistently higher than labour inflation rates it will become increasingly hard to acquire wealth through hard work. Therefore, in my opinion, we should spread the tax burned away from labour to encourage hard work and wealth creation. 


PMU said:


> The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'. But this is a rather loaded term. It would be better described as 'life-time savings'. Owning a house and having some savings doesn't make you wealthy. It demonstrates you are normal. It shows you are a responsible person who saves and in a free society


You can call it whatever you like but it's still wealth. 


PMU said:


> it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives. Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers. The money is being redistributed. How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.


I agree completely. The State should restrict its interest to how it is taxed.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 May 2021)

A


Purple said:


> Yea, but there's loads of people who are under employed and game the system. Let's not pretend otherwise. Let's also not pretend that they are all poor. Tax evasion and welfare fraud re, in essence, the same thing.



Yeh, welfare fraud has consistently cost the state between €30m and €60m a year over the last decade. Social Welfare I think estimates that without its detection and monitoring systems in place that those amounts would increase tenfold. 

Our taxes that we pay, pay for the detection and monitoring of social welfare fraud. 

I'm sure a similar outcome would occur for tax evasion. If there was no chance of getting caught more people would do it. 

Our taxes pay for systems that prevent and detect welfare and tax fraud. Obviously its not perfect, but my only point in all of this was to knock on the head the perception that some people pay taxes but get nothing at all in return.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 May 2021)

Of course people get something in return; I think that undeniable.

The problem arises when people who pay a hell of a lot more than their fair share are asked for more instead of targeting waste or broader-based solutions.

For example, if someone is paying the same amount of tax as 25 teachers, it’s annoying to hear teachers constantly moaning, to observe how they betrayed the country and its children during Covid, and to hear people incessantly demand that higher earners pay more.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

WolfeTone said:


> Yeh, welfare fraud has consistently cost the state between €30m and €60m a year over the last decade. S


That's what the State has recovered. It is reasonable to say that actual fraud rates will be a multiple of that but nowhere near the rates claimed by the DSP.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Of course people get something in return; I think that undeniable.
> 
> The problem arises when people who pay a hell of a lot more than their fair share are asked for more instead of targeting waste or broader-based solutions.
> 
> For example, if someone is paying the same amount of tax as 25 teachers, it’s annoying to hear teachers constantly moaning, to observe how they betrayed the country and its children during Covid, and to hear people incessantly demand that higher earners pay more.


Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Yes, so tax the rich, not high earners. The value of Defined benefit Pensions need to be included in any calculation around wealth as well which, coincidently, is probably the reason that the permanent government of the State, the Civil service, is not a fan of the idea.



No!

“Tax the rich!” or “Tax the wealthy!” are just Sinn Fein/IRA and Idiocy Before Profit slogans.

Efficiency should be the focus.

High earners and the wealthy are already paying somewhere between too much and the correct amount depending on one’s point of view.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> No!
> 
> “Tax the rich!” or “Tax the wealthy!” are just Sinn Fein/IRA and Idiocy Before Profit slogans.
> 
> ...


I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 May 2021)

Purple said:


> I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
> The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.


Define wealth though.

If someone earns an extra €100k, they’ll end up with €45-48k.

That’s theirs. If they invest it, they’ll pay tax at rates of 33-55% on any returns. If they pass it on to someone, they’ll lose 33% of it.

What are you suggesting that the State should do to that person’s €45-48? It has already been subject to a massive proportion of tax.


----------



## Itchy (17 May 2021)

PMU said:


> It's irrelevant how the person accumulated his/her wealth (assuming it was done legally).  Someone could amass wealth through living a frugal life,  investing and reinvesting their profits.  Or somebody could equally end up with the same wealth by buying a home and having its value increase due to demand or inflation, which would have been unforeseen at the time of purchase.  Or by winning the Lotto.   Either way it's irrelevant.


That's not the case though, it is relevant. If there is generational inherited wealth, that is negative for society. Generational wealth results in a rentier economy, discourages productivity and takes generations for productive labour to accumulate wealth. It is supremely relevant.


