# "Why we should all aim to die broke"



## Brendan Burgess (14 Sep 2016)

A great article by Merryn Somerset Webb in the Financial Times

Why we should all aim to die broke


At a meeting of fund managers and wealth managers a few weeks ago, I said that I thought the priority of wealth managers looking after pension savings — the ones who really care about their clients, anyway — should be to make sure that most of their clients die close to broke. It didn’t go down that well. There were sharp intakes of breath all around.


This is silly. Capital represents the ability to defer consumption for a while, not the obligation to defer it forever. For those living off pension savings there should be no differentiation between capital and income (there isn’t for tax purposes in any case). It is all just money to be used for living. Why live on cans of tuna, watching daytime telly in front of a one-bar electric fire only to die with half a million quid of capital in the bank?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Sep 2016)

This is very important for those who ask the question: How much do I need in my pension fund when I retire? 

Most people want to have a comfortable retirement while maintaining their wealth and leaving the family home to their children. 

That should not be their financial objective.  Or put it another way, they should not be making serious financial sacrifices during their working life and retirement to achieve that objective. 

Brendan


----------



## rob oyle (14 Sep 2016)

I don't disagree with that. However, the psyche among older people here seems to be deferring to a rainy day down the road, regardless of how wet it is today!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Sep 2016)

rob oyle said:


> deferring to a rainy day down the road, regardless of how wet it is today!




That is a brilliant analogy.  I will use that.  Is it plagiarism if it's first said by an anonymous person?  

Seriously, I have been amazed by the number of people who want to build up a rainy day fund while in mortgage arrears.  If they are in arrears, that should be wet enough for them. 

Brendan


----------



## Steven Barrett (14 Sep 2016)

Brendan, I agree with you 100%. For the majority of ARF holders, maintaining the current value of it is very important. Why? After saving for decades to accumulate a decent pension fund, when it comes to the time to spend it, why are you holding back? 

Inheritance is a huge physiological barrier in Ireland too. Parents always want to leave something for their kids. You know what? Kids don't want to see parents going without now so they can get something 20-30 years later. Besides, mosts of their "kids" are approaching retirement age themselves by the time they get to retirement and should have their own savings in place. 

If you want to look after your kids financially, do it now when they need it most and when you can get some enjoyment out of helping them. You need to make sure that it's not too much though that will jeopardise your lifestyle. That is a core element of retiree financial planning, how much can I give away without effecting my own life. 

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Joe_90 (14 Sep 2016)

I agree but the great unknown is when is the person going to die!!!

Bob retires at 60 and has a pension pot of €1m growing at 5%.

He has three choices 
1.draw out €50k per year indefinitely. Pot still €1m.

2. Draw out €80k per year for 20 years. Pot nothing at age 80.

3. Draw out €58k per year for 40 years. Pot nothing at age 100.

Think I'll be burning through €80k a year and have nothing left!!


----------



## Joe_90 (14 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> If you want to look after your kids financially, do it now when they need it most and when you can get some enjoyment out of helping them. You need to make sure that it's not too much though that will jeopardise your lifestyle. That is a core element of retiree financial planning, how much can I give away without effecting my own life.



I think this is the most fundamental point that most people miss.  €50k now to pay down a Mortgage and give a couple a start in life is much better than €100k when they have their house paid for and kids educated and have made all the sacrifices.

Or even giving €3k per year to support in the early years.


----------



## Dan Murray (14 Sep 2016)

Interesting question. Potential for KEY KEY post!!

So let's say you had a couple - one 65, the other 63.

They have a combined pension fund of €1m and expect to receive the state pension.

What is being suggested here? Specifically, what is the assumed investment growth (please specify asset allocation consistent with this assumed growth) and what inflation adjusted withdrawals are being suggested? [I don't think Joe's net 5% is a sensible figure to use!]


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

I don't agree with the prevailing sentiment. In aggregate, the current "older generation" are probably the first who will do better than their offspring. In my experience, they want their capital to endure so their kids have a backstop. Personally, I view my own pension fund as something for my kids rather than a simple retirement planning tool.


----------



## Codogly (14 Sep 2016)

I'm also a big believer in the idea of not leaving money / assets behind ... why should we ... the key here is inheritance tax , the government should not allow parents to pass on wealth to their kids, this creates an uneven society ...everybody should start work on an even platform , no legs up from parents.  I realize that obviously some kids will get a better start in life ( education etc ) from their parents than others buts that's where it should stop.  I can see no reason why 100% inheritance tax should apply...!!!

Note : Family Business / Farms etc could be transferred title to kids but if they ever sell or realize a gain from the sales of those assets then inheritance tax should kick in.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Sep 2016)

There was another good article in the FT which doesn't seem to be on line by Lindsay Cook reporting on questions asked at FT Readers Conference. 

"Should you tell your children that you are planning to join the SKIN Club? Spending the Kids' Inheritance Now"


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

I had a client a number of years ago whose child was close to death. The treatment in Ireland would have been barbaric. At a cost of circa €250k, the child was successfully treated in the US. 

I would like to have enough money to ensure that at least the next couple of generations have that kind of insulation.


----------



## mtk (14 Sep 2016)

Gordon's point re sickness is a good one . Another point might to fund fertility treatment / surrogacy etc.


----------



## RichInSpirit (14 Sep 2016)

Depends also on your religious beliefs.
It's better to die broke but not in debt in a lot of religions.


----------



## Boyd (14 Sep 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> A great article by Merryn Somerset Webb in the Financial Times
> Why we should all aim to die broke



Subscription needed for that it seems


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Sep 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> This is very important for those who ask the question: How much do I need in my pension fund when I retire?
> 
> Most people want to have a comfortable retirement while maintaining their wealth and leaving the family home to their children.
> 
> ...



I think it is also that people as they get older don't want to be a burden on their children.

It is rather like Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof "You can be young without money, but you can't be old without it".


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

Medical inflation is greater than general inflation.

The nursing home of one's choosing might cost €60,000 a year right now. Lord knows what it will cost in 50 years' time. 

The resources that are required to be completely comfortable are far greater than most estimate.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

.........................................................


----------



## David_Dublin (14 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> I'm also a big believer in the idea of not leaving money / assets behind ... why should we ... the key here is inheritance tax , the government should not allow parents to pass on wealth to their kids, this creates an uneven society ...everybody should start work on an even platform , no legs up from parents.  I realize that obviously some kids will get a better start in life ( education etc ) from their parents than others buts that's where it should stop.  I can see no reason why 100% inheritance tax should apply...!!!
> 
> Note : Family Business / Farms etc could be transferred title to kids but if they ever sell or realize a gain from the sales of those assets then inheritance tax should kick in.



