Shatter gives away the payment, or does he?

Agent Smith · 22-05-2014 04:23PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:24PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:25PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:26PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:27PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:29PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:29PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:31PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:31PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:32PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:33PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:35PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:36PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:37PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:37PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:41PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:43PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:44PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:44PM

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 · 22-05-2014 04:45PM

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.

sonandheir · 22-05-2014 04:45PM

This whole fiasco is an orchestrated fine Gael election ploy. When I heard varadaker saying shatter should consider not taking payment yesterday I thought he was really putting the dig in. But as it transpired today it was all part of the plan.

dharma200 · 22-05-2014 04:46PM

completely stage-managed... completely cringe. Ok jack and jill get some tax payers money.
and he is still a td... sickening bunch of £@$%%^^^

darkpagandeath · 22-05-2014 04:47PM

Valetta wrote: »

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

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Proof ? Because taking money out of already stretched government spending is the right thing to do. People are complaining about cutbacks, Yet taking taxpayers money and donating it to your pet charity is ok ?

Lemlin · 22-05-2014 04:48PM

Daith wrote: »

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

Yes I would. It's tax payer's money.

There are plenty of people struggling financially who are taxed to the max.

suicide_circus · 22-05-2014 04:48PM

sonandheir wrote: »

This whole fiasco is an orchestrated fine Gael election ploy. When I heard varadaker saying shatter should consider not taking payment yesterday I thought he was really putting the dig in. But as it transpired today it was all part of the plan.

Of course its all pre election spin but I think most recognise it for what it is.

darkpagandeath · 22-05-2014 04:51PM

Daith wrote: »

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.

Oh the Irony ..... Was the money not donated to a Charity ?

Valetta · 22-05-2014 04:51PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Proof ? Because taking money out of already stretched government spending is the right thing to do. People are complaining about cutbacks, Yet taking taxpayers money and donating it to your pet charity is ok ?

Of course it's ok.

It's his money.

blackwhite · 22-05-2014 04:51PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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

Tax free allowances were abolished in 2001.

We have tax credits these days.

Since then, for anyone who pays income tax via PAYE (which would include all Dail politicians), and for self-employed individuals since 2013, you do not receive a tax credit for charitable donations.
Instead, the charity can make a claim to Revenue, and revenue will pay the charity an amount equal to what the tax credit would have been worth.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/chy3.pdf

lertsnim · 22-05-2014 04:52PM

What a scumbag. Buying PR won't work for him.

suicide_circus · 22-05-2014 04:52PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Proof ? Because taking money out of already stretched government spending is the right thing to do. People are complaining about cutbacks, Yet taking taxpayers money and donating it to your pet charity is ok ?

Do you think that 70k if unclaimed would have gone to sick kids? Things dont work like that.

Shatter gives away the payment, or does he?

Comments