PMU said:


> The disposner has ended up with what the OECD calls 'wealth'.    But this  is a rather loaded term.  It would be better described as 'life-time savings'.  Owning a house
> and  having some savings doesn't make you wealthy.  It demonstrates you are normal.  It shows you are a responsible person who saves and  in a free society
> it is your decison to pass on your savings to whoever you wish. Sometimes it's the Cats and Dogs Home, but normally it's your descendents and relatives.  Taxation policy should not influence the redistributive decisions of disposers.  The money is being redistributed.  How it is redistributed is of no concern to the state.



The whole point of taxation is redistributive. The notion that you have the freedom to do what you wish with your wealth is not realistic, whether you are alive or dead. You cant just give a substantial amount of money to stranger, in life, without there being any implications. Of course you can consume your resources in your favour, your wife, your family when young. Even if you consume your wealth, you pay VAT. The state does not care what you buy, but its does care that act of consumption will . Officially, you can pay for your kids wedding and education. You cant even get them a car without it forming part of their lifetime allowance. You can give your wealth to whoever you wish, but the notion that their should be no taxation just because you die, is nonsensical. Particularly given the negatives for society as a whole. 



Purple said:


> I want to see a shift in taxation from high earners to the rich, from wealth creation to wealth retention. I do not want to see an increase in the overall tax take by the State.
> The wealthy pay no tax based on their wealth. They pay tax based on their income. High earners, whether they are wealthy or not, pay very high rates of tax.



The Irish income tax system is very progressive. But, reshaping how we tax can improve opportunity for the entire population and capture more of the productive workforce that are currently shut out by the current system and _forced _to rely on state supports.


----------



## Itchy (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Define wealth though.
> 
> If someone earns an extra €100k, they’ll end up with €45-48k.
> 
> ...



That €45-48 is still taxable though, no matter what you do with it. You can hold it in notes and coins to avoid tax, but if you 'use' it, it will be taxable. VAT, CGT, DIRT, CAT are likely to apply no matter what you do with it. I don't understand your point about it previously being subject to tax?


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Define wealth though.
> 
> If someone earns an extra €100k, they’ll end up with €45-48k.
> 
> ...


I'm suggesting that people should pay less tax on the €100K and some tax on the retained wealth that higher net income generates.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 May 2021)

Itchy said:


> That €45-48 is still taxable though, no matter what you do with it. You can hold it in notes and coins to avoid tax, but if you 'use' it, it will be taxable. VAT, CGT, DIRT, CAT are likely to apply no matter what you do with it. I don't understand your point about it previously being subject to tax?


A “wealth tax” is a tax on the €45-48!

So it’s double taxation.

Fair enough if the person “does something” with the money and incurs VAT or CAT.

But the fundamental point is that it’s “their” €45.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> A “wealth tax” is a tax on the €45-48!
> 
> So it’s double taxation.
> 
> ...


So what's the alternative? 
Even if we reduce government spending by 10% through efficiency measures that's not the reason new entrants into the economy are at a massive disadvantage relative to those who entered it 20-30 years ago. Capital is increasing in value faster than labour but we tax labour and not capital. In fact we don't tax capital at all unless it is transferred to another person or entity. Again, I'm on the right side of the divide but I find it fundamentally unfair.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 May 2021)

New entrants are not at a massive disadvantage. That’s the narrative that the whingers want you to believe. There have never been greater opportunities in Ireland than there are now. Some people are just too lazy or too stupid to take advantage of them. Or they want to have their cake and eat it, i.e. go off and do something vocational but also have the lifestyle of someone who’s well-paid.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> New entrants are not at a massive disadvantage. That’s the narrative that the whingers want you to believe. There have never been greater opportunities in Ireland than there are now. Some people are just too lazy or too stupid to take advantage of them. Or they want to have their cake and eat it, i.e. go off and do something vocational but also have the lifestyle of someone who’s well-paid.


That's just factually incorrect.