What effects do you think this might have on thinks like emigration / brain drain, international companies making a decision to come here, motivation for people to work hard / startups / entrepreneurs.

I think that idea is bananas. Speaking as a parent, why would I continue to work hard, make sacrifices, and in turn generate jobs and revenue for the country, when my motivation, amongst other things, is to leave money/assets for kids & grand kids to give them the best opportunities.

If I work hard it should be up to me who benefits from it, whether that be mu kids, chosen charities, whoever. It's ludicrous to suggest the government should stop my wealth passing onto whoever I choose.


----------



## huskerdu (14 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> Brendan, I agree with you 100%. For the majority of ARF holders, maintaining the current value of it is very important. Why? After saving for decades to accumulate a decent pension fund, when it comes to the time to spend it, why are you holding back?
> 
> Inheritance is a huge physiological barrier in Ireland too. Parents always want to leave something for their kids. You know what? Kids don't want to see parents going without now so they can get something 20-30 years later. Besides, mosts of their "kids" are approaching retirement age themselves by the time they get to retirement and should have their own savings in place.
> 
> ...



I agree with you Steven, except for the point about kids not wanting to see their parentts going without.
I am constantly amazed by the number of people who see the Bank of Mam and Dad as their automatic right.
I know one very comfortable middle class family in their 40s - 50s most of whom have not bothered to do proper financial planning for their retirement, apart from checking house priced to know how much they will get when their parents die. Their parents worked really hard and sacrficied a lot to be comfortable in their retirement and the kids haved realised that they should be stading on their own two feet.


----------



## noproblem (14 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE="Sophrosyne, post: 1486021, 

It is rather like Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof "You can be young without money, but you can't be old without it".[/QUOTE]


That sound so true when you read it quickly, but the reality is the same in both cases really.


----------



## Codogly (14 Sep 2016)

David,

Do you really want you kids to be lazy ? ... living off of your hard work ?... do you not trust in them enough to allow them stand on the own feet...?  What personal scence of achievement will your kids have knowing that they go a head start on others ?

As for the emigration brain drain comments ... I meant that all governments world wide would apply the same inheritance tax system making each new generation responsible for their own level of success or failure.


----------



## Boyd (14 Sep 2016)

huskerdu said:


> I agree with you Steven, except for the point about kids not wanting to see their parentts going without.
> I am constantly amazed by the number of people who see the Bank of Mam and Dad as their automatic right.


"Some people are just jerks Mr Simpson"


----------



## trasneoir (14 Sep 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Most people want to have a comfortable retirement while maintaining their wealth and leaving the family home to their children.
> That should not be their financial objective.  Or put it another way, they should not be making serious financial sacrifices during their working life and retirement to achieve that objective.


I'm on board with this part of your argument. Children will benefit more from early investment in education than from inheritance later in life. If they are short-changed on financial literacy, the promise of a lump sum later on may even be detrimental.

On the other hand, we're looking at a generation of retirees who have (collectively) failed to fund their own retirements. Part of this is visible in the impending shortfall in public pension schemes. The other part (i suspect) is wrapped up in inflating property values over the last 20 years. This seems to represent a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old(er). In the context of this failure, I'm inclined to plan defensively. Who knows how long the younger members of this forum will live? I think it's entirely possible that an average 20 year old today might expect to live past 100.



Brendan Burgess said:


> advisers should ... make sure that most of their clients die close to broke


It seems to me that (past a certain point) consumption provides sharply diminishing returns in terms of happiness. As people get older (and presumably wiser) the importance of "stuff" to their sense of wellbeing tends to decline, in favor of relationships, health and security.
At a certain point, isn't the happiness benefit of extra consumption outweighed by the cost of worrying about "living too long"?


----------



## RichInSpirit (14 Sep 2016)

I was also thinking about intergenerational wealth. For example with farmers.
You may be building wealth not for yourself or even the next generation, but for your descendants hundreds of years down the line.
A legitimate point of view too, in my opinion.


----------



## Steven Barrett (14 Sep 2016)

Joe_90 said:


> I agree but the great unknown is when is the person going to die!!!
> 
> Bob retires at 60 and has a pension pot of €1m growing at 5%.
> 
> ...



The thing is, Bob will be spending a lot more in his 60's than he will in his 70's. When he is still relatively young, he will want to go off and do different things. As he gets older, adventure is a lot harder to do and he begins to look at routine at home...until it's a nursing home or a box. 

And yes, nursing homes are incredibly expensive and you can't insure against the cost. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Steven Barrett (14 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> I can see no reason why 100% inheritance tax should apply...!!!
> 
> Note : Family Business / Farms etc could be transferred title to kids but if they ever sell or realize a gain from the sales of those assets then inheritance tax should kick in.



Why should the government be entitled to the assets that a person has built up over a lifetime? In most instances, assets that they have already paid taxes on? 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Codogly (14 Sep 2016)

The whole point here is that individuals should " Die Broke " thus the government would end up with nothing as no tax would accrue.
People should plan to run down their savings and assets over their own lifetime.

Your average person would sell their family home upon retirement and use the funds to sub their pension , either buy a smaller place or rent.  This would also have the advantage of freeing up a family home for the next generation of families and reduce the number of empty nesters in the system.


----------



## PaddyW (14 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> The whole point here is that individuals should " Die Broke " thus the government would end up with nothing as no tax would accrue.
> People should plan to run down their savings and assets over their own lifetime.
> 
> Your average person would sell their family home upon retirement and use the funds to sub their pension , either buy a smaller place or rent.  This would also have the advantage of freeing up a family home for the next generation of families and reduce the number of empty nesters in the system.



That's your opinion and of course, a valid one. But my thinking is that I will have funded my pension pot through years of hard work and I will damn well do with it as I please!


----------



## rob oyle (14 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I don't agree with the prevailing sentiment. In aggregate, the current "older generation" are probably the first who will do better than their offspring. In my experience, they want their capital to endure so their kids have a backstop. Personally, I view my own pension fund as something for my kids rather than a simple retirement planning tool.



If you don't mind, this might be a good point to discuss... rationally looking at it then, do you think you've mixed in a legacy for the kids with your retirement fund? A retirement fund is for your retirement. You're also saving into your pension plan something to pass on to the next generation but this isn't anything to do with your retirement. But these are two distinct arrangements that we never plan for as two separate items.


