Do You Agree with JobKeeper (Business Getting $1500 to Pay Workers)?

Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:03
Last edited 10/04/2020 - 19:15

Business getting $1500 a week to pay workers [POLL]

So this is going to sound very ‘left wing’ of me but I have been thinking about the 130billion the government has spend to ‘save’ small businesses with helping them keep workers on and I kind of …don’t know if I agree with it.

I have family who have small businesses so I should be all for it but when things were going well they were more then happy to ‘waste’ money on expensive cars, holidays and other junk however now things are hard having the tax payer to bail them out I just don’t think that is right….

I am an average tax payer and no really knowledges of economics but if you have a business and you cant survive 6 months of hard times I dare say you probably shouldn’t be in business and of course every business is different and every situation is different but im putting it out there do you agree with the way the government is handing money to businesses with a turn over less then 50million or do you think the money should have been used is some other way ie put into manufacturing, given directly to those who have lost jobs and stood down etc

Im not saying im totally against it but I kind of feels like companies are happy to be a private firm when things are going ‘well’ but when things are bad then they are a ‘social service’ wanting a hand out… I mean even car dealerships are asking for a hand out!

UPDATE - 10/4/20

After reading comments and digging a bit deeper perhaps i was wrong happy to learn overall from the research giving the business money in the short term will help in the long/medium term.

I still think people will rip off the system but the good will out weight the bad

God bless have a happy Easter - and if you dont celebrate Easter stay safe and have a good long weekend

Poll Options

  • 94
    Yes – agree with giving the money to businesses to keep their workers on
  • 61
    No – I think the money could have been better distributed to those who need it most
Financial

Comments

  • dcep on 08/04/2020 - 11:05
    +5

    looking at the threads you created … i guess isolation is getting on you

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:22
      +2

      Oh badddd I'm mass bored

      I literally got Ozbargin and Twitter keeping me going

  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 11:07

    Cabin fever lol.

  • Tech5 on 08/04/2020 - 11:09
    +10

    The $1500 is not for the benefit of the business as a first priority. It is to keep low income workers in a job that they can come back to once things return to normal. You missed the point.

    What is the alternative? Let people lose their job in order to punish a business that they had no say in running?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:24
      -2

      Well the money isnt keeping the worker afloat it is keeping the business a business that cant sustain a 6 month period of hardship… wouldn't the $ be better put into welfare to workers who are out of the job?

      • Tech5 on 08/04/2020 - 11:28
        +1

        And would you rather the workers be on welfare long after the lockdowns are lifted? Or in a low paying position that will more likely be available once lockdowns are lifted?

        I agree there are plenty of businesses that do not deserve to be open after this, like most airlines with their stock buybacks. But the issue is the collateral damage if the fail.

      • Hardlyworkin on 08/04/2020 - 16:53
        +3

        The idea is the government pays the company and the company then passes that money to the employee. This is to encourage the company not to fire the employee. The alternative is the employee is fired so they get the money straight from the government instead though don't have a job to return to.

        The biggest help to companies is they don't have to pay redundancies so can instead stand down employees or give them less hours depending on what they can afford.

        The Fair Work Act is being amended to make it easier to stand down and reduce employees hours while still ensuring they get the $1500 a fortnight.

    • 2manypeople on 09/04/2020 - 00:23
      +4

      We are a family of 5 in business, we have been in Business for over 20 years now, always paid our full taxes and superannuation and all of us get above award wages. Now here is the thing, why should our family suffer because the government Ordered us to close down, yes we have money in the bank but not a patch on the $24,000 a month that we have to pay our greedy landlord. We were just going fine and could still be in business for another 10 or 20 years and this is the first time that the government has ever given us any money. If it was our fault we closed such as spending our taxes, or not paying our suppliers or ripping off our workers then I would agree that a business does not deserve help, but when you are made / forced to close that's a different matter, by the way we still had to find over $6,000 to pay our wages tax, super and our GST obligations for the end of March.

    • Tech5 on 08/04/2020 - 11:12
      +3

      You are absolutely wrong there in regards to workers surviving for 6 months without a paycheck, unless they go to centrelink.

      Not only that but it is to keep people in contact with their employers and jobs. Not just giving away money.

