Not if they are based on site value.
Not if they are based on site value.Taxes on property that are based on market values actually disincentivise and punish property improvements and enhancements.
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 Manager asked, "Comrade, if you had two houses, would you give one of them to me?"
The Peasant replied, "Of course, Comrade!"
He then asked, "If you had two horses, would you give one of them to me?"
"Of course!" replied the peasant.
He then asked, "If you had two coats, would you give one of them to me?"
"No, comrade!" The Peasant said.
Surprised and embarrassed, the first Manager asked, "Why not, Comrade?"
The Peasant replies "Well if one gets damaged, I will freeze to death. I don't trust the state to provide me another coat."
You missed the point.I fixed that for you.
Well I didn't say I was a socialist.
And I think like most people the answer is somewhere in the grey as opposed to black and white for or against CAT. I don't think there are too many people who believe CAT should start at the first euro and be at a much higher tax rate. The vast majority of people agree with some level of tax exemption and I suspect a very high percentage of people would agree with a certain level of cap that may at least tax those who inherit enormous sums of wealth and for generations may not even need to consider ever working. My arguments about family helping family fall pretty flat if it's someone transferring hundreds of millions. Although I am sure there are other ways people do this...
So the question is really what is a reasonable exemption.
The threshold seems to have risen yearly from 198k in 1990 to 542k in 2009. I presume this was based on inflation / house value. Then we had 3 decreases in two years to bring it to 332k? Was this a reasonable threshold rate? It probable exempted most houses even if only one child. If that value was reasonable surly it means todays rate is too low?
You introduced the concept of children who have no relationship with their biological parents into a conversation on the fairness of children having to pay tax on a windfall / inheritance. I'm would imagine it is quite rare for such parents to leave very significant sums to such children.How did you get that from my post?
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.
You're lucky you didn't do that to @T McGibneyI fixed that for you.
I would think that the annual gift threshold of €3k plus the lifetime threshold of €32.5k allows sufficient scope for the expression of gratitude by most people of normal means. Not forgetting that money paid towards normal welfare or maintenance of family (medical, nursing home care etc) is disregarded as well.
The appropriate level for the thresholds is certainly up for debate, but I really can't understand how anyone who considers themselves a lefty can square away the idea that the wealthiest in society ought to be facilitated in providing for the future generations of their families to potentially to live substantially tax free, or with a far lower burden of tax than productive members of society, all off the back of one person's success and / or luck in business. That is an inescapable consequence of allowing a free for all on intergenerational wealth transfers.
You're lucky you didn't do that to @T McGibney
You're lucky you didn't do that to @T McGibney
To accumulate €350k through work one would have to earn €700,000. That's €17,500, a year or €336 a week every week of a 40 year working life.Personally I think the numbers should be a bit higher. No one is living a life where they never need to work or contribute to society on the back of 350k.
To accumulate €350k through work one would have to earn €700,000. That's €17,500, a year or €336 a week every week of a 40 year working life.
The average weekly wage in Ireland is a little over €900. That means the average working person had to save one third of their earnings every week that they work in order to save €350,000.
You're forgetting the power of compounding - or as Einstein put itTo accumulate €350k through work one would have to earn €700,000. That's €17,500, a year or €336 a week every week of a 40 year working life.
The average weekly wage in Ireland is a little over €900. That means the average working person had to save one third of their earnings every week that they work in order to save €350,000.
Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it
Sure, but you get my point?You're forgetting the power of compounding - or as Einstein put it
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?