----------



## Codogly (14 Sep 2016)

Hi PaddyW ... that's a fair enough point , however my point is that the government is responsible for ensuring a fair and just society and in that context they have through Inheritance tax the capacity to make each generation start on a level playing field.
Example :  If PaddyW leaves his son a house worth say 250k that's a huge advantage for his son over and above Codogly son who got nothing ...and PaddyW's son have achieved this advantage through no effort by himself.
So in the same way that the government tells PaddyW that he cant spend his hard earned money on illegal activities (Drugs / Prostitution / weapons etc ) they government could and in me opinion control inheritances to ensure a fairer society.


----------



## rob oyle (14 Sep 2016)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is a brilliant analogy.  I will use that.  Is it plagiarism if it's first said by an anonymous person?
> 
> Brendan


I'm not anonymous... you just don't know me!

And anyway, use away! My father is the perfect example of this mentality, he often tells the story of a bachelor farmer who used to save at every opportunity, when he was told that he should be spending it or someone else will do after his death, he said: ' Well, I hope they enjoy spending it as much as I did saving it!'


----------



## T McGibney (14 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> Hi PaddyW ... that's a fair enough point , however my point is that the government is responsible for ensuring a fair and just society and in that context they have through Inheritance tax the capacity to make each generation start on a level playing field.
> Example :  If PaddyW leaves his son a house worth say 250k that's a huge advantage for his son over and above Codogly son who got nothing ...and PaddyW's son have achieved this advantage through no effort by himself.
> So in the same way that the government tells PaddyW that he cant spend his hard earned money on illegal activities (Drugs / Prostitution / weapons etc ) they government could and in me opinion control inheritances to ensure a fairer society.



So your suggestion is to kick families out of their homes once their parents die???  Nothing much in that to ensure a fairer society.


----------



## Codogly (14 Sep 2016)

Hi T McGibney,
No that's not what I'm suggesting at all ... my proposal would have no issue with a family taking over their parents home after the pass on ...however my proposal requires that they the children don't get that house for free ..i.e. in this case the parents could sell the equity in their house to the government agency for say 200k which the parents would then spend on themselves and the children would have the option when the time came to take a 200k mortgage from the government agency if they wished to continue living in that house.
This way the children are required to pay their own way in life and the parents enjoy the full benefits for their hard earned cash.


----------



## T McGibney (14 Sep 2016)

So a kid whose parents die young would be forced to buy their own home back from the government?


That, my friend, is tyranny.


----------



## Gerard123 (14 Sep 2016)

I can only assume the clue is in the name. 
*Definition of codology in English:*
Foolish or untrue talk or writing; nonsense:


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

rob oyle said:


> If you don't mind, this might be a good point to discuss... rationally looking at it then, do you think you've mixed in a legacy for the kids with your retirement fund? A retirement fund is for your retirement. You're also saving into your pension plan something to pass on to the next generation but this isn't anything to do with your retirement. But these are two distinct arrangements that we never plan for as two separate items.



I'm using the tax advantages of a pension to build more capital than I'll need, so it is a succession planning play.


----------



## ardmacha (14 Sep 2016)

As someone put it "_if you don't drive a Merc, your son in law will!
_
More seriously though, inheritance is the cause of great inequity in society. If someone wants to work for you, then the government takes a substantial wedge off the money you pay them, although of course you paid tax on that money. But if you just die and someone ends up with the money the government takes a lot less, so those who work for it pay and those who work for it pay less. It would be more equitable if the government had high inheritance taxes but also insurance mechanisms for nursing homes etc.

On a related issue there was an article in the Indo about a 96 year old women having a problem with her roof and a Facebook campaign to get it fixed, as "she didn't want to burden her family". Yet some collection of people within that family will inherit that house, one inside the canals in Dublin  which might be worth quite a bit, and will inherit in the next few years one imagines, but they wouldn't fix the roof but found a kind (or perhaps foolish) person to do it as a pro bono.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

But Ardmacha, that money has already been taxed!

Do you think it's fair that someone can earn €100, lose 55% of it in taxation, end up with €45, and have another €15 taken if they give the money to their son or daughter?

The State taking 70% of someone's money!!!


----------



## Steven Barrett (14 Sep 2016)

Going by this thread, you'd swear the country is overrun by Ross O'Carroll Kellys!!


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> Going by this thread, you'd swear the country is overrun by Ross O'Carroll Kellys!!



Indeed. What's actually required is ongoing education for the next generations around prudent investment and managing one's finances. They should teach personal financial management in school.

It might help to speed up our transition from gombeen property obsessives to mature investors.


----------



## Fella (14 Sep 2016)

I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing thing. I'm lucky enough to have a decent chunk of savings. Over the years i've bought everything I need , so now I need very little , I just buy what I want now but I wouldn't waste money , I'm not going to buy a new car when I cycle to work etc. or travel first class every holiday when economy works fine. I think it would be foolish to spend money down to zero just so you leave nothing behind. I find one of the benefits in having a lot of savings is not having to think about spending more or saving more. Having to spend money for the sake of it would be as much a burden as having no money imo. 

Whatever I have left will be left to my kids , don't care what they do with it.


----------



## ardmacha (14 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> But Ardmacha, that money has already been taxed!
> 
> Do you think it's fair that someone can earn €100, lose 55% of it in taxation, end up with €45, and have another €15 taken if they give the money to their son or daughter?
> 
> The State taking 70% of someone's money!!!



The taxation system is based on taking cuts at various stages in the process. The company pays 12.5% corporation tax, (or 0.005% if Apple), they pay you and you pay income tax, you buy goods and services and VAT is charged and those who provide the goods and services in turn pay income tax. The State accounts for 45% of the economy and this salami slicing is needed to bring in that amount without having excessive rates on any one thing. Every transaction or transfer that isn't taxed increases the rate for those things that are, it might be better to have more inheritance tax and have only 45% tax on those who get income by working. I'm very suspicious of anyone that says that such and such thing should not be taxed, as it inevitably means that other things have to be taxed more.

And I write this in a house I inherited 10 years ago, tax free!



Fella said:


> I don't think it needs to be an all or nothing thing. I'm lucky enough to have a decent chunk of savings. Over the years i've bought everything I need , so now I need very little , I just buy what I want now but I wouldn't waste money , I'm not going to buy a new car when I cycle to work etc. or travel first class every holiday when economy works fine. I think it would be foolish to spend money down to zero just so you leave nothing behind. I find one of the benefits in having a lot of savings is not having to think about spending more or saving more. Having to spend money for the sake of it would be as much a burden as having no money imo.
> 
> Whatever I have left will be left to my kids , don't care what they do with it.



Owing to a windfall I may well have a significant cash estate left behind as I am not really a big spender by nature. But it is nice to think that if you want to see Tahiti, it is possible get a business class RTW and go there!