      The alternative is a return to normal in 6-12months where the overall number of jobs in Australia have shrunk drastically. i.e. not a hibernation

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:27
        -1

        I don't agree with workers surviving 6 months a lot of people are struggling and living pay check to pay check but I do agree a business that can't do a couple months of hard times might be not worth saving?

  • spackbace on 08/04/2020 - 11:25
    -6

    I am 'generally' against all forms of handouts and humanitarianism at a government level (Australia is not a charity) but under some circumstances there needs to be exceptions, especially when helping our own…

    especially when helping our own

    our own

    /thread

    For a 30yo you're very opinionated on those who are far older than you, with far more life experience. You've mentioned you work 2 jobs, so you don't own/run a business? Then kindly stfu about small business owners and wise up.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:28
      -2

      I do run a business as my 2nd job but I am unaffected by COVID19

      • spackbace on 08/04/2020 - 11:29

        If it's your 2nd job, then you don't 'run' a business.

        Proper running of an actual business would be your main gig at a minimum, and if you even had time for a 2nd job then that time should be spent on your business.

        Again, stfu about matters you actually don't know.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:36
          -1

          Lol ok bro calm down I just asking a question

          I think maybe I'm not wise enough to hire people and sign a lease I couldn't afford if business went South for 6-12 months but you know I'm not every wise…

          • spackbace on 08/04/2020 - 11:39
            -1

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Lol ok bro calm down I just asking a question

            Yep, from a very self-centred opinion, and I'm doing what I can to school you, because you need it.

            There are many small businesses where the owners earn what would be considered standard, median wage. They're not like your folks and splashing the cash. They do it for the independence, to be their own boss etc. You can't expect lunch bars, cafes, hell even some restaurants to turn over massive cash-flow. If you do, then you really have no clue.

            Ugh millennials.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:55
              +2

              @spackbace: For the record i didnt down vote you because unlike 'your' generation i listen to other peoples opinions and try to learn i dont just blanketly think im right all the time

              I understand some 'small' business owners dont make big money they generally work very hard and put in as good as they get BUT

              I also know a number of small businesses owners this includes people in my own family that pay themselves HUGE wages and had no problem gloating about it 6 months ago prior to COVID19

              I can literally tell you i had a conversation with a multi-restaurant owner and how she only paid 75k for her new Merc and asking me when im going to 'upgrade' my 2016 Honda Civic for a European car…..

              I do respect your opinion but i think it isnt as simple as give money to small businesses so they survive a number of these businesses given handouts would/will probably not survive the down turn anyway?

              If you ask me honestly if you arent making 120k+ a year then why are you running a business? you might as well work a regular job and get paid full benefits …

              • crashloaded on 08/04/2020 - 21:29

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Running a successful small business and spending outside your means isn't the same thing. Sounds like the people you know spend outside their means.

      • whooah1979 on 10/04/2020 - 10:47
        +1

        I do run a business as my 2nd job

        This is what we call a hobby.

  • kanmen on 08/04/2020 - 11:27
    +7

    This isn't about small business, this is about the workers. This is more or less the same as the Jobseeker payment, except this way the government can keep their unemployment rates low by supposedly keeping more employees in work.

    This is basically the government trying to keep the economy afloat by ensuring those without an income have income to spend (and survive of course).

  • pformag on 08/04/2020 - 11:31
    +1

    It's not the easiest threshold. Our company has significantly grown over the last 12mnonths, so our April from 2019 was decent, but our growth has been significant over the last 6 months (adding employees, warehouse etc, so dropping 30% in sales is almost impossible to meet the threshold, we have to look at around a 60% drop in current sales to meet what would have been a 30% drop last year.

    We are down around 40% so far.

    • Hardlyworkin on 08/04/2020 - 16:54
      +2

      Isn't it ultimately up to the tax commissioner where circumstances like yours arise? Best to put something together that reflects that for assessment.

  • tsunamisurfer on 08/04/2020 - 11:41
    +2

    when things were going well they were more then happy to ‘waste’ money on expensive cars, holidays and other junk

    So people who want to enjoy some fruits of their labour are wasting money?

    I am an average tax payer and no really knowledges of economics

    May I suggest you stick with what knowledges you do have and stay away from telling people how to spend their own money.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:58

      That is both fair enough but if my taxes are going to prop up businesses that there owners CANT manage 6 months without a hand out but the owners are driving a 200k car then i am allowed to question why?

