Perfectly put.
Perfectly put.No - it’s stop punishing the children of the worse off who are in no way responsible for the deck of cards being stacked against them and to stop rewarding the children of the better off who are in no way responsible for the deck of cards being stacked for them.
It’s a pretty simple aspiration (albeit impossible to fully attain in reality) - every person is born with as equal an opportunity as possible and makes their own success in life. Their success or failure is not directly linked to factors outside their control (i.e. the success or failure of their parents) . If you agree with that statement - I see anything other than wanting higher inheritance tax and lower income tax as contradictory.
Ah ok, property taxes so low I forgot they even existed. I'll give you an example based on some property I own:Yes it does; property taxes, which are the only form of wealth tax that works, are much higher in Germany.
11 states use the "federal model" including the two states I own property in. 5 states use an area based model that takes no account of the value of the property and only cares about the size. Property taxes in Germany can be and usually are passed on in full to the tenant, so it's not even a "wealth tax" for let property. It's a local services charge if anything because the revenue is collected and used by the local council.Much higher in other parts of the country and on average higher than Ireland.
Who pays it is irrelevant. It is a tax levied based on the value of an asset (a home or site).Property taxes in Germany can be and usually are passed on in full to the tenant, so it's not even a "wealth tax" for let property. It's a local services charge if anything because the revenue is collected and used by the local council.
I agreed with this aspiration once. But then I became a parent.It’s a pretty simple aspiration (albeit impossible to fully attain in reality) - every person is born with as equal an opportunity as possible and makes their own success in life.
Similar to myself. But what we want for ourselves/our family vs what we believe is a sensible public policy decision can be different.But then I became a parent.
I am old enough to remember a time when you needed money if you wanted to go to college from school and it was only those with money who could. Access to education has never been easier and with it opportunities to better oneself irrespective of where you come from.No - it’s stop punishing the children of the worse off who are in no way responsible for the deck of cards being stacked against them and to stop rewarding the children of the better off who are in no way responsible for the deck of cards being stacked for them.
It’s a pretty simple aspiration (albeit impossible to fully attain in reality) - every person is born with as equal an opportunity as possible and makes their own success in life. Their success or failure is not directly linked to factors outside their control (i.e. the success or failure of their parents) . If you agree with that statement - I see anything other than wanting higher inheritance tax and lower income tax as contradictory.
If you disencentivise wealth creation and retention you run the risk of creating inflationary pressures (people spending all they earn) and you also run the risk of not having financial resources to cover you in old age.
Agreed, and that is a great thing. But even if you take the current tax free threshold of €400k for CAT A. It you take one person who receives it and another who doesn’t. That requires €800k of incremental earned income to get you on a level footing. So earning €80k vs €40k for 20 years. Thats a lot of ‘bettering oneself’ to just get to the starting blocks with those more fortunate. The impact of the existing tax free allowances are enormous relative to median incomes and that’s ignoring that amounts above are only taxed at 33% vs 52.2% for incomeI am old enough to remember a time when you needed money if you wanted to go to college from school and it was only those with money who could. Access to education has never been easier and with it opportunities to better oneself irrespective of where you come from
A policy which encouraged older people to downsize (as hoarding wealth in their home would be less incentivised than it currently is) and then spend that money on experiences might, in my opinion, be the greatest secondary policy outcome we could ever get from an individual happiness and societal outcome (effective use of housing stock) and general economic perspective (spending is good, wealth hoarding is generally bad.).So you have a choice do you encourage people not to accumulate wealth by taxing them (remember the vast majority of people's wealth in contained within their homes).
People strive to create wealth and retain it for a number of reasons and working overtime creates wealth that goes above and beyond ones needs rather than wants. People don't need a house in Dalkey for €1m as they could quite easily buy a house for €400k and live just as well in it but they want a house in Dalkey for €1m and can afford it because they worked for it.Remember that the rate of inheritance tax doesn't influence the appreciation of the value of a house but the rate of income tax does influence the decision to work overtime so only one is a disincentive to wealth creation.
Do you think that taking over 50% of marginal earnings is more or less of a control factor than the potential payment of some tax on unearned wealth at a rate of 33% at a future date?People don't want to be controlled and we all want to be able to influence our futures whether you want to accept that fact or not.
Most wealth in Ireland is due to house price appreciation. That has nothing to do with hard work, study or sacrifice, for the betterment of your family or otherwise.What people don't like to be told is that you bettered yourself either through for the betterment of you and your family and the reward for doing this is to tax you/your family again.
