JobKeeper Payments, What Do You Think?

ozb10 on 31/03/2020 - 00:54

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/am-i-eligible-…

"The federal government will pay eligible employers $1,500 per fortnight for each eligible worker, about 70% of the national median wage.

JobKeeper is about $400 a fortnight more than the $1,100 JobSeeker payment with the coronavirus supplement for those out of work."

My views:

  1. The payment should be more or less the same as the JobSeeker payment, which has doubled already to $1100/fortnight, I don't see the justification for that to be any higher. The money should be used for essentials, not to contribute to pay their mortgage. I'm not sure if they can receive further rent assistance if renting.

  2. both payments should be asset tested, otherwise, people with $1 million in cash can still receive the payments. If the assets can't be sold quickly, the government can provide low interest or interest free loans (similar to those they provide to business).

  3. $1500 is the minimum amount, that means if they choose to work only 1 day a week previously and earned $500 during the fortnight, they will still receive the maximum amount.

  4. If such payment is justified, how about just giving extra payments to everyone as it is not income/asset tested or to help with essential living anymore.

I know this is difficult time, but taxpayer money should still be spent wisely, we will all be paying this debt in the future.

I'd rather the extra money go to manufacturing/research of medical equipment/treatment/vaccine.

So here are the questions, what do you think is a reasonable amount and should they be asset tested? And why?

Poll Options

  • 4
    should be more than $1500 (/fortnight)
  • 54
    $1500 is about right
  • 7
    $1100 is about right
  • 6
    $550 is about right (previous Newstart amount)
  • 33
    these payments should be asset tested
  • 3
    these payments should not be asset tested
Financial

Comments

  • Donaldhump on 31/03/2020 - 01:54
    +2

    reasonable idea that should have been done day 1, but should have just been a flat percentage (~75%) of your wage, with a minimum of say $600 paid.

    however some of the setup is stupid

    if you earn(ed) $200 a week part time working 1 day, and were stood down or even keep working, now you get $750 a week… this is money for nothing in fact profiting out of this. All part time earners will be frothing.

    jobseeker cuts out if your partner earns 79k or more.. so if your partners earns 80k, you lose the full payment, instead of being progressively wound back. if they earn 78k, you get $550 a week. Again people who work less get more.

    why do casual workers < 12 months get screwed over. If Scomo says we all must be treat equal, then cover them.
    if we must all be treat equal and share the burden then apply a percentage, that is sharing it proportionally.

    • AustriaBargain on 31/03/2020 - 02:18
      +7

      If it were a flat percentage then 80% of the 180 billion would go to the rich and elite. And they aren't going to spend it like the rest of us would, it's not going to help the economy just their economy.

      • Donaldhump on 31/03/2020 - 02:31
        +3

        this stimulus isn't to meant make the eceonmy any better than it would have been prior to covid 19, its meant to simulate it as if it didnt happen so people can function as normal as to what they are used to, thus paying a proportionate percentage does that. Seems Germany, Ausria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and UK do this so cant be to stupid.

        either way, paying part time works more than they actually made is effing retarded. why the hell should tax payers fund this! seriouly why, they never would have earned it, people ahouldnt profit from this.

        • AustriaBargain on 31/03/2020 - 03:02

          What's your yearly income, how does this affect you?

          • Zachary on 31/03/2020 - 10:56

            @AustriaBargain: …over 200k if I remember right….

          • Donaldhump on 31/03/2020 - 11:13
            +1

            @AustriaBargain: lots and loss of income

            now a burger flipper doing 3 days a week gets the same as me. yet when i go back to work the high income earners have to pay the deficit.

            i just think its rooted, bet the pollies wouldn't take the 750 if they lost their jobs.

        • Levathian on 31/03/2020 - 08:20
          +1

          Agree 100%. Teenagers who worked one shift a week now earn $50 less per week than I do working part time and doing part time uni, and my work puts me at huge risk of gettinga disease. Absolutely should be capped.

    • ozb10 on 31/03/2020 - 21:07

      I agreed on a flat percentage, with a max cap. Or simply just pay them what the JobSeekers are getting to avoid them having to apply for two payments.

      I also agreed they should be wound back progressively depending on the partner's income. That way, they may reduce the payments to those whose partners are earning $79,900, and possibly raise the threshold in general.

  • AustriaBargain on 31/03/2020 - 02:21

    Also I want to know, if during the pandemic a boss decides you aren't productive enough even with the $1500 kickback, could they fire you and offer someone else your position and get the same $1500 kickback for them. Suppose they want you to work from home and you have a terrible internet connection but there are workers out there happy to take your job and they have the real NBN to work from.

