Shatter gives away the payment, or does he?

Ray Palmer · 22-05-2014 03:50PM #1

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 · 22-05-2014 03:52PM

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

Charception.

entangled · 22-05-2014 03:58PM

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 · 22-05-2014 03:59PM

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

Agent Smith · 22-05-2014 03:59PM

Man donates Money.

People still complain.

Slicemeister · 22-05-2014 04:00PM

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

SHANAbert · 22-05-2014 04:01PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:03PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:03PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:05PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:05PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:05PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:06PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:08PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:08PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:09PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:09PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:10PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:11PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:12PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:13PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:13PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:14PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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

Oooooh Matron!

Lemlin · 22-05-2014 04:15PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:15PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:17PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:19PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:19PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:20PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:22PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:23PM

Lemlin wrote: »

You've added alot to the discussion.

Thanks. Your opinion is important to me.

Shatter gives away the payment, or does he?

Comments