"Why we should all aim to die broke"


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

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
 
galway_blow_in said:
so because i wasnt born until the late seventies , i cant have an opinion ?
Click to expand...

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 .
 
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you'd maybe do so now?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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?


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dan Murray said:
Hi Leper,

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

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 ?
Click to expand...

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

.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!!]
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register