I don't think that's unreasonable.In Dublin though a 2 bed apartment would be over the threshold for a lone child, potentially meaning they have to sell it to cover the tax.
I can't understand why people have such a problem with inheritance and are so keen to punish the transfer of money with inheritance tax.
I would have thought that was an excellent argument for reducing the tax burden on income, rather than reducing taxes on unearned inheritances.The point is that the money has been heavily taxed already.
Or at least the level at which inheritance tax kicks in should be higher.
The money was earned - the person who earned it has paid their dues to the state, they don't owe the state anything more.reducing taxes on unearned inheritances
The money was earned - the person who earned it has paid their dues to the state, they don't owe the state anything more.
But the person who earned it and paid tax on it, isn't the person who is being taxed on it...
No mention yet of the significant tax break you get by dying! Significant CGT on assets and income tax on pension assets forgone by the state!
emphasis on 'unearned' makes it sound as if nobody ever earned the money
emphasis on 'unearned' makes it sound as if nobody ever earned the money....if instead of leaving it to their nearest and dearest the donor left it to the dogs and cats home would there be the same objections to the charity receiving an 'unearned' inheritance tax-free?
I wonder how much of otherwise taxable assets is moved offshore and into trusts to (legitimately) avoid CAT? I suspect that the wealthier you are the more likely you are to do this. You are also far more likely to benefit from the 90% farm/business relief. Meanwhile, the average Joe who has accumulated a house and a modest lump of cash or investments sees his surviving relatives getting whacked. (Ok, he doesn't really see it but you know what I mean.)There's specific exemptions in the tax code for charitable and similar organisations, and a clear public policy objective behind that.
Do you oppose that exemption, or perhaps you do not see a distinction between the receipt of money by charities versus the receipt of money by individuals?
I personally think CAT is a great tax. From the State's perspective it is something of a sitting duck to an extent. It is also an entirely progressive tax, since it is a form of wealth tax. If ever there should be a tax that the great unwashed could get behind it should be this - the vast majority of people will never find themselves liable to it, so to the extent that it's a tax on other people, and "the rich" (a group that most people like to define as not including themselves), it should be a slam dunk.
I don't buy the whole, "but it's already been taxed" line at all. Sure all money in the economy has "already been taxed", isnt the whole point of money that it circulates, getting sliced, diced, and taxed, along the way.
The bottom line is, if the State wants to broaden, or maintain the width of, the tax base, then it absolutely shouldn't water down CAT. Particularly since the inevitable result of paying all the wealthy Pauls, will be the further robbing of the put upon Peters in the middle.
Start a business in your child's name and use that capital to help grow the business (investing in the business, buying product, directors loans, sponsoring connections and all the other ways you can support a business when you have money to spare). If the business goes well you might end up with your €5m back and still have the CAT issue, but either way you would have used your wealth to make significant wealth for your child without any CAT liability. Even without the €5m you can achieve something similar by starting a business in your child's name and working in it to grow it for them. I see quite a bit of both.It’s tricky enough to avoid CAT but I guess it’s not that tricky if you put your mind to it. If I had €5m and a child going to college in the UK or living in Australia, I’d give strong consideration to moving to Fermanagh for a few years with a view to gifting them the €5m. It’s essentially a €1.5m saving. And I’m still only 90 minutes from Dublin without the need to take a flight.
Start a business in your child's name and use that capital to help grow the business (investing in the business, buying product, directors loans, sponsoring connections and all the other ways you can support a business when you have money to spare). If the business goes well you might end up with your €5m back and still have the CAT issue, but either way you would have used your wealth to make significant wealth for your child without any CAT liability. Even without the €5m you can achieve something similar by starting a business in your child's name and working in it to grow it for them. I see quite a bit of both.
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?