----------



## kmick (14 Sep 2016)

Newsflash folks - most of us will be broke. According to the pensions calculator a 40 year old person would need to put 25k a year into a pension for 38 years to have an annual income of 25k on retirement (not including state pension). 
http://www.pensionsauthority.ie/en/Calculators/Pensions_Calculator. 
How many people are paying 25k into their pension annually?


----------



## trasneoir (14 Sep 2016)

ardmacha said:


> More seriously though, inheritance is the cause of great inequity in society.


Agreed. Our behavior suggests that we prefer "our" kids to the kids next door, and prefer the kids next door to the kids in Syria. 
If you take the ethos of "equality of opportunity" to its logical conclusion, you've got to ban parenting. 
If our children were to be raised under Rawls' veil of ignorance, we'd take public education and social services much, much more seriously.


----------



## Leper (15 Sep 2016)

Most of us here in the 50 + years love their children.  But, do our children love us?  Without moan we reared them, we endured recessions that make the current recession look like a doddle, we shoved them all through 1st, 2nd, 3rd Level education although most of us probably had to bail out of the education system circa 16/17 years old.  We married younger.  We gave them money for a start home  although we had to queue up on bridging finance while waiting for a mortgage. We survived with less. Our wives gave up their jobs to ensure the kids had a better childhood. One car was enough even if you could afford a car. We bust our butts.  . . . and all for our children.  Would our children bust their butts for us?

When I go to the beautiful Public Service Canteen in the sky, I'll die broke at worst and in debt at best. It's about time we thought of ourselves.


----------



## Grizzly (15 Sep 2016)

I recently inherited a chunk of money from my parents and had to pay €50k inheritance tax on it. So did my brother and sister. My parents lived a simple life and spent very little on themselves. This caused us some grief to find their central heating switched off during the winter etc. My father had a private pension and a state pension. He lived off the state pension and saved his private pension. He ended up in a nursing home, paying €50k per annum. If my mother had lived to the same age this would have cost c €100k per annum. My father helped us out financially throughout our lives and I am grateful for my inheritance but annoyed at the tax that was paid on it and also annoyed that he was so frugal with his money when he was alive.

Both myself and my wife live simple lives and can live on relatively little. We have everything we need. We have good savings and own our own home. Neither of us want to end up in a nursing home. We would rather employ someone to live with us and take care of us. 

We have discussed downsizing and upping the "spend" on ourselves, but on what?. I don't want new cars, new kitchens, bling, new furniture etc. We will continue to live in a warm comfortable home and pay tradesmen to do the jobs we can no longer do ourselves. We enjoy our holidays.

I would expect that a further inheritance tax will be paid on the inheritance tax that was already paid on my inheritance from my parents, when my children in turn inherit from us. I am having difficulty with this. 

I don't know what's coming in the back mirror. The cost of everything has increased. We have new taxes that we did not have a few years back. I am helping my children now and would like to help more. My fear is not having enough for myself and my wife but leaving too much for the taxman.


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Sep 2016)

Grizzly

Give your kids €3k a year each but tell them to put it in a separate account and not to be touched. If you ever need home care or nursing home care, your kids are to pay for it from that account. They can then claim tax relief on the fees that they paid for your care. That way you can reduce the inheritance tax liability for your kids and they can get a tax break for spending your money. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> Grizzly
> 
> Give your kids €3k a year each but tell them to put it in a separate account and not to be touched. If you ever need home care or nursing home care, your kids are to pay for it from that account. They can then claim tax relief on the fees that they paid for your care. That way you can reduce the inheritance tax liability for your kids and they can get a tax break for spending your money.
> 
> ...



Better still, give them €6k each.


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Better still, give them €6k each.



€3k from Mr Grizzly and another €3k from Mrs Grizzly? 



Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## T McGibney (15 Sep 2016)

ardmacha said:


> The State accounts for 45% of the economy and this salami slicing is needed to bring in that amount without having excessive rates on any one thing. Every transaction or transfer that isn't taxed increases the rate for those things that are, it might be better to have more inheritance tax and have only 45% tax on those who get income by working.



Revenue took in €17.157bn in income tax & €11.153bn in VAT in 2014. Added together, those figures amount to €28.31bn. 

Its total take from Capital Acquisitions Tax in the same year was just €357m.

That's just 1.2% of the income tax & VAT take, in a year when the CAT rate was 33% and thresholds were cut to the bone.

If the CAT yield was doubled and this was committed to income tax reductions, a typical worker paying an effective income tax rate of say 30% would see their rate drop to 29.7%. Hardly an exciting tax cut.

And this ignores the paradox that higher CAT rates inevitably mean lower amounts of CAT paid - as they disincentivise the making of taxable gifts.



ardmacha said:


> I'm very suspicious of anyone that says that such and such thing should not be taxed, as it inevitably means that other things have to be taxed more.



No it doesn't. Control of public expenditure has to come into the equation somewhere, particularly when it is obvious that the overall tax burden is too high.


----------



## demoivre (15 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> And yes, nursing homes are incredibly expensive and you can't insure against the cost.



Why would you want to with the Fair deal scheme in operation? Unless your preferred charity is the HSE I don't see the point in saving for potential nursing home costs at all.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Sep 2016)

SBarrett said:


> €3k from Mr Grizzly and another €3k from Mrs Grizzly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep.

And if the child is married, and affordability permits, €12k.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (15 Sep 2016)

demoivre said:


> Why would you want to with the Fair deal scheme in operation? Unless your preferred charity is the HSE I don't see the point in saving for potential nursing home costs at all.



So you can go where you choose, and retain control over your assets.


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Yep.
> 
> And if the child is married, and affordability permits, €12k.



And they can always contribute €3k each to the person who told them the great idea


----------



## Steven Barrett (15 Sep 2016)

demoivre said:


> Why would you want to with the Fair deal scheme in operation? Unless your preferred charity is the HSE I don't see the point in saving for potential nursing home costs at all.



You never know if/ when you will have to go to a nursing home. When it comes to paying for nursing home fees, the HSE look at any asset dumps in the previous 5 years. That's a long enough period for an elderly person and pretty difficult to get the timing right on disposing of your assets so you can avail of the Fair Deal scheme. 

Then there is the moral issue of getting the State to pick up the tab for your living costs when you have enough money to pay for themselves yourself. It's not as if children's hospitals don't have to hold fund raisers to buy machines to save children's lives...


