|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. As you millenials get older and wiser, you will be the first to vote for Hanson and Corey Bernardi! Start stomping your feet because the revolution is coming. You're just a future conservative voter in the making, just in need of direction and moulding and then the time will come when you will be complaining about the generation or 2 that come after. lol One day you will all learn that this Labor/Liberal farce is just a farce. You clown. You are so off you're embarrassing yourself. 'Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.' Oh dear! So what you're saying is that your re-education process will be a long and hard road for yourself. I have a lot of patience.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting garbage, is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to himself 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard" or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. I agree with what you're saying but I think you're being a tad harsh on him. I don't agree with his opinions on most things but he's at least respectful and known to change his opinion based on facts (something I could be better at).
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. the problem is, you don't know the facts. You are just a partisan supporter of one side and formulate your opinion based on that. Nice that you try to check the veracity of facts, but here's the thing. both the LNP and Labor are not being honest. Labor for instance supported the FWC decision in the back room. they could have stopped it but chose not to. But then you have Shorten try to proclaim the moral high ground and take the populist line which is farcical. The 2 main parties are so identical these days its almost comical. The only party that actually truthfully opposed the FWC were the Greenies, and One nation. not sure about the others, but they are the only ones being honest that I know of.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting garbage, is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to himself 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard" or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. I agree with what you're saying but I think you're being a tad harsh on him. I don't agree with his opinions on most things but he's at least respectful and known to change his opinion based on facts (something I could be better at). For someone with an engineering degree, and a background in science, I expect better. From the other peanuts not so much.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting garbage, is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to himself 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard" or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. I agree with what you're saying but I think you're being a tad harsh on him. I don't agree with his opinions on most things but he's at least respectful and known to change his opinion based on facts (something I could be better at). For someone with an engineering degree, and a background in science, I expect better. From the other peanuts not so much. With you on that 100%. I suspect he's not the only one here with a science education spouting BS though.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. the problem is, you don't know the facts. You are just a partisan supporter of one side and formulate your opinion based on that. Nice that you try to check the veracity of facts, but here's the thing. both the LNP and Labor are not being honest. Labor for instance supported the FWC decision in the back room. they could have stopped it but chose not to. But then you have Shorten try to proclaim the moral high ground and take the populist line which is farcical. The 2 main parties are so identical these days its almost comical. The only party that actually truthfully opposed the FWC were the Greenies, and One nation. not sure about the others, but they are the only ones being honest that I know of. You have a comprehension problem. This is not an argument about politics. It's an argument about mathematics. In this instance I do know the facts. 4.75% is not 16.66% - 25%. I am not interested in discussing whatever it is you're trying start in the paragraphs that follows that. Could. Not. Care. Less. Go away.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. the problem is, you don't know the facts. You are just a partisan supporter of one side and formulate your opinion based on that. Nice that you try to check the veracity of facts, but here's the thing. both the LNP and Labor are not being honest. Labor for instance supported the FWC decision in the back room. they could have stopped it but chose not to. But then you have Shorten try to proclaim the moral high ground and take the populist line which is farcical. The 2 main parties are so identical these days its almost comical. The only party that actually truthfully opposed the FWC were the Greenies, and One nation. not sure about the others, but they are the only ones being honest that I know of. You have a comprehension problem. This is not an argument about politics. It's an argument about mathematics. In this instance I do know the facts. 4.75% is not 16.66% - 25%. I am not interested in discussing whatever it is you're trying start in the paragraphs that follows that. Could. Not. Care. Less. Go away. I know what you were getting at. believe me. I hit back at you because I found your post to be very harsh and OTT and all your posts seem to be partisan. I'm not trying to start anything. you did when you interjected with that reply to BETHFC. The math may be wrong, but Payroll Tax is a huge expense on small business, and that is killer for employment. I don't know what the solution is, but higher spending and higher taxation isn't a solution. If anything, we need to go the other way because we are becomming very noncompetitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. Really? so how is a small business owner suppose to weed (pun intended) out the bad ones? maybe Psychometric Testing? lol