      • mbck on 08/04/2020 - 12:28
        +2

        I respect your point of view.

        But you have to remember, a business and the owner (aside if they're a sole trader), are two separate entities.

        This means whatever a business earns, does not mean it's the owner's little bank.

        So in the good years, the business pays its staff and suppliers, as well as giving an income for the owner.

        Whatever the owner earns, that's become his/her, so that's out of the picture.

        We are now in a bad year (hopefully just one), so now there are no customers, no revenue to pay staff and suppliers. Maybe there isn't even income for the owner.

        So this 1.5k is to ensure the staff is in a job. That's it.

        Other arguments calling for owners to pay out of its own pocket is irrelevant, because like I said, they are two separate entities. You can't force owners to dig out of their own pocket to add more equity into their business; that is their own decision. If they don't want to do it, then they fire everyone, declare bankruptcy and noone (supplier/staff/landlord) will get anything.

        Yes I understand there are owners who are dodgy, same as there are dodgy employees. There are dodgy people everywhere. But in such a complex situation, do you really want to make it even more complex for people to understand policies, causing even further stress and probably ire at the political party for not being able to explain their programs well? (think that politician trying to explain GST lol).

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 08/04/2020 - 11:46
    -1

    If a business has suffered significant decrease in revenue, then it would be logical that their work levels must have slumped as well.

    By paying a business to keep an employee even though work levels have slumped, we, the taxpayers, are effectively keeping someone in a job potentially to be 'fiddling their thumbs' so to speak.

    Once restrictions are lifted and things go back to normal, unless businesses can pick up all of their lost business, that employee who has been kept to 'fiddle their thumbs' and without taxpayer support would now potentially be likely to be released.

    That employee then goes to Centrelink and tries to claim a benefit - and would find it more onerous to be eligible.

    • cheaplee on 08/04/2020 - 21:28

      'fiddling their thumbs'

      I'm not sure that's the correct saying…

      You keep away from me with your fiddling thumbs!

      • TheMindsetTraveller on 08/04/2020 - 22:42
        +1

        Yes you are correct, what I said is not the correct saying, pardon me for having English as my second language. I will endeavour to improve and not make this mistake moving forward.

        Back to the correct saying it is "twiddling your thumbs"

        Thanks once again

    • 2manypeople on 09/04/2020 - 00:36

      Tax payers do not add to the economy or keep people in jobs or welfare, as soon as tax is paid it is expunged, no longer exists, where do you think these hundreds of billions of dollars come from? You need to read MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, our FED government does not run like your household income, we are a sovereign nation and produce our own money, we use to print it, now it's just zeros in a computer.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 13:55

      We are not "twiddling our thumbs" as you call it. I'm putting extra hours into marketing, into finding new business, into so many other things behind the scenes that we're still really busy, but we're not making any money. I'm getting ready for when we come out of this lockdown so we can hit the ground running. There's still plenty of things to do. Bookkeeping, accounting, online and offline marketing, getting on the phones to our suppliers, maintaining networks, etc etc. All of this isn't "twiddling our thumbs".

      • TheMindsetTraveller on 09/04/2020 - 15:30

        So you are saying that in your situation, you will keep your employees in your business?

        • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2020 - 14:47

          This entire jobkeeper scheme is to make sure all small businesses KEEP their employees and keep running the business. That's why it's called JobKEEPER

  • Rashed on 08/04/2020 - 11:55

    Isn’t it $1500 a fortnight?

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2020 - 11:57

      I it is the mods changed the title for me

  • chumlee on 08/04/2020 - 12:03
    +8

    Jobkeeper is all about keeping people off unemployment stats so ScoMo and the Libs don't look bad.

    Nothinb more, nothing less

    • crashloaded on 08/04/2020 - 13:00
      +1

      This, it's simply a long term agenda for employment stats. It doesn't help the retail or hospitality small businesses one bit.

      The mandatory commercial premises code isn't going to work against leveraged assets either unless they force banks to come to the agreement.

  • [Deactivated] on 08/04/2020 - 12:09
    +4

    It's not about charitably subsidising failing businesses.

    It's a scientific approach to an unprecedented situation in recent times which will stimulate the economy and help the country recover with less people on social welfare, more people in employment and more businesses in operation. This brings significant direct and indirect benefits now and, most importantly, when we get out of this on the other side.

    I despair for humanity sometimes reading some of these threads.

