Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
I don’t think any of Brendan’s suggestions are intended to raise extra tax.I am at a loss why you are even considering this.
By effectively removing this exemption you want to give more tax to Revenue. Removal of these type of incentives act to discourage people trying to better themselves.
Why better yourself to work hard, do without to help your family etc. Remember this exemption when used is used by the ordinary person.
I don’t think any of Brendan’s suggestions are intended to raise extra tax.
No, one parentSorry Brendan. Are you saying that a person can get 335 from both parent's.
That is news to me.
But that's exactly what will happen. In the majority of cases it is normally parent to child who receive inheritances.I don’t think any of Brendan’s suggestions are intended to raise extra tax.
On this one you could get rid of the €3k exemption, but increase the Group A threshold to whatever level means the change is tax revenue neutral. That way everybody gets an equal opportunity to benefit from this exemption, rather than just the wealthy.
Not sure I understand your objection sorry. If Revenue are instructed to increase the Group A threshold by whatever amount they believe would lead to a tax revenue neutral position after the €3k exemption is cancelled, they are by definition not collecting extra tax. No?But that's exactly what will happen. In the majority of cases it is normally parent to child who receive inheritances.
If you remove the €3k and increase the group A threshold what figure to you increase it too? If its less than €75k (birth of a child until 25 yrs old when they have finished college and started working) then yes you are increasing the tax take by Revenue. With prices raising in "real terms" the €3k is not worth what it was in the past as it is.
With smaller average family sizes, it is not unusual to see people in their mid 50's with assets exceeding 600k (by the time they reach retirement) be it the family, life assurance policies, savings and investments.
The threshold limits (certainly the A threshold) were reduced significantly and have not taken any account of raising property prices.
What about those people who use the 3k exemption who have no children? Or those who want to help family members over and above the Group b threshold for example. What about child to parent to help cover there day to day expenses? Revenue will collect extra tax in these situations.Not sure I understand your objection sorry. If Revenue are instructed to increase the Group A threshold by whatever amount they believe would lead to a tax revenue neutral position after the €3k exemption is cancelled, they are by definition not collecting extra tax. No?
I’m not sure what the new threshold would be, but I imagine the boffins in Revenue have a good sense of how widely used the €3k exemption is and could figure it out. It may well be an extra €25-50k per person.
The Group A threshold having not increased as property prices have is something that should be addressed, but is irrelevant to a discussion about wealthy individuals using the €3k exemption to increase their tax free inheritance allowances.
With respect, the thread is about that, have a look at the first post again.What about those people who use the 3k exemption who have no children? Or those who want to help family members over and above the Group b threshold for example. What about child to parent to help cover there day to day expenses? Revenue will collect extra tax in these situations.
With such low thresholds the 3k allows people reduce their tax liability. With the increased use of electronic payment methods even down to weekly shopping it has never been easier to see exactly who is paying for items. In the recent past physical cash was easy to give to others with no trace of its origin.
This thread is not about wealthy individuals using the small gift exemption. Wealthy individuals will use tax experts to reduce their tax liability.
It is a money grab by Revenue and it is not tax neutral on the individuals it impacts on.With respect, the thread is about that, have a look at the first post again.
To your other points, I have no problem with the Group B/C thresholds being increased as well, again throw it into the calculations with the requirement that the whole thing works out tax revenue neutral.
The purpose is not for Revenue to collect more tax or to collect more tax from the less wealthy, so the thresholds would be restructured to ensure this. Again I’m not sure I understand your objection, unless you’re one of the wealthy individuals using the €3k exemption for the purposes outlined above, you’ll be getting a greater ability to pass on wealth tax free because your allowance is no longer use-it-or-lose-it at a time when most average people don’t have it to give.
This is not a money grab from the rich, it’s correcting something that means the more money you have the less tax you pay.
What do you define as "wealthy individuals"?What about those people who use the 3k exemption who have no children? Or those who want to help family members over and above the Group b threshold for example. What about child to parent to help cover there day to day expenses? Revenue will collect extra tax in these situations.
With such low thresholds the 3k allows people reduce their tax liability. With the increased use of electronic payment methods even down to weekly shopping it has never been easier to see exactly who is paying for items. In the recent past physical cash was easy to give to others with no trace of its origin.
This thread is not about wealthy individuals using the small gift exemption. Wealthy individuals will use tax experts to reduce their tax liability.
Most people define them as "the guys who have more than me".What do you define as "wealthy individuals"?
Any person or couple with assets over 500k and to clarify the 500k is the value the person/couple own and don't owe money on. Eg outstanding mortgage etc.What do you define as "wealthy individuals"?
Most people with net wealth in the €500k-€1m range would benefit from this change. At that kind of wealth you’re unlikely to be able to give €6k to each child since birth, or their spouse and grandkids in later life. You’ll need to hold on to it in your pension to be sure you have money to live on in old age, and you’ll leave it to your child/children but will now have maybe a €400k GroupA allowance instead of €335k.Any person or couple with assets over 500k and to clarify the 500k is the value the person/couple own and don't owe money on. Eg outstanding mortgage etc.
Not necessarily, what about adult child to elderly parent? What about rent free accommodation to relatives either saving for deposits, relationship breakdown? What about childless people?Most people with net wealth in the €500k-€1m range would benefit from this change. At that kind of wealth you’re unlikely to be able to give €6k to each child since birth, or their spouse and grandkids in later life. You’ll need to hold on to it in your pension to be sure you have money to live on in old age, and you’ll leave it to your child/children but will now have maybe a €400k GroupA allowance instead of €335k.
Sorry Brendan. Are you saying that a person can get 335 from both parent's.
That is news to me.
Group A | Group B | Group C | |
---|---|---|---|
On or after 9 October 2019 | €335,000 | €32,500 | €16,250 |
10 October 2018 - 08 October 2019 | €320,000 | €32,500 | €16,250 |
12 October 2016 - 09 October 2018 | €310,000 | €32,500 | €16,250 |
14 October 2015 - 11 October 2016 | €280,000 | €30,150 | €15,075 |
06 December 2012 - 13 October 2015 | €225,000 | €30,150 | €15,075 |
07 December 2011 - 05 December 2012 | €250,000 | €33,500 | €16,750 |
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?