Regressive in what way? Would decreasing the threshold have been progressive?Well, it seems very regressive to me.
I've never understood why kids should expect to inherit their "family home" tax-free in any event.
Surely the inheritance of property is one of the most inequitable transfers of wealth imaginable? It's extremely regressive.Regressive in what way? Would decreasing the threshold have been progressive?
I do agree with the family home point you make none the less. People using the fair deal scheme to subsidise their retirement care while the house sits empty is a misuse of the allowance.
Are you proposing that a PPR should be subject to CGT on the death of the owner? This is a decent compromise but it would certainly lead to a dramatic increase in the sale of properties by wealthy pensioners in order to downsize to reduce tax bills for their estateI think if there wasn't an exemption from CGT on death, then I'd fully agree with your point.
Why should 100s of thousands of unearned wealth pass intergenerationally with no tax? I'd much rather we taxed these sorts of transfers of wealth rather than charging a ~50% marginal rate on income.a regressive tax is one that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. Its not regressive by that definition. I dont understand why family wealth which is ordinarily been subject to tax already should be taxed again to prop up our welfare state.
It's all upside down. We punish work in Ireland but perpetuate this weird policy that taxing property is immoral. Taking 52% of someone's income is immoral.Regressive in the sense that the tax forgone by the State has to be collected from those that won't benefit from a tax-free inheritance.
Personally, I would prefer to see a lower tax burden on earned income.
Have to agree,why not? it was decreased from a more sensible 542k in 2009 to 250k by 2011