|
JobKeeper and Aviation employees in Oz.
The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking.
We all know that lots have missed out on the $1500/fortnight payment , many from the arts, casuals under a certain time with one employer etc and the 6000 odd who work for Toll Dnata being disqualified because their employer is foreign owned. Specifically, I'm wondering, how many aviation people are affected? Are there any other outfits where the foreign government ownership has meant the local salaried workers also miss out despite them paying Australian tax etc. Is there a difference between a company having foreign government ownership or having a bunch of foreign shareholders? Craig Keely, an MP, raised the Toll Dnata case. Did he get anywhere? |
The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking. Where is the "stuffup" The next thing the media will be on about is that we only had 100 odd deaths when it was forecast to be 50,000 as reported by SBS. Are both of these stuff ups or conservative forecasting on an unprecedented event? More like a "beatup" by the media. |
You don't think that overestimating a program by around double isn't a "stuff up"? Give it another name if you don't like that term but it won't change things. It was treasury's modelling alone that arrived at this figure which was announced in the PM's press release on March 30th. Now the government is saying that it was errors during applying by companies that has resulted in the discrepancy. "In a statement, Treasury and the ATO said the mistake came from businesses reporting how much financial assistance they expected to receive, instead of how many employees they thought would be eligible. "For example, over 500 businesses with '1' eligible employee reported a figure of '1,500' (which is the amount of JobKeeper payment they would expect to receive for each fortnight for that employee)," the departments said." (https://treasury.gov.au/media-release/jobkeeper-update)
This is utter rubbish as the $130b estimate came out before even one employer had applied and the statement misrepresents the situation. "Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate. Whatever it's called, it looks like a stuff up. However, this is getting off the track. The OP raised the issue of how many aviation workers missed out by Job Keeper despite being on the payroll of companies in Australia. Let's stick to that. For example, how did Australian based Air New Zealand workers get on given the NZ gov't owns 52% - did any of those get stood down and, if so, were they disqualified from Job Keeper because of foreign involvement? |
Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? We would still be months away from seeing payments. This was an emergency measure formulated almost overnight, there were bound to be errors made. The old “Fast, Cheap, Good” rule applies To JK.
As for foreign companies and their Australian staff, that’s a hard one. |
|
Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? . Now, instead of seeing that those who wrongly, in my opinion, missed out finally get JobKeeper, the government is claiming the reduced amount as a win. They were prepared to fund it, and would have if the treasury estimates hadn't been so wrong, so why not do the right thing by those Australian paid staff currently excluded. Or, as a consistent alternative, no longer require them to pay Australian tax given the foreign involvement of their employer. Will they be prevented from getting the pension when the time comes because they worked for a business that had foreign ownership component? I think not so why the disqualification now? Incidentally, I wrote about this to Fydenburg (as my local member) where his website sates he reads all emails and replies to them. I'm still waiting despite it being three weeks ago. p.s. dragon man, can you re-post the article as the right-hand edge has been clipped and text is missing. Otherwise, what is the link, please? |
"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate. Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO. Based on the data from the applications, the ATO figures line up with the Treasury estimations. Looks lke the Treasury were correct in the estimations. Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO. A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO. Yeah, we have saved $60b. |
Originally Posted by 601
(Post 10792439)
Yeah, we have saved $60b. Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....." Morons. :ugh: |
|
Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....." Yes, certainly the debt is reduced with the new figures but given the initial estimates allowed for it, why not use that for the benefit of those that missed out? Or, Galdian, do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough? Treasury estimated a figure of $130b. Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO. A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO. However, this is getting off the track. |
Originally Posted by down3gr33ns
(Post 10792477)
do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough?
|
Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.
|
Originally Posted by unobtanium
(Post 10792510)
Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.
What exactly are they doing to be 'working' in recent weeks when most of us are stood down and are not engaged except foe the Town Hall updates, which are optional. |
Yes. I do support and expect the Govt to discriminate and make judgement calls when spending our money. |
Originally Posted by unobtanium
(Post 10792510)
Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.
Interesting too how they say the decision only applies to 1 employee,that would mean every other employee receiving jobkeeper would have been paid correctly! |
Originally Posted by down3gr33ns
(Post 10792626)
Discrimination for or against those currently not getting any support? Surely a good judgement call is to support those who need it but are not getting it.
You apparently reckon that money that doesn't exist (has to be borrowed) BUT was predicated on expected requirements in tough times, appears now only half the expected will be required. BUT you still want to go out and have a big night at the pub and just put it on the credit card? Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid? Yes or No....it's not rocket science. Cheers |
Originally Posted by unobtanium
(Post 10792510)
Qantas Engagement Manager? Talk about superfluous positions.
|
Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid? Now, galdian, I’ve answered your question but I see you’ve artfully avoided answering mine in post number 10. I think that puts your answer squarely in the affirmative. As for “go out and have a big night at the pub etc.", what an immature, hysterical, trivialising and jingoistic catch phrase. You would appear to believe that those who work for an Australian employer and getting JobKeeper can “go to the pub“ (aka have some security and a semblance of an income) but those whose employers have a foreign basis are excluded and cannot do the same. Now, that’s equitable – NOT. How do you rationalise the standing down of many thousands without any support whatsoever whilst others doing the same job for another local employer are getting government support? Indeed, there are many still working to various degrees and it is effectively the company getting the benefit via the government wage subsidy. Meanwhile, there are plenty getting NOTHING. |
Oh boy, talk about missing the point - and my apologies if my jingoism was too simplistic, I was hoping it would set the scene in simple, maybe humorous, way.