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. Jules has it right, our margin includes PL/PI/work Cover into that amount so I was incorrect. Also, what's your problem? You get so fucking agro over simple things. Whereas Jules suggested where I might have been wrong (and was correct), you've gone off your head like a tosser. Does being a prick make you feel better? Do you not get attention at home? Seriously sick of you being a right - oops, I just ate my own poop... about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. In this instance I was incorrect as although on our profit/loss statement it says payroll tax, it includes other things not shown on the statement. Instead of being a right prick about it, all you had to say was in QLD the rate is 4.75%, you may be incorrect, in which case I would have checked it and agreed with you. I have no problem with being wrong, I do have a problem with people carrying on about something that is wrong. This is a football forum dude. You don't win points on the internet for being 100% correct all the time. I'm not going to waste my time, if someone knows better, I can be corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. We hired a grad last year who interviewed extremely well and turned out to have very poor work ethic and unreasonable expectations. It is very hard to pick them. It's also very hard to get rid of people sometimes when red flags start appearing. They could hit up fair work Australia with a bullying claim and you're in hot water.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. We hired a grad last year who interviewed extremely well and turned out to have very poor work ethic and unreasonable expectations. It is very hard to pick them. It's also very hard to get rid of people sometimes when red flags start appearing. They could hit up fair work Australia with a bullying claim and you're in hot water. Yeh time and time again all businesses get it wrong and employ the wrong person. it's very hard for sure. One time I had to work with a monster that just got employed and within 1 month he kept trying to make me look bad so somehow my boss would get rid of me and he had free reign. little did he know, that the boss and I have a lot of respect for each other and knows the score. So we gave him enough rope and he hung himself badly. So bye bye and the equilibrium was once again restored and all was good in the universe. We couldn't just sack him despite all the problems he was causing with the clients.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. We hired a grad last year who interviewed extremely well and turned out to have very poor work ethic and unreasonable expectations. It is very hard to pick them. It's also very hard to get rid of people sometimes when red flags start appearing. They could hit up fair work Australia with a bullying claim and you're in hot water. Yeh time and time again all businesses get it wrong and employ the wrong person. it's very hard for sure. One time I had to work with a monster that just got employed and within 1 month he kept trying to make me look bad so somehow my boss would get rid of me and he had free reign. little did he know, that the boss and I have a lot of respect for each other and knows the score. So we gave him enough rope and he hung himself badly. So bye bye and the equilibrium was once again restored and all was good in the universe. We couldn't just sack him despite all the problems he was causing with the clients. That's terrible. What RoarBrisbane is saying though is that a small percentage of these younger people give the majority a bad name. We have some guys working in the lab that work like their lives depend on it. They interviewed ok and were only put on because of their experience. Furthers my point that you don't know what you're in for until they start actually working.