Doesn't the median Irish field get sold every 300-400 years or so?
Most Irish family businesses are never sold either. They either are taken on by a family member or just close down.
Not just family farms but communities where people live…the price of land bears no relation in what it can produce economically…farmers purchase land in the context of 30/40 years time frame …not to flip an asset after 5/10 yearsEven if capital tax receipts doubled, they'd amount to little more than a rounding error in exchequer receipts.
Is it really worth destroying family farm and business livelihoods for that?
The most obvious problem is that the successor farmer or business person doesn't properly own the business assets if there is a permanent mortgage on them, so for example banks won't accept them as collateral, and any sale of say a site for whatever reason is going to be fraught with difficulty.So what is the problem then?
any sale of say a site for whatever reason is going to be fraught with difficulty.
Fair enough, I think we do disagree. I think that if I make some incremental effort to earn an extra €100k, and I’m left with only €48k, I should be free to gift that money to my kids, or indeed to you, and it should be nobody’s business. Tax paid cash in my back pocket should be mine to do whatever I want with.That is really a question of public policy where we would differ.
I think passing on wealth free of taxes is simply not fair when marginal income is taxed at 52%.
People inheriting businesses worth millions of euro should be paying CAT.
People inheriting farms worth millions of euro should be paying CAT if they sell those farms.
Brendan
Would it not be better if you paid 30% of that extra €100k in tax and whomever you gave it to also paid 30%?I think that if I make some incremental effort to earn an extra €100k, and I’m left with only €48k, I should be free to gift that money to my kids, or indeed to you, and it should be nobody’s business. Tax paid cash in my back pocket should be mine to do whatever I want with.
I think that if I make some incremental effort to earn an extra €100k, and I’m left with only €48k, I should be free to gift that money to my kids, or indeed to you, and it should be nobody’s business.
I do buy the double taxation argument but I apply it to everything. I don't understand why people don't have a problem with a marginal tax rate of over 50% but do have a problem with inheritance tax.Not too many people make millions out of incremental effort.
A lot of the wealth which is passed on is through increases in asset prices.
Anyway, I don't buy this double taxation argument. I pay 52% on my marginal income. Then when I buy a pint, it's taxed again at probably about 70% of the price of the pint.
You choose to buy a pint, from a business person trading to make a taxable profit.Not too many people make millions out of incremental effort.
A lot of the wealth which is passed on is through increases in asset prices.
Anyway, I don't buy this double taxation argument. I pay 52% on my marginal income. Then when I buy a pint, it's taxed again at probably about 70% of the price of the pint.
So I have to earn an additional €12 to buy a €4.34 pint of beer. The State takes the rest in taxes.A 6 euro pint of 4.2% beer has about 1.12 VAT and 54c excise = 1.66 tax, or 27.6% of the price, but I get your point.
You can give it as a loan and forgive the interest each year as a gift worth less than €3000.Say you were down on your luck, had a mortgage, and couldn’t pay it. There are €35,000 of arrears. You’re facing repossession and/or eviction and homelessness. I should be able to pay that, no questions asked.
I don't understand why people don't have a problem with a marginal tax rate of over 50% but do have a problem with inheritance tax.
We have to decide what sort of society we want and construct our taxation system in a way that funds it but also does the social engineering that only taxation can do. We currently have a system with very high social transfers, very high marginal tax rates on work and very low taxes on wealth. I think that's utterly screwed up.@Purple
I agree with you that we should pay both.
However the amounts raised in capital taxes even with my suggestions would not bring down the Income Tax rates very much.
would a wealth tax where accumulation of "a good income" after a substantial portion is taken in tax already is taxed again not discourage one from bothering to "acquire skills [and] work hard"?We have to decide what sort of society we want and construct our taxation system in a way that funds it but also does the social engineering that only taxation can do. We currently have a system with very high social transfers, very high marginal tax rates on work and very low taxes on wealth. I think that's utterly screwed up.
A young person looking for a home now has three options.
We should construct our taxation system to make the third option the most favourable. If that means increasing property tax to keep prices low (like in France and America) or increasing CAT or cutting spending on health and social welfare or having wealth taxes (wealth, not income) to leave more money in the pockets of working people then that's fine by me.
- The most favourable one is inherit enough money to buy one.
- The second most favourable is get a council house from the State or have your rent paid by the State.
- The least favourable one, by far, is acquire skills, work hard, earn a good income and save enough of your after tax income to get a deposit together and get a mortgage to buy a house.
The wealth tax would also tax inheritances and other unearned wealth. The point is that you'd retain more of what you earned so you could decide to save it or spend it or whatever and if you have and invested it you'd have more of your income to save and invest so the pot you ended up with would be bigger.would a wealth tax where accumulation of "a good income" after a substantial portion is taken in tax already is taxed again not discourage one from bothering to "acquire skills [and] work hard"?
"would also" but it will still tax savings. Then there is the remarkably penal taxation on investments with 41% exit tax and deemed disposal means the tax take on savings is quite substantial as it is.The wealth tax would also tax inheritances and other unearned wealth. The point is that you'd retain more of what you earned so you could decide to save it or spend it or whatever and if you have and invested it you'd have more of your income to save and invest so the pot you ended up with would be bigger.
Yea, that should be looked at but if income taxes are lower working people have more agency over their own money. I'll be more careful about how I spend my money than the State will so I'd rather spend it myself instead of the State taking it and spending it on me. I always think Children's allowance is a great example; the State takes €200 a month from you in taxes and gives it back to you less their handling fee. I'd rather that they didn't take it in the first place. That's just an example, not a rabbit hole."would also" but it will still tax savings. Then there is the remarkably penal taxation on the investments with 41% exit tax and deemed disposal means the tax take on savings is quite substantial as it is.
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?