Steven 
[broken link removed]


----------



## galway_blow_in (15 Sep 2016)

RichInSpirit said:


> I was also thinking about intergenerational wealth. For example with farmers.
> You may be building wealth not for yourself or even the next generation, but for your descendants hundreds of years down the line.
> A legitimate point of view too, in my opinion.



sorry but how are farmers any different in this regard ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (15 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> Hi PaddyW ... that's a fair enough point , however my point is that the government is responsible for ensuring a fair and just society and in that context they have through Inheritance tax the capacity to make each generation start on a level playing field.
> Example :  If PaddyW leaves his son a house worth say 250k that's a huge advantage for his son over and above Codogly son who got nothing ...and PaddyW's son have achieved this advantage through no effort by himself.
> So in the same way that the government tells PaddyW that he cant spend his hard earned money on illegal activities (Drugs / Prostitution / weapons etc ) they government could and in me opinion control inheritances to ensure a fairer society.



paddy w may wish to see his son benefit from the fruits of his labour , how is the state anymore entitled to the fruits of paddy W than the mans own son ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (15 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> Most of us here in the 50 + years love their children.  But, do our children love us?  Without moan we reared them, we endured recessions that make the current recession look like a doddle, we shoved them all through 1st, 2nd, 3rd Level education although most of us probably had to bail out of the education system circa 16/17 years old.  We married younger.  We gave them money for a start home  although we had to queue up on bridging finance while waiting for a mortgage. We survived with less. Our wives gave up their jobs to ensure the kids had a better childhood. One car was enough even if you could afford a car. We bust our butts.  . . . and all for our children.  Would our children bust their butts for us?
> 
> When I go to the beautiful Public Service Canteen in the sky, I'll die broke at worst and in debt at best. It's about time we thought of ourselves.



your the richest demographic in the country who benefited most from the boom and the massive appreciation in property prices , those from their mid fifties on have nothing to complain about , they had no recession compared to the youth as more senior public servants saw far less severe cuts and pensioners had no cuts at all


----------



## Jon Stark (15 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> Most of us here in the 50 + years love their children.  But, do our children love us?  Without moan we reared them, we endured recessions that make the current recession look like a doddle, we shoved them all through 1st, 2nd, 3rd Level education although most of us probably had to bail out of the education system circa 16/17 years old.  We married younger.  We gave them money for a start home  although we had to queue up on bridging finance while waiting for a mortgage. We survived with less. Our wives gave up their jobs to ensure the kids had a better childhood. One car was enough even if you could afford a car. We bust our butts.  . . . and all for our children.  Would our children bust their butts for us?
> 
> When I go to the beautiful Public Service Canteen in the sky, I'll die broke at worst and in debt at best. It's about time we thought of ourselves.



"Without moan"?! I very much doubt you've ever done anything in this life without moan!!


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> your the richest demographic in the country who benefited most from the boom and the massive appreciation in property prices , those from their mid fifties on have nothing to complain about , they had no recession compared to the youth as more senior public servants saw far less severe cuts and pensioners had no cuts at all



Oh really?
What do you know about the 50s, 60s and 70s?


----------



## Leper (16 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> your the richest demographic in the country who benefited most from the boom and the massive appreciation in property prices , those from their mid fifties on have nothing to complain about , they had no recession compared to the youth as more senior public servants saw far less severe cuts and pensioners had no cuts at all



You got that wrong Galway-Blow.  I was born in the early 1950's where we didn't even have roads.  Most towns had dirt tracks for streets and it usually only the main road that had some form of tar.  The 1960's were just as bad.  Even very few had cars. Into the 1970's where things began to change a little.  We joined the EEC where we could try and get some kind of aid from Europe. Even women who got married were allowed to remain working in the Public Service. There were no such things as Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, This Leave, That Leave. Times of recession were normal times in Ireland - repeat - Times of recession were normal times in Ireland. We were not used to one car, never mind two car households. If things were good in the 60's, 70's, 80's talk to our elderly homosexual community today. They suffered back then like none of us in the straight community could imagine. Different subject, I know, but look around now and just even think of the change in Ireland.

I look around now. People moaning about the speed bumps on the road.  Motorists/Cyclists think they own the roads. Parental Leave, Maternity Leave, etc are being extended every year for some reason or another (not a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but look at your post - our generation deserves a break, at last).

Or do you still want us to keep giving to a generation who now couldn't give up crisps at lunchtime? This Leper is dying broke.  Don't bother even coming to the funeral.


----------



## Dan Murray (16 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> This Leper is dying broke.



Hi Leper,

Serious question - how are you going to arrange your finances to achieve this on a practical level?


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Sep 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Oh really?
> What do you know about the 50s, 60s and 70s?



so because i wasnt born until the late seventies , i cant have an opinion ?


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> You got that wrong Galway-Blow.  I was born in the early 1950's where we didn't even have roads.  Most towns had dirt tracks for streets and it usually only the main road that had some form of tar.  The 1960's were just as bad.  Even very few had cars. Into the 1970's where things began to change a little.  We joined the EEC where we could try and get some kind of aid from Europe. Even women who got married were allowed to remain working in the Public Service. There were no such things as Maternity Leave, Parental Leave, This Leave, That Leave. Times of recession were normal times in Ireland - repeat - Times of recession were normal times in Ireland. We were not used to one car, never mind two car households. If things were good in the 60's, 70's, 80's talk to our elderly homosexual community today. They suffered back then like none of us in the straight community could imagine. Different subject, I know, but look around now and just even think of the change in Ireland.
> 
> I look around now. People moaning about the speed bumps on the road.  Motorists/Cyclists think they own the roads. Parental Leave, Maternity Leave, etc are being extended every year for some reason or another (not a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but look at your post - our generation deserves a break, at last).
> 
> Or do you still want us to keep giving to a generation who now couldn't give up crisps at lunchtime? This Leper is dying broke.  Don't bother even coming to the funeral.



so the youth of today are meant to feel guilty because people of your generation didnt support gay rights ?

those above 60 have it great in ireland today and are prioritised by goverment ahead of those under forty every time


----------



## Gerry Canning (16 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> so because i wasnt born until the late seventies , i cant have an opinion ?



Galway,
Of course you can have an opinion, what you can,t expect ,is that when your opening thread is blather, is  to feel your written opinion  can rest there.

All my family, save mise ,all born in 50,s had to emigrate.
In 70,s tax rates for those in work hit 70%.

I do accept that most over 60,s have it better than ever.
You should accept that those under forty also, in general ,have it better than ever.

We are in challenging times and if the decades tell me anything , its that things will again improve for those under 40.
Indeed if it doesn,t improve we all, ie  60 + , or 40-, will take hits.

I am not comfortable with your opinion as stated .


----------



## Codogly (16 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> paddy w may wish to see his son benefit from the fruits of his labour , how is the state anymore entitled to the fruits of paddy W than the mans own son ?