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. We hired a grad last year who interviewed extremely well and turned out to have very poor work ethic and unreasonable expectations. It is very hard to pick them. It's also very hard to get rid of people sometimes when red flags start appearing. They could hit up fair work Australia with a bullying claim and you're in hot water. Yeh time and time again all businesses get it wrong and employ the wrong person. it's very hard for sure. One time I had to work with a monster that just got employed and within 1 month he kept trying to make me look bad so somehow my boss would get rid of me and he had free reign. little did he know, that the boss and I have a lot of respect for each other and knows the score. So we gave him enough rope and he hung himself badly. So bye bye and the equilibrium was once again restored and all was good in the universe. We couldn't just sack him despite all the problems he was causing with the clients. That's terrible. What RoarBrisbane is saying though is that a small percentage of these younger people give the majority a bad name. We have some guys working in the lab that work like their lives depend on it. They interviewed ok and were only put on because of their experience. Furthers my point that you don't know what you're in for until they start actually working. I agree. Most young people are pretty good. Shit workers come in all shapes and sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. Jules has it right, our margin includes PL/PI/work Cover into that amount so I was incorrect. Also, what's your problem? You get so fucking agro over simple things. Whereas Jules suggested where I might have been wrong (and was correct), you've gone off your head like a tosser. Does being a prick make you feel better? Do you not get attention at home? Seriously sick of you being a right - oops, I just ate my own poop... about everything. You are having a laugh surely? Do you not possess any introspective skills at all. Can you not see that it is YOU that is going off " like a tosser" every time you post. From going off about politicians, to the pissweak millenials, to the tax rate that your company doesn't pay, to the fact (apparently) that Greeks are low dogs or whatever it was you said, to wanting to murder anyone that commits a crime to a hundred other things. You tar a whole generation with the one brush, conveniently forgetting that a few short years ago it was your Gen Y generation that was copping a hell of a caning. Presumably you don't classify yourself as a work shy layabout? Perhaps if you were a bit measured in your posting style you wouldn't elicit such a vociferous response from myself and others. I mean are you wilfully ignorant, blindingly uninformed, deliberately stupid, gullible or too lazy to do the tiniest research before you repeat what some tool on the job site told you or that you saw a on facebook page? Which is it?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. Jules has it right, our margin includes PL/PI/work Cover into that amount so I was incorrect. Still way, way, way off. Do your sums again. It aint 2 months and it certainly isn't 3. Not even close.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I hate the it's too hard to find anyone, everyone out there has a bad attitude, they are lazy, they turn up to to work drunk/hungover, etc. that gets trotted out almost always by those in the hospitality industry. I just shake my head, if you're bringing someone into your business and they are shite that's down to your poor recruiting or training, so get your shit together and stop looking for pity. We hired a grad last year who interviewed extremely well and turned out to have very poor work ethic and unreasonable expectations. It is very hard to pick them. It's also very hard to get rid of people sometimes when red flags start appearing. They could hit up fair work Australia with a bullying claim and you're in hot water. Yeh time and time again all businesses get it wrong and employ the wrong person. it's very hard for sure. One time I had to work with a monster that just got employed and within 1 month he kept trying to make me look bad so somehow my boss would get rid of me and he had free reign. little did he know, that the boss and I have a lot of respect for each other and knows the score. So we gave him enough rope and he hung himself badly. So bye bye and the equilibrium was once again restored and all was good in the universe. We couldn't just sack him despite all the problems he was causing with the clients. That's terrible. What RoarBrisbane is saying though is that a small percentage of these younger people give the majority a bad name. We have some guys working in the lab that work like their lives depend on it. They interviewed ok and were only put on because of their experience. Furthers my point that you don't know what you're in for until they start actually working. Yea the grad one is a little different as you're obviously hiring this person full-time but in terms of the small business hospitality jobs most are casuals. I don't know why but a lot of these owners seem to wear it as a badge of honor or some kind of free pass that the workers they employ are hopeless and it's just one of those things in today's world. When in reality they are just losing hundreds of dollars each week out of there own poor decisions. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Re: grads, you just need one of these awesome promotional videos This is why you're missing out.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xRe: grads, you just need one of these awesome promotional videos This is why you're missing out. Yeah word lol -PB
