Shatter gives away the payment, or does he?

Ray Palmer

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-shatter-to-give-70-000-payment-to-jack-jill-charity-1.1805093

So Shatter gives away the money he was given. Sounds great but do you think he will claim the tax back on a charitable donation?

Fizman

If he did, he should put that tax into another charity. And so on. And so on.

Charception.

entangled

If he had retained it it would have been worth about €34,000 after tax but the charity would benefit from more than €50,000, he said.

He doesn't actually gain anything from tax relief, except perhaps the good publicity associated with a €50,000 donation at a cost of only €34,000.

rotun

the payment was tax free. So the charity would get the full 70k.

Agent Smith

Man donates Money.

People still complain.

Slicemeister

Did he have to make a song and dance about it?

SHANAbert

Well it wasn't his money to donate. That's the issue.

Jack & Jill have done well which is great.

Still don't like Shatter.

Leslie91

Don't get me wrong I'm sure they do great work in Jack and Jill, but co-founder is a senator placed by Fine Gael. How great is it to have powerful friends.

humanji

Agent Smith wrote: »

Man donates Money.

People still complain.

Politician donates money.

People know he didn't do it out of the goodness in his heart.

smellmepower

Jaysus I'd have kept the money if I was him.Not as if his public image will be suddenly rehabilitated just because of doing this one nice thing.

Lemlin

Agent Smith wrote: »

Man donates Money.

People still complain.

And who do you think pays this €70,000?

Politician gives away tax paid by taxpayers.

super_furry

SHANAbert wrote: »

Well it wasn't his money to donate. That's the issue.

Of course it was. He was fully entitled to it under the legislation at the time he left his post.

Ray Palmer

entangled wrote: »

He doesn't actually gain anything from tax relief, except perhaps the good publicity associated with a €50,000 donation at a cost of only €34,000.

He get's an extra tax free allowance if he declares as a donation so yes he would gain

Lemlin

super_furry wrote: »

Of course it was. He was fully entitled to it under the legislation at the time he left his post.

Ethically and morally, he shouldn't be claiming that money for any purpose.

It is tax payer's money.

Ray Palmer

Agent Smith wrote: »

Man donates Money.

People still complain.

Because he could have refused it and gained nothing. This way he gets tax credits and good will. It isn't the most complicated smoke an mirrors action.

digzy

People should remember that he probably pays some tax at @ 55%. Therefore by giving away the money he avoids over 35k in tax, if the 70k wasn't taxable in the first place.

Typical solicitor move. Can say he didn't benefit but doesn't give it back to the state which is what he should've done if he'd any 'moral compass'.

suicide_circus

The €50k will go 55.56% of the way to pay the salary of J&J's ceo who is married to a FG senator. Neat.

Lemlin

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because he could have refused it and gained nothing. This way he gets tax credits and good will. It isn't the most complicated smoke an mirrors action.

I don't know about goodwill. I for one wouldn't praise someone for donating €70,000 of tax payers money when people up and down the country are being taxed so severely and austerity is the call of the day.

super_furry

Lemlin wrote: »

Ethically and morally, he shouldn't be claiming that money for any purpose.

It is tax payer's money.

It's part of the remuneration of the role he was employed by the tax payer to do. The rights or wrongs of this particular payment are immaterial and indeed he was part of the group of people who made sure that this was the last such payment that will ever be made.

People will honestly whinge about everything when it comes to politicians.

SHANAbert

super_furry wrote: »

Of course it was. He was fully entitled to it under the legislation at the time he left his post.

Entitled because the law - changed by his party - wasn't signed off on in time.

He knew he couldn't take the money as there would be uproar so he donated / spent it. Buying good PR in my cynical opinion.

He should have point blank refused it. Very easy to spend someone else's money.

entangled

Ray Palmer wrote: »

He get's an extra tax free allowance if he declares as a donation so yes he would gain

Yeah but it sounds like he's donating €50,000 which is his post-tax €34,000 plus the €16,000 extra tax return.

Ray Palmer

super_furry wrote: »

It's part of the remuneration of the role he was employed by the tax payer to do. The rights or wrongs of this particular payment are immaterial and indeed he was part of the group of people who made sure that this was the last such payment that will ever be made.

People will honestly whinge about everything when it comes to politicians.

I would actually be fine with that but the point is he is making it out like he has given it all away. The reality is he is getting to keep some of through the back door.

suicide_circus

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The reality is he is getting to keep some of through the back door.

Oooooh Matron!

Lemlin

super_furry wrote: »

It's part of the remuneration of the role he was employed by the tax payer to do. The rights or wrongs of this particular payment are immaterial and indeed he was part of the group of people who made sure that this was the last such payment that will ever be made.