Hi Galway blow in ,
Your missing the point ... the state don't want to benefit from PaddyW's hard earned assets they wont PaddyW  to spend all him own money/assets on himself and not pass them on.  If PaddyW is allowed pass on his assets to his son then his son gets a head start v other people of his generation through no work of his own.


----------



## Gerard123 (16 Sep 2016)

I though we lived in a democracy and had freedoms.  Within reason isn't it a parents own business to decide what they want to do with their own money which has already been taxed?  If they decide to spend on fast cars, foreign holidays, sobeit.  If they decide to give it to their kids to help so what.  Its their money. 

Generational comparisons are frankly ridiculous and meaningless, also lead to needless conflict.  Bit like comparing a Ford Model T to a modern car.  Pointless!


----------



## T McGibney (16 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> If PaddyW is allowed pass on his assets to his son then his son gets a head start v other people of his generation through no work of his own.



Here we go again. 

You didn't answer the question I asked you earlier this week when you made a similar statement. 


> So a kid whose parents die young would be forced to buy their own home back from the government?


Perhaps you'd maybe do so now?


----------



## T McGibney (16 Sep 2016)

Gerard123 said:


> Generational comparisons are frankly ridiculous and meaningless, also lead to needless conflict.  Bit like comparing a Ford Model T to a modern car.  Pointless!



Imagine trying to argue that a child is better off if their sibling dies.


----------



## Codogly (16 Sep 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> You didn't answer the question I asked you earlier this week when you made a similar statement.
> 
> Perhaps you'd maybe do so now?


Hi T McGibney,
The whole purpose of my proposal is that everybody insofar as possible from the same generation should start on an even level or at least as even as can possible be achieved.  To this end in a situation like you described above where a kids parents die while the kid is still young the tax would be deferred until the age of say 25yrs.  This would allow the child to have a place to stay until the reach a reasonable age whereby they should be able to enter society on the same level as there piers.   I imagine other allowances / exemptions would apply where for example the child or children had a disability ( as you can appreciate in this situation this particular child is certainly not starting life on an even level in the first place and thus deserves exemption).


----------



## T McGibney (16 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> Hi T McGibney,
> The whole purpose of my proposal is that everybody insofar as possible from the same generation should start on an even level or at least as even as can possible be achieved.  *To this end in a situation like you described above where a kids parents die while the kid is still young the tax would be deferred until the age of say 25yrs.  *This would allow the child to have a place to stay until the reach a reasonable age whereby they should be able to enter society on the same level as there piers.   I imagine other allowances / exemptions would apply where for example the child or children had a disability ( as you can appreciate in this situation this particular child is certainly not starting life on an even level in the first place and thus deserves exemption).



But most 25 year olds don't earn enough to afford a mortgage to buy a home, let alone a family home.

Why should the State chuck out of their home a 25 year old whose parents are dead, while another 25 year old with a living parent is free to live with them if they so wish?

Aren't people who lose their parents at an early stage already disadvantaged enough as it is?

Your objective that "everybody insofar as possible from the same generation should start on an even level" is crazy, year-zero stuff.


----------



## Gerry Canning (16 Sep 2016)

I don,t want a spoilt brat , living for ever  off his parents hard work ,without some penalty.
I don,t want a child who loses his parents , thrown out of family home.

Do inheritance taxes not go some way to fairness?


----------



## galway_blow_in (16 Sep 2016)

Codogly said:


> Hi Galway blow in ,
> Your missing the point ... the state don't want to benefit from PaddyW's hard earned assets they wont PaddyW  to spend all him own money/assets on himself and not pass them on.  If PaddyW is allowed pass on his assets to his son then his son gets a head start v other people of his generation through no work of his own.



using that logic , if a father buys his son or daughter a new car for their twenty first birthday , it bestows an advantage over twenty one year olds who,s parents cannot afford to be so generous


----------



## T McGibney (16 Sep 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> I don,t want a spoilt brat , living for ever  off his parents hard work ,without some penalty.
> I don,t want a child who loses his parents , thrown out of family home.
> 
> Do inheritance taxes not go some way to fairness?



Inheritance taxes penalise those whose parents die at a young age.  If you're lucky enough to have your parents survive til you're 70, inheritance taxes are unlikely to ever bother you. 

It's impossible to legislate for fairness in life, as if money was everything.


----------



## ardmacha (16 Sep 2016)

T McGibney said:


> But most 25 year olds don't earn enough to afford a mortgage to buy a home, let alone a family home.



25 year olds can't buy houses because they are too expensive. Only "_cash buyers_" can buy houses. How many "_cash buyers_" have an element of inheritance in there in the background allowing them drive up the price of houses beyond the ability of a person merely working to pay for them?



			
				T McGibney said:
			
		

> Why should the State chuck out of their home a 25 year old whose parents are dead, while another 25 year old with a living parent is free to live with them if they so wish?
> 
> Aren't people who lose their parents at an early stage already disadvantaged enough as it is?



You've made this point about people dying several times. The cure for this a scheme of life insurance, not the end of inheritance taxes.



			
				T McGibney said:
			
		

> Your objective that "everybody insofar as possible from the same generation should start on an even level" is crazy, year-zero stuff.



People do not have that objective. They may have the objective that exchanging money in return for productive work be taxed in the same way as the exchange of money for being related to someone.


----------



## Leper (17 Sep 2016)

Dan Murray said:


> Hi Leper,
> 
> Serious question - how are you going to arrange your finances to achieve this on a practical level?



Thanks Dan, I thought somebody would never ask.  OK! we've got to look after the funeral expenses for ourselves.  Even that can be arranged well beforehand, I learned recently.  The adults (they've all grown up) get the bricks and mortar (which they will already have a For Sale sign displayed even before the hearse leaves the church and the furniture). Evend the attic is already cleaned out and garden shed is immaculate.

I have no great fortune stacked away, but what is left will be used as unprudently as I can possibly think to ensure whatever time we have left is enjoyed. Leave the tank empty. Our kids have got everything and were never left short.  Now is Leper and Mrs Leper time. [For the record, I don't want to have readers here think that we're off to Las Vegas or Hawaii or thinking of upgrading to a 16-2 Porsche]
                                               ___________________________________________________



galway_blow_in said:


> so the youth of today are meant to feel guilty because people of your generation didnt support gay rights ?



What are you talking about? Perhaps you should start another thread?

.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 Sep 2016)

People's philosophy clearly depends on their circumstances. Also, a balance must be struck between passing wealth on to the next generation and creating a generation of lazy clowns.

My own view is that you show them the value of hard work, teach them the "cause and effect" around study and reward, and ensure that they understand the importance of long-term prudent investing.