  • Scantu on 08/04/2020 - 12:30
    +3

    You got your wings wrong… that would be 'right' if you disprove of it. But you shouldn't even really try and politicise very normal economic policy, it's really neither.

  • Niko123456 on 08/04/2020 - 12:59
    -1

    I don't agree with giving $1500 a fortnight. It would be better to put people on leave and just have people accrue negative leave. That way they can continue to receive their full income, and everyone has an incentive to get back to normal.

    I'm worried we're just going to be giving $1500 to business to cover wages and there will never be an incentive for a business to pay them more than that (or put them back on their old wage)

    • salmon123 on 08/04/2020 - 13:11

      What about casuals?

      What happens when you want to leave a job and have a negative balance?

      • Niko123456 on 08/04/2020 - 13:18

        that's the best part. the company owns the debt, not you. you're free to go.. the taxpayer has subsidised the liability, not the individual..

        if you want to be creative you can even securitise the debt and insure it and sell it etc.. just like a long term mortgage security.

        i don't agree with the amount of casuals in the workforce at the moment, but the sad truth is, the correct place for a casual without work is the dole queue. The dole should be much much higher, especially at a time like this.

        • salmon123 on 08/04/2020 - 13:49
          +1

          that's the best part. the company owns the debt, not you. you're free to go

          Let's see how things work out for, next time there's a pandemic and you're the treasurer. I suspect the looting and rioting would've started several weeks ago with these types of policies.

          • Niko123456 on 08/04/2020 - 14:28
            -1

            @salmon123: OKkkkkkkkkk…. and you say that because… (you have no idea how leave works? you don't like people coming up with better ideas than you? you're a die-hard liberal and you can't handle criticism?)

            • salmon123 on 08/04/2020 - 14:46
              +1

              @Niko123456: You're suggesting that businesses wear the cost of the pandemic and keep workers afloat. If only the world was that simple …

              you're a die-hard liberal and you can't handle criticism?

              No I'm not a die-hard liberal and I'm not sure what your criticism was.

              • Niko123456 on 08/04/2020 - 18:17

                @salmon123: I'm suggesting the govt support business with the leave liability… So no, I'm not suggesting business wear the cost of the pandemic..

                ..but even if I was, your comment about looting is incoherent

    • Muffinman01 on 09/04/2020 - 08:33
      +1

      So say for example workers accrue negative leave for at least 6 months while we wait for this to blow over, does that mean once things return to normal people can't go on any leave for 6 years until their leave is back in the black?

      • Niko123456 on 09/04/2020 - 09:24

        or you accrue leave in two buckets from your regular leave and your 2020 leave balance.

        perhaps the pain is the price to pay for remaining on 100% wages plus actually getting back to work sooner when things pick up. the business doesn't want to extend their debt, the worker wants to start accruing leave again.

        under the current JobKeeper scheme, what is the incentive for the business to start paying the wages themselves? (ps, they're not earning any leave entitlement while this is going on, so your question should apply to JobKeeper too..)

    • Lawrencep93 on 09/04/2020 - 08:54
      +1

      The worrying part is the majority of businesses rely on cashflow to pay wages, if you did this most businesses that are not in essential area's will go broke, then these people will not have a job to return to.

      • Niko123456 on 09/04/2020 - 09:27

        the point is the business doesn't have to pay wages with cashflow. they pay wages with the debt (supplied by the Australian Government) in their leave entitlement. the debt is serviced by the worker returning to work and accruing leave.

        • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 14:03

          You're basically saying all these workers, some who are only 18/19/20 years old, pay off their leave by working 365 days a year for god-knows how long, simply because of something that happened outside their control? God I hope you never run your own business. I'd hate to be your employee.

          • Niko123456 on 10/04/2020 - 08:26

            @[Deactivated]: Mate, if you were my employee (and we had this scheme) you'd be getting 100% of your wages rather than being sacked at the first week of no cash flow. Your comment makes no sense.

            Feel sorry for your mates who can't pay their mortgage anymore and have to accrue interest or sell in distress all because you love the liberals… Would hate to be employee frankly.

            • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2020 - 14:45

              @Niko123456: "Love the liberals" haha. This incentive by the LNP is the most un-Liberal thing they've ever done. This is as close to UBI as they've ever done.