----------



## The Horseman (17 May 2021)

Purple said:


> Do you have children? If so the State pays €7-€8k a year sending them to school. If you send them to a private school then thanks; you are subsidising the public school system but the State still pays about €4k a year towards their education.
> When you flush the toilet does your poo go away?
> Do you drive on roads and use footpaths?
> Do you live in relative safety without fear of being attacked by bandits or someone moving into your house when you are at work?
> ...


No I don't have children. Yes I do have lights on the road and yes I do poop and its flushed away. But so does everybody else even those who don't contribute (again either financially or in any other way).

Yes tax revenue is wasted and no one is ever held to account. I would gladly go after those who scam the system but I can't as I am not in politics nor is it seen as politically correct to do so. 

The squeezed middle are getting sick and tired of paying for everything. I know anybody in my circle who are the squeezed middle are getting seriously p**sed off with how the economy is being run and who is going to have to "pay" for the pandemic. 

Equality is there if people actually put the effort in. Ireland is by no means perfectly equal but it is alot more equal than alot of other places. Third level education has never been more accessible. if you tax wealth retention all you do is reduce peoples desire to better themselves to obtain wealth. You then have a situation where people will not "go the extra mile" if it ends up being taken from them via a wealth tax. 

By taxing wealth then people wont bother creating wealth and by doing this if people don't have wealth to rely on when things get bad they end up relying on the State. Take for example a sole trader, why would he take all the risk of building a business and the associated wealth if the State is going to tax it for all his work, stress, risk taking etc. Your scenairo discourages this as the sole trader takes all the risk and the State takes all the gain. Why would any rational individual even try then?


----------



## Itchy (17 May 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> A “wealth tax” is a tax on the €45-48!
> 
> So it’s double taxation.
> 
> ...



Ah I follow, a wealth tax in general.

In the context of inheritance tax, ownership ceases with the person and its a de facto transfer and should be taxed. I'm not necessarily arguing for a general wealth tax but id like to see the situation where the €45-48 becomes €50-52, but individuals cannot accumulate resources without productive input (inheritance) or to the detriment of productivity in general. And just to add, more low paid workers should be brought into the net. Both labour and capital taxes should be as broad based and as low as possible.



Gordon Gekko said:


> New entrants are not at a massive disadvantage. That’s the narrative that the whingers want you to believe. There have never been greater opportunities in Ireland than there are now. Some people are just too lazy or too stupid to take advantage of them. Or they want to have their cake and eat it, i.e. go off and do something vocational but also have the lifestyle of someone who’s well-paid.


Crude reductionism at best.


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> By taxing wealth then people wont bother creating wealth and by doing this if people don't have wealth to rely on when things get bad they end up relying on the State. Take for example a sole trader, why would he take all the risk of building a business and the associated wealth if the State is going to tax it for all his work, stress, risk taking etc. Your scenairo discourages this as the sole trader takes all the risk and the State takes all the gain. Why would any rational individual even try then?


No, the sole trader is being taxed heavily on wealth creation now. It's harder for them to get wealth as their income is taxed at over 50%. I'd like to see a reduction in taxes on wealth creation and a corresponding increase in taxes on wealth retention. That would incentivise the sole trader. 

At the moment someone who is sitting in a reasonably modest house in Monkstown is making a net €50,000 a year from capital appreciation. The sole trader, who is providing employment and a social good, has to earn about €110,000 to end up with the same amount of net wealth. I find that unfair.


----------



## The Horseman (17 May 2021)

Purple said:


> No, the sole trader is being taxed heavily on wealth creation now. It's harder for them to get wealth as their income is taxed at over 50%. I'd like to see a reduction in taxes on wealth creation and a corresponding increase in taxes on wealth retention. That would incentivise the sole trader.
> 
> At the moment someone who is sitting in a reasonably modest house in Monkstown is making a net €50,000 a year from capital appreciation. The sole trader, who is providing employment and a social good, has to earn about €110,000 to end up with the same amount of net wealth. I find that unfair.


If you reduce tax on wealth creation then it is going to lead to wealth retention and hence a tax on it. 