    • Donaldhump on 31/03/2020 - 02:32

      you can only get fired if your incomptent.
      if you can not work because you have poor internet you can be stood down / made redundant.
      if you are made redundant your role is frozen for 12 months.

    • MrHyde on 31/03/2020 - 06:50
      +1

      The payment of $1500 is only for employees who have been on the payroll for 12 months or more. So, no, an employer can't just hire more people now to get $1500 for each of them.

      And the employer has to show revenue has gone down 30% or 50% to get the payment.

      • AustriaBargain on 31/03/2020 - 07:19

        Isn’t that just for casual? They could hire a part time enployee.

        • MrHyde on 31/03/2020 - 08:12

          No, the JobKeeper payment is only for employees who have been with the business for more than 12 months. It does not matter if the employee is part time, casual, full-time. As long as they have been in the books for a year or more.

          The payment is to support businesses keeping employees in a job while they are losing business. If a company is down 30% or more; why would they hire more staff. The program will be open to way too much rorting if it applied to recent hires. I would go out and hire 10 more part time employees today and pay them 200 per week and pocket the rest. :)

          • Avo on 31/03/2020 - 08:26
            +4

            @MrHyde: I can't see anywhere in the treasury notes that suggests an employee needs to be hired for more than 12 months.

            I believe that only applies to Casual workers. Any FTE, PT and stood down employees that were on the books as at 1 March 2020 will be eligible (obviously given if the employer is an eligible employer)

            If a new person is hired as in today, these measures won't apply.

            Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I interpret it

            • MrHyde on 31/03/2020 - 08:53

              @Avo: You may be right. I got my information from a newspaper article - haven't checked the Treasury website. I'm still waiting for my accountant to send me advice on exact eligibility.

              At the moment, it looks like our business will not be eligible as even though we have lost business and have our pipeline for next 6 months has disappeared; we had a good growth from Jul-Dec. So, year on year revenue is higher; but forecast for next 12 months is bad… so; we will still have to let people go. :( If we were eligible; we would keep people on and take the hit on the delta between the govt payment, PAYGW refund and the employee wages just so that we can hold on to them. But without any help; we cannot afford to retain them for more than month before running out of cash.

            • ozb10 on 31/03/2020 - 20:59

              @Avo: Reading from this: "Can be sole traders, full-time, part-time, or long-term casuals employed on a regular basis for longer than 12 months as at 1 March 2020." I think they need to be hired since 1 March 2019.

              • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 21:21

                @ozb10: Only employees that were on the books as of 1 March 2020 are eligible. For casual employees they also need to have been with the company as of or prior to 1 March 2019.

                • AustriaBargain on 06/04/2020 - 21:47

                  @realfancyman: And there has to be a demonstratable 30%+ loss over the business income this point 12 months ago. If your employer was just starting out 12 months ago then their revenue still might be higher now even during the pandemic.

                  • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 21:50

                    @AustriaBargain: Of course, I'm referring to just the employee eligibility here. In the case of a new business, the fact sheet for businesses covers this scenario.

                    Where a business or not-for-profit was not in operation a year earlier, or where their turnover a year
                    earlier was not representative of their usual or average turnover, (e.g. because there was a large interim
                    acquisition, they were newly established or their turnover is typically highly variable) the Tax Commissioner
                    will have discretion to consider additional information that the business or not-for-profit can provide to
                    establish that they have been significantly affected by the impacts of the Coronavirus.

  • WreckTangle on 31/03/2020 - 05:02
    +2

    No support for casuals that don’t meet the criteria. Useless government.

    • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 21:22

      These casuals can apply for JobSeeker. The fact that they are including casuals at all is incredible as the casual roles are by nature unsecure and these employees are paid loading in order to save for unexpected events.

      • WreckTangle on 06/04/2020 - 22:50

        Means tested based on partner income, affects spouses of nurses, teachers, police

        • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 23:28

          This has been increased:

          For JobSeeker Payment, we’re increasing the amount your partner can earn before it affects your eligibility and payment amount. From 27 April 2020, the partner income limit at which your payment will cancel temporarily increases to $3,086.80 gross per fortnight. If you earn any income, it will also count in this income test.

          https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/subjects/af…

          • WreckTangle on 07/04/2020 - 07:52

            @realfancyman: 3086 Is the gross amount. Its not much and like i said excludes most nurses teachers and police

  • Nutrino on 31/03/2020 - 05:31
    -1

    Your company making less then 1bil and making 30% less then previous year.

  • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 07:36
    +8

    I don't believe doubling the dole for people who have been sitting on it for years is "productive use of tax dollars". I would have no issue if it was for people who have lost their jobs due to corona virus.

    • ozb10 on 31/03/2020 - 21:14

      I was surprised as well when they doubled the dole. I don't think the cost of living has doubled, and with the lockdown, there are less ways to spend the money.

      I do support payments to those who lost their job, but there are also other who lost their jobs and already on the dole due to bush fire or other reasons, I don't see why those should receive less payments.

    • edwardye on 01/04/2020 - 13:09

      It's not just tax dollars; more like printed money from QE. unlimited cash supply.

      • Lv80 on 01/04/2020 - 15:29

        money isn't free. your kids or their kids will pay for our 'free' money. If not us once this is over and we are left with a possible 2trillion debt

  • Levathian on 31/03/2020 - 08:17
    +10

    Should be capped at your previous earnings. Ridiculous that we're now paying people $750/week when they might have only been part time earning say $200. Welfare should never leave someone better off than they were working. It's supposed to be a safety net.

    Bad policy.

    • Spectatie on 31/03/2020 - 08:27

      I think you're generalizing a bit. Need to see the actual figures about how many fall into each bucket. I already know a couple of casuals that have got Coles jobs (after being let go from previous employer) who when told about the jobkeeper scheme were not interested and are sticking with the new job.

      • Levathian on 31/03/2020 - 08:30

        Yeah I'd like to see the detail but as it is it doesn't seem well thought out.

    • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 21:30

      Fully agree, seems to be no real reasoning behind this besides Scott Morrison's assertion that it is un-Australian to give different amounts of support to different people. I would've much preferred to see all casuals included and the payment be equivalent to the employees average pay over the last month, capped at $1,500 per fortnight.

  • WreckTangle on 31/03/2020 - 08:30

    Wish my boss would lay me off

    • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 09:44
      +2

      Yeah, after double dole, 2 $750 payments, not having to pay rent for 6 months, or rent assistance, or social housing, people are betting off not working.

      • Lv80 on 01/04/2020 - 15:30

        you don't have to pay rent…you'll have to pay it back though?

  • Teller on 31/03/2020 - 08:58

    Good to see employees getting a wage subsidy

    The government made a stuff up here in claiming that they can not help people to get into work, there should be no forced slave activity labour like work for the dole

    There is now no reason for not paying employers a wage subsidy to hire the long or short term unemployed who are willing and capable to find a job, instead of the employers who hire those who are already in jobs or been recently sacked/stood down , the wage subsidy can be used to get the unemployed into jobs.

    If the government is serious of getting those off welfare benefits

    • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 09:45

      This is a perfect time for work for the dole, they can get people building/fixing infrastructure that needs doing.

      • AncientWisdom on 31/03/2020 - 13:50

        You are assuming that the alternatives for job seekers is do nothing, while many are looking for work or looking into other ways to make money.

        • brendanm on 31/03/2020 - 14:20
          -1

          There are people who are long term unemployed. There are people who won't be able to get jobs as they work in hospitality or sales. Businesses are closing. Rather than give out free money like morons, we could actually use this as a chance to get things done.

  • omegakyo on 31/03/2020 - 09:06

    My question is does employers still have to pay super? Workcover? Insurance etc? As my industry is the event production we have almost zero income.

    • Teller on 31/03/2020 - 09:14

      My understanding is that super is not being paid , dont know about Workcover and the others

      • ozb10 on 31/03/2020 - 21:22

        "Employers must continue to pay the superannuation guarantee on regular wages but it is up to employer whether they pay superannuation on additional job keeper payments.

        For example, a worker who ordinarily receives $1,000 a fortnight plus superannuation will receive the $1,500 JobKeeper payment, with superannuation paid on the first $1,000 and the employer able to decide whether to pay it on the last $500."

        So yeah, it appears the employer will still need to folk out from their pocket for super on the ordinary wage if they decide to use the subsidy.

        • Abbey on 04/04/2020 - 05:12

          A lot of employer are just offering the hour to offset $1500 so there is no additional cost to the employer

    • bemybubble on 31/03/2020 - 14:36
      +1

      State governments haven't put out guidance on Work Cover or Payroll tax - assume it is included for the time being as it's considered a wage subsidy.

      From the material out there super is only payable if you continue to employ (irrespective if they earn above or below $1500). It's the ones who are stood down and re-hired through this scheme that look to be exempt from Super Gaurantee.

  • DoctorCalculon on 31/03/2020 - 20:28

    The JobKeeper payments scheme only applies to employees of the eligible organization, but not full-time contractors who work there and will be the first ones to be fired. Correct?

