You have completely lost me now. A PAYE credit is to assist in the cost associated with rearing children.The child that I never had is unable to avail of the PAYE tax credit. This non existent child is therefore being discriminated against??
What you’re saying makes 0 sense.
It is very simple. Whether somebody has children or does not have children has ZERO impact on the CAT they pay. They are not being discriminated against.You have completely lost me now. A PAYE credit is to assist in the cost associated with rearing children.
I am not sure how this has any bearing on the topic being discussed. If I said a childless couple should be allowed claim this PAYE credit for a neice/nephew I could see part of the connection to the topic but other than that I don't see your logic.
Are you suggesting that it is unfair for a child whose relationship with one or both parents has broken down to be liable for inheritance tax on the inheritance they won't get?Biologically they are and as such they are your child irrespective if you have no relationship with them.
This is really the only reason this is a political issue, potentially having to sell what was a family home to pay a tax. A tax paid by few but worried about by many voters is why politicians care. Pretty much any home in Dublin owned for the 30 or 40 years that means people are considering inheritance etc will leave a large tax bill for children not living in the home already. Many would probably like to move back into the family home but can’t afford to pay the tax bill without selling.Yes it is significant but there is an underlying asset inherited on which the tax is based. So they can settle tax from own resources and keep the asset or sell the asset to pay the tax. Or if the inheritance is cash then they net less cash than was inherited. So they have resources to fund the tax, it's not a tax on their normal income.
Is this really that common? With where life expectancy is at, most people get their inheritance at age 60 or so.This is really the only reason this is a political issue, potentially having to sell what was a family home to pay a tax. A tax paid by few but worried about by many voters is why politicians care. Pretty much any home in Dublin owned for the 30 or 40 years that means people are considering inheritance etc will leave a large tax bill for children not living in the home already. Many would probably like to move back into the family home but can’t afford to pay the tax bill without selling.
That’s the core issue making it political. You don’t have to raise the limit you just need to resolve that issue by treating inheritance of the PPR differently from all other inheritance, by adjusting the existing relief for children already living there to just children. Or even children who don’t sell the PPR within 5 years.
How did you get that from my post? A child who does not have a relationship with their biological parent are legally entitled to a share of an estate if the person dies intestate and can also legally challenge a will all because they are a biological child of the deceased.Are you suggesting that it is unfair for a child whose relationship with one or both parents has broken down to be liable for inheritance tax on the inheritance they won't get?
Passing on what you own, and have paid tax on is, to me, the most acceptable form of family socialism/ leftism.
Your political analysis is spot on. But the tax system is hugely distorted in favour of property already. We shouldn't make it worse.This is really the only reason this is a political issue, potentially having to sell what was a family home to pay a tax. A tax paid by few but worried about by many voters is why politicians care. Pretty much any home in Dublin owned for the 30 or 40 years that means people are considering inheritance etc will leave a large tax bill for children not living in the home already. Many would probably like to move back into the family home but can’t afford to pay the tax bill without selling.
That’s the core issue making it political. You don’t have to raise the limit you just need to resolve that issue by treating inheritance of the PPR differently from all other inheritance, by adjusting the existing relief for children already living there to just children. Or even children who don’t sell the PPR within 5 years.
So much so that our supply of new housing, and of housing generally, has been gravely deficient for all of the past 15 years, and at this stage dereliction is rampant even in our most prosperous urban areas..But the tax system is hugely distorted in favour of property already.
Maybe start a thread about USC so, but it’s the one tax nearly everyone has to pay, so maybe we shouldn’t go narrowing the tax base even further when every single party is intent on spending like the party will never end.Apologies for highjacking the thread but why no one is campaigning against USC which was supposed to be temporary
It was the Income Levy that was supposed to be temporary. The government kept their promise and removed it. It's just a massive coincidence that a totally different tax called USC was then brought in with the same rates and cut offs.Apologies for highjacking the thread but why no one is campaigning against USC which was supposed to be temporary
That's an argument for higher property taxes so that allowing a property to fall into dereliction has an ongoing financial cost.So much so that our supply of new housing, and of housing generally, has been gravely deficient for all of the past 15 years, and at this stage dereliction is rampant even in our most prosperous urban areas.
That's the opposite of socialism. You think that families should be able to retain inter-generational wealth untaxed. That will inevitably lead to a concentration of wealth amongst a minority.Exactly. I would consider myself left wing but am not exactly in favour of CAT.
My rational is that money earned by the family should be able to stay within it without further tax. The family is the core of our society. If I want to spend that money on myself or on my son (regardless of age) the tax man shouldn’t be involved.
If I do rather well in life and want to look after my close family by for example buying my parents or brother a car or perhaps a house why should the tax man get involved in how we as a family want to spend our money. My parents may have forgone earning to stay at home and mind me. Perhaps I want to repay my brother for being there at a difficult time.
Families make all sorts of decisions of care about one another that have financial impacts that are waves because they are family. Yet when there is an opportunity to repay the tax man is looking to get involved.
Apologies for highjacking the thread but why no one is campaigning against USC which was supposed to be temporary
The concept is so odd. Work hard, educate yourself, do overtime - I want 52% of it. Mention lowering the USC on income over €70k = political suicide.That's the opposite of socialism. You think that families should be able to retain inter-generational wealth untaxed. That will inevitably lead to a concentration of wealth amongst a minority.
It's like the story of the Commissar visiting the communal farm in Soviet Russia. He's being shown around by the farm manager who is trying to impress him. The Manager asks a peasant in the field if he understood communism and the Peasant replies "Yes Comrade"The concept is so odd. Work hard, educate yourself, do overtime - I want 52% of it. Mention lowering the USC on income over €70k = political suicide.
Sit on your ass, be related to someone rich. Keep it all. You deserve it buddy. €335k tax free isn’t enough. Needs to be €400k or unlimited.
I’m convinced there was some form of mass indoctrination of the Irish people in schools in the 60s & 70s on inheritance.
The biggest nation of begrudgers for anyone who earns a good income but scores of poor people fighting the good fight to allow vast inter generational wealth transfer. You couldn’t make it up.
Taxes on property that are based on market values actually disincentivise and punish property improvements and enhancements.That's an argument for higher property taxes so that allowing a property to fall into dereliction has an ongoing financial cost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?