People will honestly whinge about everything when it comes to politicians.

How are the rights and wrongs of the payment immaterial? The simple fact is he shouldn't accept the payment. Red tape bureaucracy meant the paperwork wasn't passed in time so he gained the payment through a loophole.

As I said, ethically and morally the man should not be claiming that payment. Why else would his own Leader be assuring people he would "do the right thing" and not accept the payment?

I'll whinge about a politician deciding to donate €70,000 of money that was never his. How many tax payers are under financial pressure at the minute because they are highly taxed? Yet you have a former Government Minister throwing around taxpayer's money on a whim.

Ray Palmer

entangled wrote: »

Yeah but it sounds like he's donating €50,000 which is his post-tax €34,000 plus the €16,000 extra tax return.

He was given 70k so your calcs don't match

super_furry

Lemlin wrote: »

I'll whinge about a politician deciding to donate €70,000 of money that was never his.

You keep repeating this but it was his. It was his to do with what he wished.

timetogo

Lemlin wrote: »

How are the rights and wrongs of the payment immaterial? The simple fact is he shouldn't accept the payment. Red tape bureaucracy meant the paperwork wasn't passed in time so he gained the payment through a loophole.

That's not the definition of a loophole.

Lemlin wrote: »

As I said, ethically and morally the man should not be claiming that payment. Why else would his own Leader be assuring people he would "do the right thing" and not accept the payment?

Shock. Enda's a politician too. Who knew?
Shock number 2. Politicians aren't known for being ethical or moral.

Lemlin wrote: »

I'll whinge ...

Yep.


Could he have refused the money? What's the procedure for that? Maybe somebody who actually knows could post on this thread.

Lemlin

super_furry wrote: »

You keep repeating this but it was his. It was his to do with what he wished.

Was it ethically correct of him to accept that money?

Lemlin

timetogo wrote: »

That's not the definition of a loophole.



Shock. Enda's a politician too. Who knew?



Yep.

You've added alot to the discussion.

Lemlin

timetogo wrote: »

Could he have refused the money? What's the procedure for that? Maybe somebody who actually knows could post on this thread.

It's a severance payment which he can either claim or choose not to claim.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/kenny-headache-as-shatter-stays-silent-on-70k-payout-30294639.html

Mr Kenny said he expected his former Justice Minister to forgo the payment, because he agreed to the legislation while he was in Cabinet.

"It is in the Programme for Government, worked out between Fine Gael and Labour," he said. "Obviously, Alan was a member of that Cabinet (and) was a member who approved the legislation.

"Technically he is entitled to the payment – but I expect everybody who was party to it would adhere to Government policy and not accept it."

The Irish Independent understands the Department of Finance wrote to Mr Shatter soon after he resigned, informing him he was entitled to the payment and asking how he would like to proceed.

As of last night, the former minister had not made contact with the department.

If he does not respond, the payment will be held until he makes contact.

Mr Shatter did not respond to several requests for comment from the Irish Independent.

Fine Gael said it does not know if Mr Shatter would reject the payment as he had not informed the party of his intention.

timetogo

Lemlin wrote: »

You've added alot to the discussion.

Thanks. Your opinion is important to me.

Agent Smith

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because he could have refused it and gained nothing. This way he gets tax credits and good will. It isn't the most complicated smoke an mirrors action.

You cant claim back credits like that anymore.

super_furry

Lemlin wrote: »

Was it ethically correct of him to accept that money?

That's beside the point here, it was his money to do what he wished with and saying that it wasn't is disingenuous.

dutopia

Don't you just love politics? Here's how he probably rationalised his options:

Takes money - OMG WTF ANGER ANGER, WE HATE SHATTER
Doesn't take money - 'meh', good for him
Donates money - Aww he's so kind donating to charity, he's a good bloke after all

It's taxpayer's money that he doesn't deserve, he shouldn't have taken it, end of story.

bnt

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because he could have refused it and gained nothing. This way he gets tax credits and good will. It isn't the most complicated smoke an mirrors action.

But he only gets tax credits on that sum of money - which he won't have any more. So he hasn't gained anything but it, he just hasn't lost anything by it. If he had paid tax on that sum, it would have been split differently, but he doesn't get any of it either way.

Lemlin

super_furry wrote: »

That's beside the point here, it was his money to do what he wished with and saying that it wasn't is disingenuous.

Nice politician's reply. Just ignore the question.

Why is it beside the point? It's there in the article:

Mr Kenny said he expected his former Justice Minister to forgo the payment, because he agreed to the legislation while he was in Cabinet.