My children and step children will all inherit more than the current threshold and will have an inheritance tax liability. They are part of a small and very lucky minority. It is only right and proper that they are taxed on that wealth transfer. The most valuable and important thing I can give them is a set of values that includes a strong sense of personal integrity. Without that they will not be truly happy, no matter how much money they have.A parent will always want to do the best for their child if that means giving them a "leg up" than so be it thats the nature of life. We are not all the same and trying to force something on people who think its unfair will lead to resistance.
There's nothing stopping you from donating your wealth to children less fortunate than yours. You don't have to be forced through taxation to give it up if you feel it's unfair that your kids are going to get it.My children and step children will all inherit more than the current threshold and will have an inheritance tax liability. They are part of a small and very lucky minority. It is only right and proper that they are taxed on that wealth transfer.
They can. If it's the Primary Place of Dwelling for 3 years before they inherit then they are exempt.
It’s a pretty simple aspiration (albeit impossible to fully attain in reality) - every person is born with as equal an opportunity as possible and makes their own success in life. Their success or failure is not directly linked to factors outside their control (i.e. the success or failure of their parents) . If you agree with that statement - I see anything other than wanting higher inheritance tax and lower income tax as contradictory.
Both are excessive, first and foremost in peoples thoughts is to better themselves and their families lives not some random person that the funds disappear into a black hole which is the states tax take. People better themselves be it overtime, study etc in order to take care of themselves and their loved ones both now and in the future.Do you think that taking over 50% of marginal earnings is more or less of a control factor than the potential payment of some tax on unearned wealth at a rate of 33% at a future date?
If you don't work hard, study or sacrifice you are not in a position to at least purchase a property to avail of any house price/asset appreciation. Basic economics suggests supply and demand influence price no matter how much you are willing to accept this. Our population is increasing and some properties will naturally increase in value as more people will want to purchase limited supply. Land is finite and if any asset is finite then equilibrium is where supply equals demand and the price is reached at that point. So house price appreciation will happen because of economic factors and this is simple economics.Most wealth in Ireland is due to house price appreciation. That has nothing to do with hard work, study or sacrifice, for the betterment of your family or otherwise.
Money should not be a trigger for what you describe as the factor that plays a part in a good set of values. Having money can allow people to do even more good things. The absence of tax thresholds should not play a part in your children's actions or personal integrity. If the thresholds are removed there is nothing to stop your children donating the tax savings available via the thresholds to the state. Forcing others to agree to your philosophy on thresholds lead to resistance.My children and step children will all inherit more than the current threshold and will have an inheritance tax liability. They are part of a small and very lucky minority. It is only right and proper that they are taxed on that wealth transfer. The most valuable and important thing I can give them is a set of values that includes a strong sense of personal integrity. Without that they will not be truly happy, no matter how much money they have.
I see this as just the typical bias we all have towards ourselves/our family. I understand balanced taxes are required to fund public services. I would prefer to not pay tax myself. I want everyone to have an equal chance in life…but I want my kids to have a head start.I think you will find that is not a commonly agreed upon statement and even philosophers who do support and push that thinking acknowledge how conflicts with the evolution of the family
The end point of your argument is that reading to kids gives them an unfair advantage.
The building blocks are and have been laid to close the gap between the have's and have not's (most notably access to education in order to get skilled work and with that better paid work and an overall better standard of living).Agreed, and that is a great thing. But even if you take the current tax free threshold of €400k for CAT A. It you take one person who receives it and another who doesn’t. That requires €800k of incremental earned income to get you on a level footing. So earning €80k vs €40k for 20 years. Thats a lot of ‘bettering oneself’ to just get to the starting blocks with those more fortunate. The impact of the existing tax free allowances are enormous relative to median incomes and that’s ignoring that amounts above are only taxed at 33% vs 52.2% for income
The vast majority of older people don't "hoard" wealth in their homes. The value they have in their homes is being in a community they know and are integrated into, with neighbours whom they have know for years and have built up a relationship with and trust over years. Property to these people are not investments they are homes, communities and a feeling of safety.A policy which encouraged older people to downsize (as hoarding wealth in their home would be less incentivised than it currently is) and then spend that money on experiences might, in my opinion, be the greatest secondary policy outcome we could ever get from an individual happiness and societal outcome (effective use of housing stock) and general economic perspective (spending is good, wealth hoarding is generally bad.).