Alan Shatter's campaign to abolish Inheritance Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a piece in the Independent today it say "Fine Gael is claiming credit for the changes after Taoiseach Simon Harris said there are “unfairnesses” and “anomalies” in the system"

Surely the biggest “unfairnesses” and “anomaliy” in the system are the different thresholds for the various Groups. The most privileged group get a further advantage with this change.
 
Additional line from Irish Independent as to where the push was coming from
The party was coming under pressure in its south county Dublin heartland, where property values are higher, so the tax was having a greater effect on legacies.
Click to expand...
 
Like the tax credit for tracker mortgage holders by the current Government, (some of) the resources of the State are being misdirected.
On Newstalk this morning, I caught the very tail end of a segment about legacies (I think) where the presenter described 'leaving someone with a tax bill'. The presentation is all wrong/misunderstood.
 
Sophrosyne said:
The idea posed, by some posters at least, is that increased capital taxes would lower income tax.
Click to expand...
Not by me. My point is one of the ideals and principles that a country should espouse. In that I think that it is morally wrong to lower tax on wealth transfers to rich people before we lower taxes on work.
 
Purple said:
My point is one of the ideals and principles that a country should espouse. In that I think that it is morally wrong to lower tax on wealth transfers to rich people before we lower taxes on work.
Click to expand...
The logical conclusion of that is that all capital acquisitions tax exemptions should be abolished and gifts and inheritances taxed at marginal income tax rates.

Good luck trying to sell that one.
 
planck said:
In a piece in the Independent today it say "Fine Gael is claiming credit for the changes after Taoiseach Simon Harris said there are “unfairnesses” and “anomalies” in the system"

Surely the biggest “unfairnesses” and “anomaliy” in the system are the different thresholds for the various Groups. The most privileged group get a further advantage with this change.
Click to expand...
On what sensible or reasonable basis can that be argued? The immediate family is the basic unit of Irish society and has special status in the Constitution. It makes perfect sense for the State to treat €400k gifted by me to my son differently to €400k gifted by me to you. It’s a tax on the beneficiary, and it looks at whom the money has come from. Arguably, the higher €33,500 threshold from the likes of aunts and grandparents is an anomaly and there should only be two Bands, ‘parent/child’ and ‘other’.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
On what sensible or reasonable basis can that be argued? The immediate family is the basic unit of Irish society and has special status in the Constitution. It makes perfect sense for the State to treat €400k gifted by me to my son differently to €400k gifted by me to you. It’s a tax on the beneficiary, and it looks at whom the money has come from. Arguably, the higher €33,500 threshold from the likes of aunts and grandparents is an anomaly and there should only be two Bands, ‘parent/child’ and ‘other’.
Click to expand...
I think it's outrageous discrimination.

For example our uncle lived with us all our young lives until he died and was every much a part of our immediate family as I was.

More generally the "immediate family" principle has been already ditched for CAT purposes to encompass everything from birth parents to step parents to foster parents and everything in between, and I see no problem with that.

In my experience, when an uncle or aunt leaves a significant bequest to a niece or nephew, it is usually because there is a special and irreplaceable bond between the two.

No way should that be taxed more harshly than gifts or inheritances from parents.
 
Last edited:
I always find it so funny how people want to impose their will on others. If people are morally against inheritance tax then when you die pay inheritance tax over and above what's due.

Why force others to your beliefs?
 
T McGibney said:
I think it's outrageous discrimination.

For example our uncle lived with us all our young lives until he died and was every much a part of our immediate family as I was.

More generally the "immediate family" principle has been already ditched for CAT purposes to encompass everything from birth parents to step parents to foster parents and everything in between, and I see no problem with that.

In my experience, when an uncle or aunt leaves a significant bequest to a niece or nephew, it is usually because their is a special and irreplaceable bond between the two.

No way should that be taxed more harshly than gifts or inheritances from parents.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Fine. The abolish the Group A amounts and tax everyone on any gifts or inheritances received from anyone over a lifetime limit of say €30,000.

Brendan
Click to expand...
That would certainly be more equitable than the current situation.

But thankfully any rational electorate would absolutely destroy any Minister or government which would try to punish them like that.
 
T McGibney said:
I think it's outrageous discrimination.

For example our uncle lived with us all our young lives until he died and was every much a part of our immediate family as I was.

More generally the "immediate family" principle has been already ditched for CAT purposes to encompass everything from birth parents to step parents to foster parents and everything in between, and I see no problem with that.

In my experience, when an uncle or aunt leaves a significant bequest to a niece or nephew, it is usually because there is a special and irreplaceable bond between the two.

No way should that be taxed more harshly than gifts or inheritances from parents.
Click to expand...
Those special provisions apply for obvious situations where someone else is in loco parentis or a parent of a minor child dies etc.

Some uncle living in the granny flat is an irrelevance.

There is no discrimination…everyone is free to inherit up to €335k for a parent. And everyone has a parent (other than Dolly the Sheep).
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Those special provisions apply for obvious situations where someone else is in loco parentis or a parent of a minor child dies etc.

Some uncle living in the granny flat is an irrelevance.

There is no discrimination…everyone is free to inherit up to €335k for a parent. And everyone has a parent (other than Dolly the Sheep).
Click to expand...
The special provisions are very tightly limited. Even the favourite nephew/niece is so restricted as I've never even heard of a successful claim for it in 36 years working in the trade.

Lots of people have a surprising number of parents for CAT purposes.
 
T McGibney said:
The special provisions are very tightly limited. Even the favourite nephew/niece is so restricted as I've never even heard of a successful claim for it in 36 years working in the trade.

Lots of people have a surprising number of parents for CAT purposes.
Click to expand...
An uncle who happened to live with you isn’t the same as a parent. What do you expect, three bites at the cherry? (the chance to get €335,000 from parents and uncle). Ridiculous.
 
T McGibney said:
The logical conclusion of that is that all capital acquisitions tax exemptions should be abolished and gifts and inheritances taxed at marginal income tax rates.

Good luck trying to sell that one.
Click to expand...
If the marginal income tax rate was 30% or lower I’d be fine with that.
 
The Horseman said:
I always find it so funny how people want to impose their will on others. If people are morally against inheritance tax then when you die pay inheritance tax over and above what's due.

Why force others to your beliefs?
Click to expand...
So everyone should only pay whatever taxes they feel like, according to their personal moral code, is that what you're suggesting?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top