You get a new credit card in the mail, decide to go out on a big night and blow the credit knowing you'll have to pay it back...with interest...your choice blowing money you don't have. The federal govt has found there's XXX amount of money on their new credit card they WON'T have to blow, won't have to pay back...with interest...and you think they should just go and shout the Oz population a big night out at the pub. IF, IF you've never denied that the $130BN should be repaid...why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent?? :ugh: |
All this arguing about the funding, but no-one seems capable of answering my query about which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.
|
All this arguing about the funding, but no-one seems capable of answering my query about which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected. Just listen or read social media and you will find a lot who will say that they are adversely affected. Now it depends on your definition of "adversely affected" Does it mean people who have not received any payment because they did not meet the criteria or people who are receiving more now that what they were being paid before. The latter may not be "adversely affected" now but they will let everyone know that they are in the future when JobKeeper stops and they have to go back to what they were being paid before. |
As I understand it people not eligible for Jobkeeper can access Jobseeker? Does this apply to the Dnata people?
A lot of people registered for it, including myself, but (thankfully) didn't end up having the required drop in turnover to be eligible for it. This means my part timer missed out on a significant pay rise, so I guess she was adversely affected... |
people not eligible for Jobkeeper can access Jobseeker |
A lot of dnata staff not eligible for jobseeker if partner over the centrelink threshold poor show by the govt these workers pay their dues here as does dnata , a lot have been left on zero income and families are suffering due to significant income loss . It shouldn’t matter where a buisiness was owned as the pm clearly said this was to keep employees connected to their employers it should have had zero benefit to the company. I believe Emirates are paying staff 50% salary from June 30 so at least some relief for some people out there .
|
would set the scene in simple, maybe humorous, way. Government borrowing is a matter of course in their doing business, name one in Australia that hasn’t borrowed/isn’t borrowing to fund projects. You seem to think borrowing is an evil process. Yes, it comes at a price one way or the other either in monetary terms or human terms. You “alluded” to stimulus. Wouldn’t paying those who have missed out the JobKeeper amount provide the stimulus you mention? In lots of cases they could then pay the rent, pay their bills and buy food (have a look at the increased demand that Food Bank is reporting. Even the Victorian Parliamentary kitchens are preparing and distributing 4500 meals a day for those affected by the current circumstances - unprecedented to my knowledge). These people would have some money to spend which in turn flows to other services (landlords, utilities and shops) and be helpful in a widespread manner. The recipients of this spending go on to spend it further - aka stimulus.. ..why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent?? Attempting to put it in some perspective, Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper. $1500/fortnight for the term of JobKeeper comes to around $120m over the length of the scheme. Extrapolating that to, say, 1000 people in the aviation sector in the same boat as Toll Dnata, the figure goes to $200m - small bikkies in the grand scheme of things. Now there are many more exclusions (casuals, arts, university academics &c) so, for arguments sake, let’s assume there are 1 million people currently excluded. Paying them Job Keeper would total around $20bn. Using your logic of savings, this represents a “saving” of $40bn on the original estimate – an estimate the government was prepared to fund if necessary. As I said, some of the money will be spent one way or the other, it’s just a matter of how so that $60bn will get eaten into and is not a "saving" in its entirety. Finally, that no longer has to be spent - |
Just listen or read social media and you will find a lot who will say that they are adversely affected. Looks like it was futile though, thread went off at a tangent. |
Makes me wonder, when jobkeeper runs out that's when the axe will fall. Virgin, Qantas, Jetstar. what that space
|
Originally Posted by Ragnor
(Post 10794545)
Makes me wonder, when jobkeeper runs out that's when the axe will fall. Virgin, Qantas, Jetstar. what that space
Cheaper to keep people stood down without pay than to start paying out redundancies I’d bet they wait till the end of the crisis when they know exactly how many people they’ll need in the post COVID world before people are permanently sacked |
Going against my own statement that we stick to the thread topic, I cannot help myself from joining in on the divergence.
Galdian has failed to answer several questions put to him as a result of his comments:- How do you rationalise the standing down of many thousands without any support whatsoever whilst others doing the same job for another local employer are getting government support? Or, Galdian, do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough? and, to answer one of Galdian's: ..why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent?? |
Originally Posted by down3gr33ns
(Post 10793402)
I doubt those people excluded from the benefits see anything funny in current matters as it affects them. Rather an unsympathetic attitude on your part..
