Ruairí Quinn claimed Artists exemption of his autobiography.

The_Minister

Cite (links to artists excemption list in post).

Ruairí Quinn, former Labour leader and Minister for Finance, used the same tax break as Bertie did to avoid paying tax on the earnings of his autobiography.

The difference: Mr. Quinn did it at a time when there was no cap on the amount that could be declared tax free, so potentially he received more tax free than Bertie.

So the question is: Are people equally mad at both Bertie and Quinn, or do people draw a distinction based on timing, status, general opinion of each individual?
Essentially both did the same thing, only one to a greater extent, and the other when the country was in financial trouble.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I'm putting this in AH, because the Bertie thread is there, and this thread is essentially a comparison between the two.
2nd EDIT: I selected the last poll option, but I still dislike that Quinn claimed the exemption.

projectmayhem

Equally mad at both. The tax break is supposed to be for struggling artists who don't make much money, not politicians who earn five-figure sums yearly or Bono.

As much as these guys are tossers for actually applying for this (you don't get it by default), who the hell is signing off on these tax breaks?

biko

While Mr. Quinn is not a former Taoiseach, and he claimed the money during the boom years, it is still disappointing that he did so, especially when one considers that he has been drawing a ministerial pension, that in 2008, paid him over €40,000 on top of his Dáil salary.

I think this has passed unnoticed because it was during the boom and people thought it'd last forever.
Also he's not in the public eye as much as Bertie.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Bertie and Quinn sets the example for what Irish politicians are like.

ardmacha

Politicians are entitled to tax reliefs, same as everyone else. The reason people are p***ed off with Bertie is that he did so much to ruin the country and its finances, whereas Quinn did not.

Morlar

ardmacha wrote: »

Politicians are entitled to tax reliefs, same as everyone else. The reason people are p***ed off with Bertie is that he did so much to ruin the country and its finances, whereas Quinn did not.

I think what people are pissed off with is that neither Ruari Quinn nor Bertie Ahern are struggling nor are they artists. Their applying for this tax free status for their biographies is plainly not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation that gave artists tax breaks to begin with. Nor do either of them need it. As politicians and role models they should set a higher standard, they are already horrifically overpaid and yet here they are again profiting on their political careers by publishing books about it.

Ickle Magoo

projectmayhem wrote: »

...As much as these guys are tossers for actually applying for this (you don't get it by default), who the hell is signing off on these tax breaks?

The Arts Council, a government run agency with a board hand picked by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism.

No helping out one of the boys there then. NOT. :rolleyes:

funk-you

Ruairí Quinn, former Labour leader.

HA! He's a real idealist that one. Sap.

-Funk

The_Minister

For anyone wondering, Albert Reynolds did not claim the artists exemption.

jdivision

I can guarantee that Ahern got a bigger advance than Quinn.

The_Minister

jdivision wrote: »

I can guarantee that Ahern got a bigger advance than Quinn.

Ahern could claim the first €125,000 free, but Quinn could claim an unlimited amount free, so as long as Quinn received over €125,000 between his advance and the sales, he would have gotten more tax free.

TheZohanS

Poll fail tbh.

If the exemption is there why not use it?

bonzos

total cowboys the two of them...laughing at us donkeys out work ,they have no respect for the irish people

Ickle Magoo

TheZohan wrote: »

Poll fail tbh.

If the exemption is there why not use it?

Like the expenses? Or using a limo to get between runways? You can so you do, so to speak?

The_Minister

TheZohan wrote: »

Poll fail tbh.

If the exemption is there why not use it?

Sorry, I forgot the: "Neither of them did anything wrong option."


As for why not - morals.
They are entitled to it, no-one questions that, but they don't have to take it, and both of them are in receipt of large sums of public money, and at the moment the piggy bank is empty.

Is it too much to expect that politicians wouldn't abuse a tax break brought in to help struggling artists?

TheZohanS

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Like the expenses? Or using a limo to get between runways? You can so you do, so to speak?

This is about tax exemptions, not about expenses.

I'm sure if there was a poll for childrens allowance people wouldn't insist that it only goes to those that are below the poverty line.

The_Minister wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot the: "Neither of them did anything wrong option."


As for why not - morals.
They are entitled to it, no-one questions that, but they don't have to take it, and both of them are in receipt of large sums of public money, and at the moment the piggy bank is empty.

