Are CAT rates too high.

Jon Snow said:
Nope, not at all, but I distinctly remember hearing discussion on several radio programmes during my commute, where the actual impact of the proposals was being completely hyped up by vested interests.

You asked me what I meant by hyperbole, that's what I remember, it stuck in my mind as totally over egging the impact. That to me is the epitome of hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Two isolated stories in 7 months hardly count as hyperbole. And you miss the point too that the Revenue eBrief of 24 December last defused many of the questions raised in relation to CAT following the Finance Act. So Dominic Coyle was entirely correct in raising them.

The fact remains that, unlike say Income Tax, most people are totally unaware of high C.A.T. until it directly affects them, and it says a lot too that high rates and low thresholds actually suppress the exchequer returns from capital taxes, as those holding even modest levels of wealth and assets are incentivised to hoard them until death in order to escape taxes on themselves and their families.
 
T McGibney said:
Two isolated stories in 7 months hardly count as hyperbole. And you miss the point too that the Revenue eBrief of 24 December last defused many of the questions raised in relation to CAT following the Finance Act. So Dominic Coyle was entirely correct in raising them.
Click to expand...

The number of stories is irrelevant - it's the way the reporting is done.

Hyperbole (from the Greek word for "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. (From Wikipedia.)
 
But where exactly was the exaggeration? The Finance Act left a number of questions hanging, which Revenue then addressed & resolved in an eBrief. [broken link removed]

Until the eBrief issued people were genuinely unsure of the situation and this uncertainty gave rise to the media coverage.

I can't for the life of me see how this coverage was harmful.
 
Is it not a fairer society if everybody has to stand on there own feet and make their own way in life rather than inheriting their wealth.
That way you live by your own successes and or failures.
To this end i believe parents should give their childern a good education and upbringing and thats it ... after that the kids should have to make their own way.
Why not have a system where parents as they approach retirement start to slowly liquidate their assets with a view to enjoying the retirement.
Under this system the next generation all start on an equal footing ...which is fair.

So for me 100% Inheridance tax is appropriate (Save funeral expenses which should be covered by all responsible people and not passed on).
 
Would that be like the thousands of farmers who can have millions in land and machinery assets and still receive grants to put their children through college. Spreading income over five years.
Would that be like the thousands and thousands of farmers who can pass on assets to the children in a very efficient manner.
Fair society where are you. Cant see the farmer boys going for your 100% inheritance tax Codology.:(
Cant see any government tackling that one either.
 
DCD said:
Would that be like the thousands of farmers who can have millions in land and machinery assets and still receive grants to put their children through college. Spreading income over five years.
Click to expand...

Here is the SUSI website: http://www.susi.ie/
Show me where in the SUSI income assessment rules it is possible to suppress one's income as you describe. I've worked in accounts and tax since the 1980s and nobody has ever answered this for me yet. :)
 
T.
You seem to have a lot experience in accounts and tax over a very long period. I do not.
That said I was only listening last week to the average farming income and how I think it said they were up 6% in the past year. For the life of me how do they come up with these average farming incomes and raise families. I simply could not live on these average incomes put forward by the likes of the IFA.
Apart from that T. If there are to be such low thresh holds regarding CAT it should be across the board. As a Paye worker anything above 225k is tax bound. I am not afforded the same opportunities to reduce my CAT bill. Farmers have always been afforded an advantage when passing on land etc to there families. Why? Because if that was to change there would be sheep in the Dail and a lot of very unhappy rural TD,s.
 
DCD said:
T.
You seem to have a lot experience in accounts and tax over a very long period. I do not.
That said I was only listening last week to the average farming income and how I think it said they were up 6% in the past year. For the life of me how do they come up with these average farming incomes and raise families. I simply could not live on these average incomes put forward by the likes of the IFA.
Click to expand...
Because the vast majority of farms these days are part-time enterprises, with the farmer and their spouse typically both holding down full-time jobs, and farming in the evening and weekends. On most farms, there otherwise simply isn't the earnings capacity to support a living.

Apart from that T. If there are to be such low thresh holds regarding CAT it should be across the board. As a Paye worker anything above 225k is tax bound. I am not afforded the same opportunities to reduce my CAT bill. Farmers have always been afforded an advantage when passing on land etc to there families. Why? Because if that was to change there would be sheep in the Dail and a lot of very unhappy rural TD,s.
Click to expand...

What's your beef with farmers? Equivalent CAT relief applies to businesses generally. Perhaps you'd prefer the alternative of every business automatically closing down when the owner dies or is forced to retire?
 
T McGibney said:
Because the vast majority of farms these days are part-time enterprises, with the farmer and their spouse typically both holding down full-time jobs, and farming in the evening and weekends. On most farms, there otherwise simply isn't the earnings capacity to support a living.



What's your beef with farmers? Equivalent CAT relief applies to businesses generally. Perhaps you'd prefer the alternative of every business automatically closing down when the owner dies or is forced to retire?
Click to expand...

T.
No beef with farmers at all. Out having a beer last friday--six of us. Three farmers. They are doing just fine. If a farm is not viable it should close just like any other business. Thats the law of economics
Nobody should get special treatment. Are you a farmer? If so your lucky like the 3 lads I was out having a few pints with last friday.If I drop dead in the morning why should my family not be treated in the same fashion as yours?
 
Am I a farmer? No.

I don't understand your point on special treatment and I suspect you didn't fully read my post which you quoted. The CAT relief we're discussing applies to all businesses and business assets. If you invest in such assets, you & your family will enjoy the same CAT reliefs as your farmer friends enjoy in respect of their business assets.
 
Many, many farms are hobbies, non-viable, but they stay open.

That decision is driven by sentiment, love of land, not economics or accountancy.
 
At the risk of reigniting this one Charlie Weston was on Matt Cooper this evening

Around 18 mins [broken link removed]

I don't know what to make of him he talks about the rich not paying any CAT as they can pay for advice and that it's the squeezed Middle class that end up paying it. The average PAYE worker.

Matt gave him the example of a house worth €525,000 left to three children and asked how much CAT they would pay, answer ZERO!

But it penalises small families because if there was only one child they would have a tax bill of €99,000 and could have to sell the house to pay the tax! Then Matt says what if an adult can't afford their own house and the parent give them a house will they have a tax bill, answer ZERO!
 
Is there an agenda behind this? Not that the system isn't penal, but I'm just not aware of the 'mass outrage' that Charlie Weston talks about.
 
There is no mass outrage as it's only an issue for people directly affected. This will grow in time as it affects more and more people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top