Government borrowing is a matter of course in their doing business, name one in Australia that hasn’t borrowed/isn’t borrowing to fund projects. You seem to think borrowing is an evil process. Yes, it comes at a price one way or the other either in monetary terms or human terms. You “alluded” to stimulus. Wouldn’t paying those who have missed out the JobKeeper amount provide the stimulus you mention? In lots of cases they could then pay the rent, pay their bills and buy food (have a look at the increased demand that Food Bank is reporting. Even the Victorian Parliamentary kitchens are preparing and distributing 4500 meals a day for those affected by the current circumstances - unprecedented to my knowledge). These people would have some money to spend which in turn flows to other services (landlords, utilities and shops) and be helpful in a widespread manner. The recipients of this spending go on to spend it further - aka stimulus.. I would expect the reality is that those denied JobKeeper will access JobSeeker. It follows, then, that the money not being spent on the former (for those currently eliminated from it) will be spent on the latter. That, in turn, erodes the ”saving” of $60b. Some of that money “saved” will be spent, it’s just a matter of under which scheme it occurs. Attempting to put it in some perspective, Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper. $1500/fortnight for the term of JobKeeper comes to around $120m over the length of the scheme. Extrapolating that to, say, 1000 people in the aviation sector in the same boat as Toll Dnata, the figure goes to $200m - small bikkies in the grand scheme of things. Now there are many more exclusions (casuals, arts, university academics &c) so, for arguments sake, let’s assume there are 1 million people currently excluded. Paying them Job Keeper would total around $20bn. Using your logic of savings, this represents a “saving” of $40bn on the original estimate – an estimate the government was prepared to fund if necessary. As I said, some of the money will be spent one way or the other, it’s just a matter of how so that $60bn will get eaten into and is not a "saving" in its entirety. Finally, Because it discriminates against a significant number of people deserving of it - no other reason. - As I'm now,unemployed and no access to any Federal govt assistance (for reasons I understand) I find it hard to see how I'm unsympathetic to any in the same situation. I thought I explained my concern with a touch of whimsy or humour, if no-one agrees suppose I can scratch "comedian" off my list of potential future careers. Thanks for the heads up! :ok::ooh: As I write this I see a couple of other questions from Ringbinder, sure will not satisfy anyone but: - all this crap happened in a small period of time - I think ANY Oz govt would have handled in a similar fashion with available information, libs, lab, anyone - there will ALWAYS be perceptional winners/losers in these circumstances, you'll always have bitching and moaning regardless of the party in power - life's imperfect. You want to make it YOUR perception of those that have missed out and deserve $$ from the govt, so be it. You have kids?? I don't - yet I consider the debt and interest that YOU want to place o YOUR kids/grandchildren and ongoing by taking a $60BN credit card to the pub for a big night out. :ugh: Sure your kids/grandkids will thank you. Cheers |
galdian, I understand and agree with you 100%.
|
If inflation remains under control - the money does not need to be paid back!
The government borrowed the money from the government (us), - they generated it on a keyboard. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed...sponse-package Given every country has been affected inflation should remain stable compared to other countries. |
Originally Posted by patagonianworelaud
(Post 10792865)
... which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.
|
I believe none of the employees for of any of the ME3 airlines in Australia were eligible due to the foreign ownership clause, despite them being Australian residents/citizens and tax payers. There have been some job cuts and maybe more to follow. Not sure what happened to the proposed amendment motion that was meant to go before Parliament????
|
I'd rather a $60 Billion overestimate than a $60 Billion underestimate, and then some, that was the NBN……...
|
I believe none of the employees for of any of the ME3 airlines in Australia were eligible one small Pacific carrier whose staff here are ineligible Toll Dnata has 6000 people missing out on JobKeeper Is it not the case that those employees pay Australian tax, spend their money (when they had it) in Australia to contribute to the overall economy, their employers pay the payroll tax despite there being foreign ownership and are obliged to pay the SGC? Why the differentiation, their operations in Australia would be no different if they weren't foreign owned? * by the time those locked out of Jobkeeper go onto Jobseeker, a good part of that $60bn will disappear as I mentioned earlier. Some just can't seem to grasp that simple point. |
I'm surprised that the usual Law firms aren't jumping onto a class action to recover Tax monies paid by these groups (if they're not eligible for support). The Govt. have opened an interesting can of worms here.
If you look at it from another perspective...would that mean employees of Australian companies in the UK, for example, can claim Jobkeeper? |
Yes Buster, very interesting can indeed. I agree.
aussies employed by the likes of DNATA (and I’m sure there’s more outside of aviation) who have been paying Australian income tax, who are not eligible for Australian government jobkeeper support because they are owned by a “foreign entity” or whatever it is, can those people recover all tax previously paid whilst working for said companies and in future not pay any more tax whilst working for said companies? |
Just a small point, employees do not claim "JobKeeper", their employers do (from the ATO).
CC |
The employee is not entitled to Jobkeeper. The employer is. A Foreign company is not entitled to claim Jobkeeper. Australian Tax paid by an employee is irrelevant, as it’s not their claim.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.