Is it too much to expect that politicians wouldn't abuse a tax break brought in to help struggling artists?

Morals? The law is the law. If you don't gree with it lobby your representative to get it changed.

zootroid

But they didn't do anything wrong! That's just the way the law is in this country! And they were just cute enough to spot it!! I mean, it's not as though they make the ...........

Oh....

In all seriousness though, I think it should be done away with altogether. I don't think anybody should be in a position not to pay tax on their earnings. Suppose an artist earns 90k over the course of a year. Why should he get away with paying no tax, while someone on the same wage pays PAYE?

Ickle Magoo

TheZohan wrote: »

This is about tax exemptions, not about expenses.

I'm sure if there was a poll for childrens allowance people wouldn't insist that it only goes to those that are below the poverty line.

If children's allowance had been introduced to help those below the poverty line and was being abused by those very much above it then people would. The tax exemption is for struggling artists, not ghost penned rich ex-politicians biographies, he in no way qualifies for the tax exemption. If it was just a general exemption for all authors as children's allowance is for all parents, I would agree with you.

The_Minister

TheZohan wrote: »

Morals? The law is the law. If you don't gree with it lobby your representative to get it changed.

Wait, so I can't disapprove of the actions of an elected representative, just because they are legal?

Both men know that that tax break isn't intended for them, both knew that be receiving it they were depriving the state of money, yet both chose to actively seek a place of the list.

They were entitled to it, but that doesn't mean that they HAD to take to claim it - they chose to.

The_Minister

zootroid wrote: »

In all seriousness though, I think it should be done away with altogether. I don't think anybody should be in a position not to pay tax on their earnings. Suppose an artist earns 90k over the course of a year. Why should he get away with paying no tax, while someone on the same wage pays PAYE?

The idea is twofold.
1) Artists contribute to the fabric of the country and should be encouraged to produce works etc.

2) Artists to have hugely variable income - they can work for years making nothing, then make money, then make nothing ever again. So an artist may for work for six years and make €80,000 in the sixth, but nothing in the first five.
The exemption rewards him for the work that he has done for the country by being an artist, and helps keep him going.

TheZohanS

The_Minister wrote: »

Wait, so I can't disapprove of the actions of an elected representative, just because they are legal?

Both men know that that tax break isn't intended for them, both knew that be receiving it they were depriving the state of money, yet both chose to actively seek a place of the list.

They were entitled to it, but that doesn't mean that they HAD to take to claim it - they chose to.

You can disapprove of whatever you want, you can disapprove of the lenght of your pubic hair for all I care.
However in THIS case these people are claiming tax exemptions that they are legally entitled to claim. The proble is not with them, the problem is with the system.

Ickle Magoo

The system has a loophole that they are knowingly and willingly exploiting, it may be too much to hope that rich men have enough of a social conscience not to even apply to a fund that was set up to benefit people who are struggling to live as artists but no, apparently we need legislation to not only ensure they can't apply but also to make sure the board their pals appointed can't deny their application just based on the basic criterion of the fund that applies to everyone else. That's a really sad state of affairs.

TheZohanS

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The system has a loophole that they are knowingly and willingly exploiting, it may be too much to hope that rich men have enough of a social conscience not to even apply to a fund that was set up to benefit people who are struggling to live as artists but no, apparently we need legislation to not only ensure they can't apply but also to make sure the board their pals appointed can't deny their application just based on the basic criterion of the fund that applies to everyone else. That's a really sad state of affairs.

I agree, it is a sad state of affairs. It's a sad state of affairs that people that engage in white collar crime are not punished too. The whole syatem is fecked up. But if a loophole exists it will be exploited, it's avoiding tax, not evading it. Totally legal.

Mr. Incognito

Hold on- you are expecting Intergrity from Politicians- In IRELAND?

WHat country have you been living in for the past 60 years?

Ickle Magoo

If the tax exemption was introduced to help struggling artists, the arts council are supposed develop and promote arts in Ireland, they say their role is:

Our role

The Arts Council’s core functions under the Arts Act 2003 are to:
stimulate public interest in the arts;
promote knowledge, appreciation and practice of the arts;
assist in improving standards in the arts;
advise the Minister and other public bodies on the arts.