"It is in the Programme for Government, worked out between Fine Gael and Labour," he said. "Obviously, Alan was a member of that Cabinet (and) was a member who approved the legislation.

"Technically he is entitled to the payment – but I expect everybody who was party to it would adhere to Government policy and not accept it."

It's not only ethically and morally wrong for him to take it but hugely hypocritical.

It also asks the question - did he resign on purpose before the paperwork went through?

Donkey Oaty

The Jack and Jill Foundation have welcomed the move.

Mr Shatter's kind donation means that we can stop many young adults from having to make steep, arduous journeys in order to avoid water charges.

It will also save the HSE money on treating head injuries and reduce the backlog of compensation claims against hill owners.

Daith

dutopia wrote: »

It's taxpayer's money that he doesn't deserve, he shouldn't have taken it, end of story.

He's legally entitled to it so I'm unsure how he doesn't "deserve" it.

VONSHIRACH

If he had not taken the €70k, lets face it, it would have gone down into a big black hole of public expenses. It is going to do a lot more good in the Jack & Jill foundation who need the cash.

Lemlin

Daith wrote: »

He's legally entitled to it so I'm unsure how he doesn't "deserve" it.

He resigned his post because of his own incompetence and shortcomings. How in god's name would he "deserve" it?

Daith

Lemlin wrote: »

He resigned his post because of his own incompetence and shortcomings. How in god's name would he "deserve" it?

He's still legally entitled to it. Now here's the thing. Would you rather the charity not receive the money?

jimgoose

Lemlin wrote: »

He resigned his post because of his own incompetence and shortcomings. How in god's name would he "deserve" it?

...after much huffing-and-puffing about shocking immoral Fianna Fáil-style golden handshakes for ministers upon which we, the upstanding shopkeepers of Fine Gael, shall crack down harshly by Golly-Jingo. Legally and technically entitled to it he may be, but this is a political matter of some moment and note right now.

brimal

VONSHIRACH wrote: »

If he had not taken the €70k, lets face it, it would have gone down into a big black hole of public expenses. It is going to do a lot more good in the Jack & Jill foundation who need the cash.

This.

People are just looking for something to be outraged about. Taxes are being wasted on a lot more unnecessary things than this charity.

super_furry

Lemlin wrote: »

Nice politician's reply. Just ignore the question.

It's irrelevant to my point which remains that it was his money to do what he wanted with.

tritium

SHANAbert wrote: »

Well it wasn't his money to donate. That's the issue.

Jack & Jill have done well which is great.

Still don't like Shatter.

Actually it technically was

Idbatterim

If he had not taken the €70k, lets face it, it would have gone down into a big black hole of public expenses. It is going to do a lot more good in the Jack & Jill foundation who need the cash.

Exactly what I was going to post, 70,000 on sheer waste or down the black hole as you call it or going to a very good cause, he did the right thing. When I heard about this payment, I hoped he would do this...

darkpagandeath

I'm Sure that 70k could have been better spent elsewhere within government spending issuing medical cards cares allowance ? I'm Sure J&J do fantastic work but they have admin costs. Must be nice to be able to give taxpayers money to a charity of your own choice. Rather than leaving it for people already in the system.

suicide_circus

Idbatterim wrote: »

Exactly what I was going to post, 70,000 on sheer waste or down the black hole as you call it or going to a very good cause, he did the right thing. When I heard about this payment, I hoped he would do this...

Yep it's probably the best outcome for the money in fairness

Valetta

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm Sure that 70k could have been better spent elsewhere within government spending issuing medical cards cares allowance ? I'm Sure J&J do fantastic work but they have admin costs. Must be nice to be able to give taxpayers money to a charity of your own choice. Rather than leaving it for people already in the system.

Are you implying the HSE don't have admin costs?

suicide_circus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm Sure that 70k could have been better spent elsewhere within government spending issuing medical cards cares allowance ? I'm Sure J&J do fantastic work but they have admin costs. Must be nice to be able to give taxpayers money to a charity of your own choice. Rather than leaving it for people already in the system.

You think the HSE dont have admin costs?? That place is 80% admin costs!

Daith

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm Sure that 70k could have been better spent elsewhere within government spending issuing medical cards cares allowance ? I'm Sure J&J do fantastic work but they have admin costs. Must be nice to be able to give taxpayers money to a charity of your own choice. Rather than leaving it for people already in the system.

Or you know it could have gone to some quango, paid for some dinners, paid for some CEO of a charity.

Again it wasn't "taxpayers" money. It was money he was entitled to. Unless you think that every person in the public sector gets taxpayers money and therefore it's not "their" money.