              And I'm not sure if your initial point is getting thru but this is exactly what the employees are getting with this scheme. They're still getting paid $1500 a fortnight so they can continue to work despite no new income coming from the business.

    • NigelPearson on 09/04/2020 - 14:05

      1) Accrue negative leave on full pay?

      That might be $4,000 a fortnight. How can an inactive business afford to pay that?

      2) JobKeeper should only be a few months, but you are right, after that businesses might try to pay less than that, or less than their regular wages, or sack their workers because their revenue doesn't ramp back up immediately.

      Also, the workers who don't get back to their usual wages can leave, and try their luck else where?

      I suspect after JobKeeper, there will be job-market chaos, but Isn't the $750p.w. now better than nothing now?

      • Niko123456 on 10/04/2020 - 08:23

        You don't understand. I'm suggesting the govt covers the debt.

        What you're suggesting is that we stop paying someone $4k a fortnight… Which destroys the economy because they can no longer afford their investments, mortgage, loans, obligations, school fees etc..

        You're making the economic hit so much harder because you're worried some 18 year old will have to accrue back the leave. As I mentioned before, if you're so worried about leave then you should ask the govt to provide it with jobkeeper.

  • Drakesy on 08/04/2020 - 13:11
    +3

    The debt bubble that this is going to create is just effectively kicking the can down the road for future generations to sort out, prolonging the inevitable (Rudd's stimulus cost $10 Billion, this is in excess of $150 billion). IMHO let people go onto jobseeker rather than subsidising their existence doing tasks that don't exist (much like a lot of government). 3 months down the road, the business can reemploy them as very few would have found alternative work.

    Liberals are about the short term solutions, unfortunately we're in for long term pain because of this.

    • suntap on 09/04/2020 - 10:57
      +2

      " 3 months down the road, the business can re-employ them as very few would have found alternative work."

      I work very long hours in my business and my employees actually get more pay than me, for far less work. I can't afford to pay myself luxuries like leave loading, sick pay etc. If I don't work I don't get paid (the business doesn't earn anything whilst I am closed.)

      The problem is a business still has to pay rent, workcover, insurance, rates & other utilities. elec. etc PLUS wages and/or leave to employees.
      Do you know how hard it is to re-start a business after it has closed? It is easier to "keep something in motion" than start from nothing again; basic law of physics. And it is $1500 per FORTNIGHT not per week and the payment must be paid in full to the employee. It is not for the business owner to buy new cars or whatever they wish to. By keeping the business afloat those employees will get $200 per fortnight more than they will on the dole and they will have a job to go back to after all of this is over.

      I hope you do realise that small business is actually the largest employer group in the country, something like 80% of the workforce? If I cannot keep my business afloat for the next six months I will just retire or go on the dole. AND my employees will then have to go on the dole until they can find another fairy to pay their wages. "as very few would have found alternative work."

  • askme69 on 08/04/2020 - 15:50
    +2

    I think they are fighting a losing battle. The economy was going to crap way before COVID19.

    I reckon let the whole thing burn to the ground and start again, with a different view on CHINA as a trading partner (cough, cough).

  • farknos on 09/04/2020 - 07:35
    +3

    hmmm, i thought this package was purely to keep the workers off the dole and if i read it correctly the business has to show a 30% minimum down turn on the same month last financial year, they have to pay the staff for march, april, may, they continue to pay all of the running cost associated with the business then they should in theory get their 1500 per staff member back at the end of may for the march payment and this would continue for up to 6 months, but will be paid two months behind staffs pay month.

    i wonder how many of the negative comments above are likely to survive 6 months with out any pay and not go on the dole.

  • Lawrencep93 on 09/04/2020 - 08:52

    The poll is set our poorly as in a don't give it to business is the option. To be honest this is hurting businesses more than helping them, for a business that is shut for 6 months, you can negotiate rent, you can put phone lines on hold and so forth till you open back up.

    With Job Keeper they are expecting you to pay out of your own cashflow 1500/fortnight per employee backdated to March until they pay you in May, then expect you to administer this in a business with no income someone still has to pay to do all the administration for payroll. Many times businesses ask their accountant/bookkeeper which is simply making it more expensive for small businesses who have very limited help right now from the Government.

    It is almost like the Government is trying to give everyone a UBI and let small and family businesses go broke.