We do this by:
providing financial assistance, mainly, but not exclusively, to artists and arts organisations; we also support others who develop and promote the arts;
offering advice and information on the arts to Government and to others;
publishing research and information as an advocate for the arts and artists;
undertaking a range of projects to promote and develop the arts, often in partnership with others.

I can't find anything that would even imply giving a tax break to a former Taoiseach who didn't even write the feckin book he's applied for tax breaks for is even vaguely within the remit. If it is legal, it's only just tbh. :mad:

The_Minister

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hold on- you are expecting Intergrity from Politicians- In IRELAND?

WHat country have you been living in for the past 60 years?

Read the last two lines of the link in the OP:D

brianthebard

This is not surprising tbh, all sorts of people can and have claimed this exemption, George Hook for instance. Fair enough if you want to be outraged (I know some love to be) but its been this way since the exemption was first created, no doubt it was worded in such a vague way as to make this sort of thing possible in fact.

sdanseo

Oh bog off with yor delusions of morals.

If someone told me I could save myself a decent amount of money by applying for a tax break in the morning, I'd do it no matter whether I was a politician or anything else. To suggest that most people, if not all people, in the same situation especially in the current climate wouldnt do the same is stupid.

The fault for this lies in the legislation or regulations that control it and the way it is worded (for example, did anyone insert an income limit clause? And if not, why not?). If there's a loophole there allowing this, it should be closed and the politicians that created it slated, not the ones making use of it.

Granted in Bertie's case that might be a tad of an oxymoron :rolleyes:

Beasty

The_Minister wrote: »

Both men know that that tax break isn't intended for them.

Where does it say this and how do you deterrmine who it is intended for then?

Liam Byrne

sdonn wrote: »

The fault for this lies in the legislation or regulations that control it and the way it is worded (for example, did anyone insert an income limit clause? And if not, why not?). If there's a loophole there allowing this, it should be closed and the politicians that created it slated, not the ones making use of it.

And therein lies the difference; the politicians are the ones entrusted (and paid well) to legislate, so therefore if they find a loophole they should bring it up in the Dail and close it.

Doing otherwise is the equivalent of a Council Traffic Dept head finding a stuck-on-green broken traffic light on the way to work and, instead of ensuring that it gets fixed, decides to drive that way to work every morning so that he's not delayed.

If you or I discovered a loophole with our PAYE, you can be damn sure that someone would close it at the next Budget.

johnmike

fair play to them, why not?

Jesus Wept

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hold on- you are expecting Intergrity from Politicians- In IRELAND?

WHat country have you been living in for the past 60 years?

I wasn't alive for a lot of that.

The_Minister

Beasty wrote: »

Where does it say this and how do you deterrmine who it is intended for then?

Bertie Ahern actually answered questions in an interview where he said that the tax break could be justified because it encouraged struggling artists.

Senna

Have to laugh at people getting in a tizzy over someone taking/using tax breaks, bonus, social payments etc that have been legislated for, what do you expect if it's made available.
Get angry at the fact they can avail of it first and that they did second. Nothing will every change in this country if we keep blaming the recipient but allow other to do the exact same in the future.

Fromvert

I'd do the same and everyone of yous would too. Get off your high horse.

The_Minister

Fromvert wrote: »

I'd do the same and everyone of yous would too. Get off your high horse.

Actually, on hard reflection, I can't honestly say I wouldn't.

Ickle Magoo

There are legislated funds to help people struggling in all manner of ways. Emergency funds to help families that can't afford to eat, if a government minister claims he needs funds from them even though he's rolling in it and the board that administers the funds pays out to them would that be okay too? After all it's not illegal, they legally applied and were legally granted the money?

This attitude that everyone would rip off each other given half a chance so sure ye can't blame the politicians for doing likewise baffles me.

The_Minister

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0106/news1pm.html

Ruairi Quinn being interviewed on this matter on the 6th.

He got it on appeal, he was initially turned down.

orourkeda

Fack off baldy cant

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The_Minister wrote: »

As for why not - morals.

Lol, man made bullshít... I love how the "morals" arguement rears it's ugly head in debates by the losing side... you can't argue against morals... lol...


Put yourself in their position... would you turn down money because you might upset some people you will never meet? Really? I'd do it in a heartbeat... then make a book about that too.

ColmDawson

Brantley Black Windbreak wrote: »

Put yourself in their position... would you turn down money because you might upset some people you will never meet

Yeah, I might if I were a politician and I were hoping for those people to vote for me...