I think that there is merit in contributing to your child's pension when they can't afford to do so. I also believe that if you accumulate meaningful wealth, and your kids see themselves as its custodian for the next generation, things should be fine.


----------



## Dan Murray (17 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> ....but what is left will be used as unprudently as I can possibly think to ensure whatever time we have left is enjoyed.



Leper,

And why not?! Fair play!

I suppose what I was wondering is how would you arrange your finances if one is going down some sort of self-invested route (i.e. ARF inside a pension, other assets outside a pension). Is it fair to say that the majority of any supplementary income over the state pension that you personally have is in the form of a pension?

[I guess my point is that certain people will have difficulty in putting all or a significant portion of their pension funds into annuities given the prevailing rates and thus "running the fund down" precisely is kind of tricky unless you're planning a trip to Switzerland or something?!]

I suppose another point - for the sake of completion - is that you are not actually planning to do what you preach!! You are planning to leave the house to the next generation as opposed to doing some sort of equity release / lifetime mortgage?! [This can only help if the goal is truly for this leper to leave this world with broadly the same possessions as he joined it!!]


----------



## Monbretia (17 Sep 2016)

Lovely theory but can someone give me the exact date, to the closest year will do, that I need to provide until?

That's the great unknown, I don't have a pension as such or at least highly unlikely to pay out when the time comes due to underfunding so the capital sum must be stretched out until an unknown time and the days of high interest returns are gone.

If I dropped dead in the morning my kids would get a nice little nestegg which I would prefer to be spending now to buy a better car/hols/help them out now etc but however if I live for another 20 yrs then I don't even have enough (other than the extra of state pension kicking in).   I would love to give them money now, there are several things that would make life a lot better for them but I can't take that risk, I may need the money myself.


----------



## Kimmagegirl (17 Sep 2016)

I have 3 children all in their middle to late 30's. Chalk and cheese. One is very careful with his money. One is not very careful with his money. The third sits somewhere in between.

They will each inherit one third of my property. My will states that each grandchild will inherit €30k. There will be a pot of about c€2m made up of property c€1.5m and cash c€500k.

They get good cash birthday and Christmas presents. We are increasing this amount toward the €3k per annum as we get older. Larger sums will be given toward weddings.

Both myself and my husband live off very little. We are not interested in spending large amounts of money on cars/furnishings/designer anything. We enjoy helping our children out. My father helped me out but unfortunately both myself and my siblings began to "expect" these annual handouts. I am trying to avoid this with my children.

So each child will get a decent sum of money. The taxman will do absolutely nothing and will also get a large sum of money.

We are trying to increase spending on ourselves but have always enjoyed looking for a bargain over the years so it can be difficult to break the habits of a lifetime.

I know my children won't blow their inheritance. My father handed me an inheritance. He started with nothing. I haven't blown his inheritance.

I don't know what else I can do.


----------



## Kimmagegirl (17 Sep 2016)

I should add as Montbretia's post above reminded me that both myself and my husband have practically nil pensions coming. One of us might get the state pension, the other not so sure. 
We also have the fear that we may also run out of money. The only thing is we can downsize our home and release some equity if the worst comes to the worst. However when you live in a house and area that you love this can be a difficult thing to do.


----------



## galway_blow_in (17 Sep 2016)

Leper said:


> Thanks Dan, I thought somebody would never ask.  OK! we've got to look after the funeral expenses for ourselves.  Even that can be arranged well beforehand, I learned recently.  The adults (they've all grown up) get the bricks and mortar (which they will already have a For Sale sign displayed even before the hearse leaves the church and the furniture). Evend the attic is already cleaned out and garden shed is immaculate.
> 
> I have no great fortune stacked away, but what is left will be used as unprudently as I can possibly think to ensure whatever time we have left is enjoyed. Leave the tank empty. Our kids have got everything and were never left short.  Now is Leper and Mrs Leper time. [For the record, I don't want to have readers here think that we're off to Las Vegas or Hawaii or thinking of upgrading to a 16-2 Porsche]
> ___________________________________________________
> ...



see post 62 , you brought up lack of gay rights in the past ?


----------



## Boyd (17 Sep 2016)

Kimmagegirl said:


> I should add as Montbretia's post above reminded me that both myself and my husband have practically nil pensions coming. One of us might get the state pension, the other not so sure.
> We also have the fear that we may also run out of money. The only thing is we can downsize our home and release some equity if the worst comes to the worst. However when you live in a house and area that you love this can be a difficult thing to do.


This makes no sense. You say you are afraid of running of money but are still giving (your words) good cash gifts for birthday and Christmas gifts to your adult children, as well as 3k per annum gift each!!
No offense, but as a 34 year old with two siblings, I think you are very foolish. With no pension, you need to prioritise your own life first. I don't understand why adult offspring get gifts above a token gesture... Surely the gifts should be going the other way! (my two brothers seem to disagree however).


----------



## galway_blow_in (17 Sep 2016)

username123 said:


> This makes no sense. You say you are afraid of running of money but are still giving (your words) good cash gifts for birthday and Christmas gifts to your adult children, as well as 3k per annum gift each!!
> No offense, but as a 34 year old with two siblings, I think you are very foolish. With no pension, you need to prioritise your own life first. I don't understand why adult offspring get gifts above a token gesture... Surely the gifts should be going the other way! (my two brothers seem to disagree however).



the elderly are better off than the youth in this country in almost every way financially , why would money be going the other way ?

which isnt to say parents have an outright obligation to heap cash gifts upon their kids


----------



## T McGibney (17 Sep 2016)

ardmacha said:


> 25 year olds can't buy houses because they are too expensive. Only "_cash buyers_" can buy houses.


Simply not true. Most houses are bought with mortgages.


> How many "_cash buyers_" have an element of inheritance in there in the background allowing them drive up the price of houses beyond the ability of a person merely working to pay for them?


How many indeed??? I have no idea but I suspect it's a lot fewer than you think. Average life expectancy is well over 70 which means that most people are well over 30 years old before their parents die. And we don't see that many first time buyers at that age.




> You've made this point about people dying several times. The cure for this a scheme of life insurance, not the end of inheritance taxes.



So children and infants should take out life policies on their parents? How would that work? How would they pay for it?




> People do not have that objective. They may have the objective that exchanging money in return for productive work be taxed in the same way as the exchange of money for being related to someone.


That can be read as an argument against income tax free allowances and exemptions, which most people enjoy up to nearly €20k per annum, or €800k in a working lifetime, way more than their inheritance tax thresholds.


----------



## Boyd (17 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> the elderly are better off than the youth in this country in almost every way financially , why would money be going the other way ?