    Say you have a family business through a family trust, you have 3-4 family members working in the family business, everyone takes a trust distribution based on what the business made for the year, good years you get a higher distribution poorer years you might not even get minimum wage, but it pushes the business to do better. Now under this jobkeeper this business can only assign one person to receive the 1500/fortnight. If that was your local family run pub there is no way you can support that family business unless they went and took on more debt which is not as straight forward as bank gave me 250k to pay back over 3 years.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 09/04/2020 - 09:32

      How is it poor you have two options it is a good idea or thing could be done better (or not at all) and you can comment to explain why?

      I dare say a lot of people including myself 'agree' with helping workers/business on some level but dont agree with the way the government is doing it. I honestly think a lot of business esp cash businesses are going to rip off these scheme and it isnt going to help as effectively as it could.

  • Ashbargin on 09/04/2020 - 08:57

    Firstly it isn’t paid to the business, it is paid to the worker via the business. Given one touch payroll this is the fastest and most efficient way to get these payments out. Otherwise you will completely clog up Centrelink.

    Secondly, the net payment by the Government for this for any person earning above $37,000 pa will be lower than the Jobseeker. This is because the payment is taxable where as the Jobseeker is tax free. Given the same or lower cost the the Government for these people that would have had there employment terminated it is a no brainer for the Government to do it this way.

    For those that are saying business should be able to stay a float for 6 months. Even if the business can, why would they continue to employ the same amount of people if there is less work/income. They would just sack people. Once you are out of a job, particularly for a significant period of time it is very hard to get back into the workforce which creates long term unemployment.

    For the argument for having people go to negative leave balances. If a business is standing it’s employees down for 4-5 months there is no way that an employee could ever work enough to repay the annual leave owing. They would need to work 4-5 years without a holiday to get back to a positive balance. Most employees would leave in this time.

    I know within our business that employs 7 people we were going to terminate 3 of them until this payment came along. We are now keeping them all, although there is far less work at least they are continuing to do something productive.

    • jimbobaus on 09/04/2020 - 09:34

      This is because the payment is taxable where as the Jobseeker is tax free

      Should note:

      If you only income for the current financial year is JobSeeker then yes it would be tax free.

      However if you earn 1 dollar from a paid job during the current financial year the entire Jobseeker payment becomes taxable income.
      The $550 Corona Virus Supplement is not counted as taxable income but the base payment of Jobseeker (including Rent Assistance etc) is 100% taxable income if you earn any other income in same financial year

      So for example:

      You have earned $27,000 so far this financial year, the go on Jobseeker and earn $7,150 ($550 base Jobseeker for 12 Fortnights, the corona virus supplement is tax free) then when you do your tax at end of financial year your "taxable income" would be $34,150 but you will have only paid tax on $27,000

      Unless you ask Centrelink to deduct tax from your JobSeeker payment you face a shock come tax time.
      While the government has certainly done things to help those out of work, they have not changed the system when it comes to when and if unemployment payments are taxable or not.

      • Rel63 on 09/04/2020 - 14:47

        Just to point out here all jobseeker income is just that 'income' If you earn no other income for the complete financial yr then you will not need to submit a tax return and will not incur a tax debt. If you had tax deducted by centrelink then you would need to submit tax return to get that money as a refund.

        Nothing changes from jobseeker pmt to wages, they are both equally taxable income and it does change based on you earning an other income. It is the total income earned that determines your tax debt.

  • affable on 09/04/2020 - 09:33

    If you are NOT one of the 6M Aussies getting the $750/wk, then by definition you are one of the 20M Aussies who will be paying for it sooner or later (depending on whether you are wearing nappies right now, eg babies or retired), ie you will be about $250/wk WORSE off. The money has to come from somewhere, even if it is printed. Government is simply a redistribution of $, with a touch of inefficiency thrown in for good measure.

  • 000lynx on 09/04/2020 - 10:19
    +1

    Its $1500 per Fortnight not per week.

  • popsiee on 09/04/2020 - 11:02
    +1

    A lot of accountants are going to be busy figuring out strategies for those businesses that don't qualify to make the cut . No doubt there will be a lot of abuse .

  • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2020 - 13:48
    +5

    Firstly you're not"left wing" by saying this. You're being right wing and capitalistic about not wanting to support the economy and not helping others.

