"Childless couples are being discriminated against when it comes to CAT"

It's interesting that this is all pitched as taxing the giver when CAT is a tax on the receiver in this country.

Why not just abolish the CAT group differentiation and set a blanket threshold at €500k?
 
unfairly penalised for being childless for whatever reason.
It will always seem like that if you come at the problem from the logically flawed perspective that CAT is related to the person giving money.
Once you can get beyond this you’ll see the whole childless thing makes literally 0 sense. The exact same argument can be made that parents of 1 child are discriminated against versus those of 2…and so on.

CAT allowances are for the receiver of the money. The only people ‘discriminated against’ are the children of poor parents.

If childless people hate the idea of other people paying CAT on their money that much they can avoid it entirely by giving their money to charity or finding a sufficient number of people who have not used their CAT C allowance…but as others have said, most nieces or nephews will be pretty cool with paying 33% on their unearned windfall.
 
Why not just abolish the CAT group differentiation and set a blanket threshold at €500k?
You would genuinely have situations where a rich childless uncle would die. Give it to their nephew using up their allowance. The parents of that nephew would then be apoplectic that they had nobody to give €500k to tax free when they died.

The nephew would not care at all of course in this instance but this is the contradiction in thinking around inheritance tax.
 
CAT allowances are for the receiver of the money. The only people ‘discriminated against’ are the children of poor parents.
What if the parents of your nieces and nephews are poor?

These nieces and nephews are being discriminated against simply by not being your child.

Sometimes nieces and nephews are held and loved as a childless person would have loved their own child had they have had any.
 
These nieces and nephews are being discriminated against simply by not being your child.
I don’t believe the taxation system has a compelling need to tilt the tables in favour of those with poor parents but rich uncles/aunts against those who have poor both.
Sometimes nieces and nephews are held and loved as a childless person would have loved their own child had they have had any.
and you know what they say about love. “It is best measured by how much money you are able to give to a person without them receiving a tax bill’
 
Why is the campaign calling itself “EDIT”

“Childless Couples” have no significance for CAT. It could just as well be a campaign for aunts, uncles, siblings or blood strangers.

To whom do they wish to leave their assets, blood relatives or strangers in blood?

Does the campaign consider a bequest to an individual(s) in either group as comparable to a gift to a child?

What precisely do they want?
 
Why not just abolish the CAT group differentiation and set a blanket threshold at €500k?
This was the point missed by Barra Roantree in the interview quoted by Brendan that relit this thread - IIRC, he suggested an equal inheritance allowance for everyone would mean some people being able to claim a full allowance from a parent while also being able to avail of a full allowance as a child also (effectively equating the allowances for Category A, B & C but keep them in situ to be utilised independently of one another). A single inheritance allowance for all is surely equality for all, no, and much simpler to administer?
 
Do you get extremely exercised by the marginal income tax rate of a shop owner when you buy something?
I do. And especially when I'm not buying something because I can no longer obtain it as easily as I once could.

Because these days it's the common denominator in a lot of premature closures of shops and other businesses.