TWSS for the domestic employees of 30 odd households.

Plumbthedepths

How the hell did these individuals think they qualified to claim this relief and secondly what the hell is a TD doing getting involved on their behalf with Revenue.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/up-to-30-households-who-claimed-wage-subsidy-to-pay-for-domestic-staff-face-combined-200000-revenue-bill-39797506.html

Mrs OBumble

Hardly surprising: employers were told to use TWSS to stop people going on PUP. That's exactly what these employers did.

And making representation is part of a TDs job.

Plumbthedepths

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Hardly surprising: employers were told to use TWSS to stop people going on PUP. That's exactly what these employers did.

And making representation is part of a TDs job.

Business turnover lost in a domestic setting due to Covid?

Meeoow

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Hardly surprising: employers were told to use TWSS to stop people going on PUP. That's exactly what these employers did.

And making representation is part of a TDs job.

Rubbish, they didn't have a revenue drop, so obviously we're not entitled to it.

seamus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Business turnover lost in a domestic setting due to Covid?

It was naivety or arm-chancing. "I'm an employer, my employee can't work, therefore I can apply for a wage subsidy to keep paying them". I'd say most did it because they thought they could - or their own personal income dropped. But I've no doubt some of them thought that in the chaos it would go unnoticed.

I guarantee some of these 30 also had their cleaners go on PUP and kept the TWSS for themselves.

A TD is involved because when wealthy people have a problem with an arm of the state, they ring the local TD to try and make it go away.

The rest of us pay our fines, the wealthy demand to know who is going to pay it for them.

Plumbthedepths

seamus wrote: »

It was naivety or arm-chancing. "I'm an employer, my employee can't work, therefore I can apply for a wage subsidy to keep paying them". I'd say most did it because they thought they could - or their own personal income dropped. But I've no doubt some of them thought that in the chaos it would go unnoticed.

I guarantee some of these 30 also had their cleaners go on PUP and kept the TWSS for themselves.

A TD is involved because when wealthy people have a problem with an arm of the state, they ring the local TD to try and make it go away.

The rest of us pay our fines, the wealthy demand to know who is going to pay it for them.

I like Revenue they are prehaps the most efficient arm of the state, the monies owed wouldn't go away. The intervention of a TD may stop penalties or interest being applied.
Totally agree on the suggestion of chancing their arm.

L1011

seamus wrote: »

I guarantee some of these 30 also had their cleaners go on PUP and kept the TWSS for themselves.

That wouldn't actually be possible as TWSS was done via payroll

Blondini

If you can afford Jeeves the butler and Anjelickerina the cleaner, then you can afford the revenue bill.

arctictree

To be fair, its a bit silly. If they just let them go, they would have been on the PUP. So the revenue/Govt are basically saying that they should have been fired.

Dempo1

I'm afraid to say, this is just the Tip of the Iceberg, I've absolutely zero doubt there's been widespread fraud and abuse of what was a life line for alot of genuine businesses.

On the topic specifically, as outrageous as its seems, I'm aware of households that are run as business's or limited companies, large premises such as estates, stud farms etc and I suspect these may be in the mix here. The bottom line however is that despite a household assuming it could avail of TWSS, a very clear and specific criteria is proof of the business either being impacted by or revenue reductions as a result of the Pandemic, Lord & Lady P**take will have some explaining to do as will any public representative making fools of themselves getting involved.