    Secondly, you clearly have no idea about running a small business. This "handout" as you call it isn't for the business. It's for the employees of the business. Also small businesses in Australia employ millions of Australians all over the country, from your local IGA, to the dentist that you visit. They're all small business. Without them, the country will be taken over by big biz who will not care about squeezing the small people for maximum profit.

    I've been in business for over 11 years, so all this time I've barely taken a wage for myself while I continue to pay my employees a fair wage they can live on. I've even helped them out when they were in financial trouble.

    In the bigger picture, small business is what keeps the Australian economy from growing every year, we are the ones who aren't hoarding our profits and we spend a shit tonne to keep the economy ticking over. We pay our taxes fairly, unlike some big biz that don't pay a single cent.

    If small business were to collapse because people like you don't want to support us, then forget about going to IGA, or to the dentist, or your family GP. Forget about going out to your local restaurant for a weekend out. If you have pets, you can forget about finding a vet to bring her to, coz they'll all close down too. Even your IT stores will have to shut coz they can't pay their employees so forget about that new computer you've been wanting to get.

    I find posts like these incredibly offensive coz the OP has never walked a day in our shoes, nor does he know how this economy works.

  • ozbjunkie on 09/04/2020 - 20:55
    +1

    So there are actually jobs and businesses to go back to after lockdown, it's much better to have a jobkeeper situation than just moving everyone to jobseeker and letting businesses close.

    I might not like the fact that I will keep working for not much more money than the jobkeeper payment, but I sure as heck will be liking the fact that the transition out of lockdown (and off jobkeeper payments) will be easier for me.

    I worry that as a saver, who avoided the stock market recently as it seemed primed for a correction, my savings will be eroded by inflation.

    But in the end all these concerns are very individualistic and somewhat selfish. I would rather live in a society that attempts to preserve the livelihoods of those less fortunate, like employees and small business owners affected by covid.

  • mhasan on 10/04/2020 - 10:42
    +1

    Dear average tax payer,
    The government does not educate businesses to save money for once in 100 years pandemic.
    Secondly, since when did we start to punish people for spending money on holidays, cars and luxuries that they worked very hard for.
    Thirdly, all small businesses paid 27.5% on each dollar they profited over generations, little help from the government should not make you wonder why them!
    I'm sure, you are thinking positively and would be worried about paying it back but this is what makes us a society. There is a reason we are not communist here.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/04/2020 - 10:47
      -2

      The only argument ill make is a business is a risk and though i concede this is a once in a 100 year event but generally speaking business should be able to weather a 6 month storm

      I agree with some of the economic arguments made long term it might be better for the economy however i would argue the government should be loaning the money to business NOT giving them the money

      BUT your argument that a business can blow money sh!t when things are good then ask for a handout when things are bad is off its nut. Personally i think 6 months of down turn isnt actually that long and to have a buffer so thin that after 2 weeks your closing your doors says more about the business and the people that own it opposed to the fact we are in a economic down turn…

      • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2020 - 14:50
        +2

        Mate how about you tell that to all the major airlines being bailed out right now. They should be able to last more than 6 months with no income right???

        Yet even the big airlines cannot sustain themselves for more than 6 months, yet you expect a mum and dad home business to be able to do so?

      • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2020 - 14:51

        Have you ever run a business yourself???

      • suntap on 10/04/2020 - 17:10
        +1

        @ontheshred So I presume you have enough money for rent or mortgage, food, health, vehicle, school fees,nappies, etc to last you well over SIX months and that you wouldn't be doing it tough after two weeks with no money coming in?

        You personally think that small business should get a loan not "a handout" from the government and pay their workers for absolutely NO RETURN on that investment? In most instances those workers who get the $1500 may not have any work to actually do.

        By your stance,, the government should not ever give anyone the dole or jobseeker, as 6 months is not that long and if you can't pay all your bills and keep your family fed for 6 months on your savings, then your family deserves to go hungry?

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 10/04/2020 - 19:12
          +1

          Actually i think the opposite everyone can get the doll or job seeker for 6-12 months! when they lose there job but it should be cut off after 6-12 months - this stops long term doll cheats it also stops people that work cash and get welfare - i actually think new start should be triple what it is but it should only last 6-12 months and it shouldnt be means tested

          But i concede that 1500 to keep businesses open isnt a bad idea i think ive read enough to be convinced i was wrong i do think it will get milked by dodgy people but the good will probably out weight the bad

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join