Because I feel my 70 year old parents have done their job. I should be repaying them for putting me through 21 years of clothes, food, school and college, not expecting more from them.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 Sep 2016)

username123 said:


> Because I feel my 70 year old parents have done their job. I should be repaying them for putting me through 21 years of clothes, food, school and college, not expecting more from them.



To be fair, it depends how much money they have. In aggregate, the current generation of 65/75 year olds probably represent the peak in terms of average wealth. If they have the capacity to help their kids without endangering their own position, there's nothing wrong with them doing so.


----------



## Boyd (17 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> To be fair, it depends how much money they have. In aggregate, the current generation of 65/75 year olds probably represent the peak in terms of average wealth. If they have the capacity to help their kids without endangering their own position, there's nothing wrong with them doing so.


If so, that is indeed their choice. However, the person above (@Kimmagegirl) indicated she was worried about running out of money AND didnt have a pension, but was still giving large gifts to adult children. That surely makes zero sense.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (17 Sep 2016)

username123 said:


> If so, that is indeed their choice. However, the person above (@Kimmagegirl) indicated she was worried about running out of money AND didnt have a pension, but was still giving large gifts to adult children. That surely makes zero sense.



Agreed.


----------



## mtk (17 Sep 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Agreed.



Plus 1


----------



## Kimmagegirl (17 Sep 2016)

Kimmagegirl said:


> We also have the fear that we may also run out of money



In reality, I don't think we will though. I just have to convince myself. I think we will have plenty but the fear factor is constantly there. We presently live on about €20k per annum. With €500k in the bank and a house worth €1.5m we should be O.K. I feel I can still be generous to my children without going oveboard.


----------



## Leper (17 Sep 2016)

galway_blow_in said:


> see post 62 , you brought up lack of gay rights in the past ?



I brought the subject up as how not good things were for most people back in the day not for what you said " so we should . . . " - Read my posts and stop jumping to conclusions.  Are you my son?


----------



## RichInSpirit (17 Sep 2016)

*"Why we should all aim to die broke"*

*Predicting when we are going to die would be as hard a job as trying to ensure that we're broke when we do die.*
*Nearly impossible to get both events synchronized.*
*Sorry about the formatting. I copied and pasted the thread title *


----------



## ardmacha (17 Sep 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Simply not true. Most houses are bought with mortgages.



It is an issue 
http://www.independent.ie/business/...rs-squeezing-out-2540-age-group-34576928.html

And cash buyers do not have to buy starter properties to affect their price. 




> So children and infants should take out life policies on their parents? How would that work? How would they pay for it?



I didn't mean that, as you well know. But responsible parents could take life insurance so that their children would not suffer financially if they died especially young. 



> That can be read as an argument against income tax free allowances and exemptions, which most people enjoy up to nearly €20k per annum, or €800k in a working lifetime, way more than their inheritance tax thresholds.



Well then, how about a lifetime tax allowance, or at least a up to 65 one, if you use it it an inheritance than you don't get it for subsequent income.


----------



## RobFer (18 Sep 2016)

ardmacha said:


> It is an issue
> http://www.independent.ie/business/...rs-squeezing-out-2540-age-group-34576928.html
> 
> And cash buyers do not have to buy starter properties to affect their price.
> ...


If you restrict the right to obtain inheritance, the wealth of older people still would impact property prices, as they would buy houses as pension investments. It wouldn't necessary restrict house demand.


----------



## T McGibney (18 Sep 2016)

Duplicate post


----------



## T McGibney (18 Sep 2016)

ardmacha said:


> I didn't mean that, as you well know.




Sorry, I don't know. That's why I asked.



> But responsible parents could take life insurance so that their children would not suffer financially if they died especially young.


The proceeds of a life policy paid by the deceased are already assessable to inheritance tax. If you're suggesting that they be exempted, I'm sure you're aware that this would drive a coach and four throughout the entire CAT process?


----------



## Gerry Canning (19 Sep 2016)

If only we knew the time and the hour !


----------



## Gordon Gekko (19 Sep 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> If only we knew the time and the hour !



At least the chances of being hit by a bus are somewhat lessened these days...


----------



## Sudoku (19 Sep 2016)

I think its a bit mean-spirited for some posters to say they _want_ to leave their children with debt.

While I by no means have the same financial means as Kimmagegirl, I would rather be in a position to leave my lads with a few quid than leave them with MY debt from MY poor money management- or deliberate money mismanagement it would seem.

To bring it back to OP's article, I have to agree with other posters here: that the article makes some intersting points, however none of us can accurately predict the dates of our deaths (unless of course, you've booked a trip to Dignitas).


----------



## Leper (20 Sep 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> If only we knew the time and the hour !



Most of us don't know when we will expire.  But, the fact is we will expire sometime (apologies for stating the obvious). If I were in my 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's I would not be thinking of my eventual death (and I hope it is not near).  Life must be lived and thinking negatively is not of any use. However, there comes a time (probably mid 60's) when you must think of where do we go from here? Most males won't make it beyond their mid 70's and the females can expect on average to die perhaps two/three years later. We've lived through recessions, reared our family, bought our houses, shoved our children through education, paid their college bills, paid for 21st's, weddings etc and even looked after their children (usually unpaid).  We are always there for them - are they always there for us? In a nutshell, we have done enough.

Those of us who were careful with money over our life will be taxed on what is left.  If we need to use a Rest Home (Community Hospital) our costs will be assessed on what we have in the bank and up in bricks and mortar.  The guy who gambled every pound and drank every euro has nothing and probably will continue to be a burden on those of us who tried to be wise.

Time for fun, at last, I think.


----------



## Buddyboy (20 Sep 2016)

I was discussing this thread with my wife yesterday.  I agree with the premise, and hope to actively pursue it (and having no children makes it easier).  My wife is coming around to the view that we don't have to limit our spending more than is necessary, and having a mortgage is not the end of the world (and doesn't have to be paid off early - tracker mortgage that it is).
She made an interesting comment about her father.  He is widowed, retired, and has enough financially to see him out (he's in his eighties).  He confided in her that he is worried that there is now no money coming in, and there is a net outflow from his savings/capital. 

I feel that's the normal mind-set, especially for someone who has worked and paid the bills/family/house etc.  They would find it hard to change now to think - OK, I have more than enough to have a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of my life (unless I live to be 120).  I can run down my savings and enjoy myself.

I also feel it is a bit of a shame.  He has worked all his life, successfully funded his children, education, and supported his family. And that mindset is still there, and possibly limiting his enjoyment of his later years.

We talked about wills as well, and my (flippant) remark was, "If I die first, you get everything, if you die first, I get everything, and if we both die together....WHO CARES).


----------