If someone is sitting in a reasonably modest house in Monkstown then most likely they purchased it many decades ago when interest rates were high, income taxes were high and wages were low in comparison. If a person through either hard work or a bit of luck see there property grow in value then good for them. 

Surely these people and by extension their families should benefit from there hard work through out life. Why should a tax be charged on a property simply because of its value? Is this house using a greater amount of street lighting then an identical one in another city?

If someone pays a tax on a property when its value is high and when they pass away and the value of the property has dropped significantly (take 2009 crash etc) should they or their family get a refund on the tax they paid when the property had a "book value" higher than its actually sales value?


----------



## Purple (17 May 2021)

The Horseman said:


> If you reduce tax on wealth creation then it is going to lead to wealth retention and hence a tax on it.


Exactly.


The Horseman said:


> If someone is sitting in a reasonably modest house in Monkstown then most likely they purchased it many decades ago when interest rates were high, income taxes were high and wages were low in comparison. If a person through either hard work or a bit of luck see there property grow in value then good for them.


No, they bought it when interest rates were higher and wages were higher relative to the cost of the house. Those higher interest rates went with higher labour price inflation rates and so a reduction in the relative cost of the mortgage over a shorter period of time (inflation is compound , interest rates are not).


The Horseman said:


> Surely these people and by extension their families should benefit from there hard work through out life. Why should a tax be charged on a property simply because of its value? Is this house using a greater amount of street lighting then an identical one in another city?


Because we want to next generation to have the same access to capital resources relative to wages, i.e. we want a society where hard work is rewarded rather than a return to a feudal type system where the rich owned everything and passed it on to their children (because that's where we are heading).


The Horseman said:


> If someone pays a tax on a property when its value is high and when they pass away and the value of the property has dropped significantly (take 2009 crash etc) should they or their family get a refund on the tax they paid when the property had a "book value" higher than its actually sales value?


No, the tax they pay will reduce as the property price reduces but that's a great point; Stamp duty and transaction taxes are a snapshot of a value in time and so can seem very generous or very punitive depending on appreciation or depreciation. Wealth taxes are fairer as they rise and fall with the value of the asset. I paid over €100k in stamp duty when I bought my last house. It's only now above the value I purchased it for in the early 2000's.


----------



## joe sod (18 May 2021)

It looks like the recommendation by the OECD to raise inheritance taxes was not unique to Ireland, they recommended that other OECD countries do the same , I see it also reported in the UK media but it did not get anything like the attention it got here. The Uk don't treat these organisations with the reverance we do here


----------



## Itchy (28 May 2021)

Analysis from the the OECD study from a UK perspective. 



> https://www.ft.com/content/c52faece-2e07-4ae3-912d-83cae264093e
> 
> The pandemic has increased economic divisions between the haves and have-nots, heightening concerns about the role of inheritance in deepening social rifts. Or, as the OECD puts it: “The Covid-19 crisis, which has affected different demographic groups differently, may exacerbate difficulties for some households and increase the divide between older asset-owning households and younger households.” This is especially the case as richer households are more likely to have received an inheritance or a lifetime gift, the research finds. Among households in the top fifth by wealth, the portion who received an inheritance or lifetime gift ranged from 39 per cent in Canada to 66 per cent in Finland. These trends are getting worse in many OECD countries and likely to worsen, the authors say. They predict inheritances will increase in value, if asset prices continue to rise, and in number as the baby-boomer generation gets older. Meanwhile, younger generations may find it harder to build up wealth on their own as many struggle to buy a home due to high prices.





> The OECD’s logic is widely accepted among British experts but many warn the political opposition to such a change would make it impracticable as, generally, better-off people feel they should pass assets to their children with as little tax as possible. These sentiments seem deeply rooted in the British elite’s centuries-old attachment to landed property. Edward Troup, former first permanent secretary at HM Revenue & Customs, puts it this way: “*The depressing fact is because we’re obsessed with housing wealth in this country, we’re also obsessed with not paying IHT*.”


----------