    • bemybubble on 31/03/2020 - 20:33

      Full time contractors will be covered.

    • realfancyman on 06/04/2020 - 21:36

      If the contractor business is eligible for the subsidy then they will be able to receive the payment.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2020 - 21:43
    +1

    Job-keeper payment does not make sense unless asset-tested. A lot of people who lose jobs may not urgently need $1500 per FN while others that will still have their jobs may struggle through due to increased costs, low wages, lost assets, e.g. Super, etc. Just having a job doesn't mean you are not financially and psychologically affected by this outbreak.

    • Gelato on 31/03/2020 - 23:31

      thanks mate for understanding my struggles.

    • bemybubble on 01/04/2020 - 12:13

      On a macro level it makes sense

      It’s designed to keep pressure off welfare as well as keep employees connected to businesses for when the going gets good again.

      Keep in mind that this policy was designed as a stimulus, and a stimulus has one simple objective which is to have people spending (all people if not majority).

  • melodrake on 01/04/2020 - 12:01
    +1

    Agree completely with your points. Those with huge assets normally should not be getting such a huge pay out. Those who were on <$1500 per fortnight for working one shift a week as a casual should at most receive what they were getting before.

    The idea of a percentage, say 75% of previous income as a wage subsidy but CAPPED at for eg 1k per fortnight would have made much more sense.

    Should be for essentials. Not for people to actually profit and others to get nothing.

    • Levathian on 02/04/2020 - 13:02

      I don't get this too.
      The $100bn this costs will be shared by everyone. It has to be paid back, eventually. Therefore we should be equitable as to who gets money and who doesn't.

      So why are we effectively giving a $20,000 gift to people who weren't earning anywhere near that to begin with? Based on my understanding, someone could have an 'essential' full time job which they keep during the pandemic, and do Uber once or twice a week. If they stop doing uber runs are they then eligible for $750/week on top of their full time income as they are a sole trader? Or what about people who do two part time jobs, if one loses revenue do they get the $750 and keep their other job too?

      Why are we giving this to teenagers who might have worked at a cafe or restaurant for pocket money?
      But why are casuals, who have been with an employer less than 12 months, not eligible?

      The whole thing is a mess imo. As I see it, a big section of society will profit big from this.

  • SlavOz on 02/04/2020 - 13:45

    What an absolute joke of a welfare state. Even if it works as intended, best case scenario is that someone who is working full time will earn $1500 a fortnight. Meanwhile, those on the dole will earn $1100 a fortnight.

    Essentially, the guy sitting at home is earning 73% as much as the full-time worker, despite doing 100% less work. It's sickening that those who secure a stable job, put aside savings, and budget like adults are being punished here. I have to keep working to put food on the table yet others get the same privilege (a few hundred dollars less) for doing absolutely nothing.

    In essence, we're encouraging welfare bums. Even those who do not fit the category of the typical 'dole bludger', do you really think they're eagerly awaiting to find another job? No chance. They've essentially got a 6 month holiday at the very least. And what happens when the payments stop? Then, AND ONLY THEN, will they get back out there and look for a job. This means most recipients will not be doing anything to increase their chances of employment for at least 6 months. Theyre going to live off the taxpayer for as long as possible instead of using welfare to support themselves while they look for work.

    • bemybubble on 02/04/2020 - 14:02

      How are we encouraging welfare bums?

      This is a 6 month measure - after which $1100 a fortnight drops back to $550 and then the $1500 a fortnight jobkeeper payment disappears. Hardly an incentive to be a 'dole bludger'.

      FYI the whole purpose of this $1,500 a fortnight payment is to prevent future 'dole bludgers'. How so you might ask?

      Statistically those who lose their job for 2 years or more are in most cases never going to return to the workforce. That's a fact. By keeping them connected to a business this minimises that risk.

      Be grateful people have an option and somewhere to turn to in need.

      • SlavOz on 02/04/2020 - 14:41
        -1

        This is a 6 month measure - after which $1100 a fortnight drops back to $550 and then the $1500 a fortnight jobkeeper payment disappears.

        Exactly, so like I said - it's a 6 month vacation for the unemployed. Why go out and look for a job when you can earn basically just as much by doing nothing for the next 6 months? They don't even need to meet the job seeking criteria.

        Welfare is supposed to stop you from starving while you look for a job. Now, it's giving people the means to maintain a lifestyle they already couldn't afford while they're not even looking for a job. I garuantee you nobody on the dole right now, even the recently unemployed, is out there strengthening their skills or updating their resume. It's a 6 month holiday from the guilt or incentive of looking for a job.

        • bemybubble on 02/04/2020 - 14:49

          Why go out and look for a job when you can earn basically just as much by doing nothing for the next 6 months?

          You're kidding, right?

    • Levathian on 02/04/2020 - 14:26

      And to boot everyone will have to pay it back, not just those who received the payments.

      • SlavOz on 02/04/2020 - 16:20

        You, your children, and your children's children will be working overtime to make ends meet after all this. Our take home pay after tax is gonna take a hit.

  • Diggins on 02/04/2020 - 14:31
    -1

    economists have figured this stuff out?
    why are you creating your own poll for this lol

  • Abbey on 04/04/2020 - 05:03
    +1

    I have read some of the comments and some are totally wrong
    Under the JobKeeper Payment, businesses impacted by the Coronavirus will be able to access a wage subsidy from the Government to continue paying their employees. Affected employers will be able to claim a fortnightly payment of $1,500 per eligible employee from 30 March 2020, for a maximum of 6 months.

    If you have been stood down, your employer must pay you, at a minimum, $1,500 per fortnight, before tax.

    My husband was stood down 2 weeks ago, while we knew it would be hard we came to terms with it and we lodged our intention to claim with centerlink. It has been very stressful. We have never in our 50+ years ever applied for any government payments.

    After the government announced jobkeeper he received an email from the company saying they were applying they also went on to say that he would have to work 2/3 days a week.

    So the company get free labor and put all the employees at risk of catching the virus ,
    The company is getting free labor for hundreds of worker and contributing zero

    Also it is true there are kids our there that had a part time job and will be $1000 better off, if it wasn’t a depressing time it would be a joke but at the moment I’m just so angry and feel very little thought has gone into this.
    So we are not getting anything handed to us. I know this isn’t every situation but there are employer cashing in on it and this is not right

    • Levathian on 04/04/2020 - 08:39

      Plus some employers have their staff on forced annual leave and are paying that leave using the JobKeeper payment!! Which is basically a government subsidy of business balance sheets rather than a job saving measure.

      • bemybubble on 04/04/2020 - 09:14

        Paying leave using the JobSeeker payment - why is this a negative for you?

        Annual leave can only be paid if there’s money there to pay it. If the JobKeeper payment enables that to happen then that’s a lifeline

        Seriously mate…

        • Abbey on 04/04/2020 - 10:16

          Contact Fair Work,we were told if stood down already you could take extra days to makeup your wages
          Example joobkeeper is $1500 -is say 3 days then you take 2 days leave, your leave and long service is owing to before the date. But your employer has to agree

        • Abbey on 04/04/2020 - 10:37

          Jobkeeper is only WORK FOR THE DOLE in trying time -
          there is no other way to look at it
          if you have a full time job at the moment then you are lucky.. most people are managing on a couple of days a week no fault of theirs own.
          Yes we will pay for all of this but we have always been taxpayers here and will probably continue to when this is over if we are lucky enough. But then again If we are working for it we owe no one but we will still get the tax bill.

          Jobseeker people what are they doing, plus getting extra payments

        • randomusername2017 on 06/04/2020 - 20:54

          Paying leave using the JobSeeker payment - why is this a negative for you?

          Because they don't get to take it at a later date?

          Annual leave can only be paid if there’s money there to pay it.

          Annual leave liability would have already been accrued and provision should have been made.
          Businesses using the jobseeker payment to offset this liabilty are gaming the system to a degree.

        • Levathian on 10/04/2020 - 12:28

          Jobkeeper is there to keep people in a job, it's not there so the company can run down their leave balances.

  • Patchy01 on 06/04/2020 - 21:14
    +1

    Well all I know is that out of all the hundreds of billions of dollars the government is throwing around I won't see one red cent. But I still have to pay it back. That stinks.

    • Baysew on 07/04/2020 - 10:28

      The government probably won't ask you to solely to pay back the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    • Levathian on 10/04/2020 - 12:32

      Yep but at least we benefit from not having desperate, homeless unemployed people on the streets.

  • Lynndy on 15/04/2020 - 03:05

    Seems pretty illogical to me that a casual employee who earns say $200 per week, qualifies for the full $1500/fortnight Jobkeeper payment, whereas partners in a partnership, (who ordinarily would EACH earn more than $1500/fortnight), all have to share the one Jobkeeper payment, even if their income is now zero because the business has been crippled and ground down to a complete halt.. Not a well thought through scheme for this circumstance, the limiting of the Jobkeeper payment eligibility to only one partner.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join