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Alright, someone help me. Saw this posted on Expand The A-League facebook page.  Do I email my state, federal, or both members asking them what they're going to do about this? Which one?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThere are 2 sides of this coin. My moral side tells me that I am against the cuts because it hits low income workers and our young. Point number 1. However, the irony is that years ago, these penalty cuts were already awarded but for workers working for the biggest corporates and multi-nationals - Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's etc etc. So the FWC has made a decision to bring everyone in line with that. Make the playing field between big business and small business EQUAL. If you ask me, all penalty rates should go back to 200% on Sundays, but that should apply to Coles, Woolworths, McDonalds too not just to small cafes and take away shops which can least afford to stay open even. So, either: 1) 200% penalty rates for all, or 2) 150% for all. NOT, 200% for small business and 150% for big corporations. That would be not fair. Not that simple, in theory, the EBA's the bigger companies have negotiated have a higher regular rate in exchange for lower penalty rates. Now the SDA was involved so who knows if the workers were actually better off but that's the principle that was applied. OK. So the big corporates pay a higher hourly rate in exchange for the 150%. Sounds fair. then why not apply the same rules to small business? if they want 150% on Sundays, then pay a higher rate during the rest of the week. Or don't open Sunday's and the workers will really have something to complain about (sarcasm). That would have to be a business decision made by each individual business. some businesses find that employing others is too much of a hassle - too much red tape, expense and also the quality of worker out there with all the bad attitude. others just simply can't afford to open and pay 200% What's important is a level playing field for everyone, not one set of rules for huge companies and another for the tiny micro-business cafe or take-away shop owner. I'm all for 150% but why not raise the rate so that workers aren't really disadvantaged from losing their Double Pay on Sundays? But I do see you point about workers. Everyone has a whinge and there is a big Elephant in the room. For instance, if company tax rates are reduced (tin foil hat on) then what will be the affect of that for workers? I work for what you'd probably call a small to medium size consultancy firm. The biggest killer tax wise for us is payroll tax. To pay it, we basically work 2-3 months of the year for no profit. 2 or 3 months ! ! Farking hell. You need to inform yourself at least once in a while. In Qld the rate is 4.75%. https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/employing/payroll-tax/calculating/thresholds Based on a 52 week year that equates to 2.5 weeks. You're only out by a factor of somewhere between 320% and 480%. Bloody Gen Y's, they've 'graduated' with Mickey Mouse degrees, a poor work ethic, an inability to conduct basic research, lack critical thinking skills and don't even possess a fundamental grasp of mathematics. (At least 'millenials' can use the interwebz.) It's no wonder people like Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Trump, Corey Bernadi et al managed to get elected when people swallow any old garbage, 99% of which could be rebutted with a modicum of effort, they hear in a conversation with an uninformed pillock. For the record Payroll Tax is an absolute farce that needs to go. And in fact was supposed to go, along with stamp duty, with the introduction of the GST. I assumed whoever told him that factored in other things like Work Cover. Either way I'd be highly dubious if my employer told me something like that. And yeah it should have gone. Really though the states relying on the feds to fund the services they manage is flawed. At the very least I reckon they should give health to the feds to manage. The thing is, and this is what annoys me about his (and others) posting of garbage is that he is an educated person and not some random meth head junkie. So you would think instead of, time and time again, ignorantly parroting what some bozo who votes for one nation says he (and others) would think to themselves 'gee that doesn't sound quite right' and then do some basic research to check the veracity of said statement. Whenever I hear something that I think is doubtful I always check it before I state it as FACT. And if I can't check it in a timely manner I preface the statement with "I've heard...." or 'this may not be absolutely 100% but....'. Saves rank embarrassment. Of course 'opinion' doesn't need to be fact checked because it is 'opinion' and you're free to believe in the magic teapot if you want to. But if you're actually making a statement about actual facts such as payroll tax, or politicians super or whatever you choose to argue then you better come locked and loaded with substantiating data. Jules has it right, our margin includes PL/PI/work Cover into that amount so I was incorrect. Still way, way, way off. Do your sums again. It aint 2 months and it certainly isn't 3. Not even close. 2 months of average profit champion. Not 2 months of gross income. We've gone from 2 staff to 4 so our margins are down while they're training up.
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAlright, someone help me. Saw this posted on Expand The A-League facebook page. Do I email my state, federal, or both members asking them what they're going to do about this? Which one? Anyone able to help? Who do I email??
|
|
|
|
|
chillbilly
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAlright, someone help me. Saw this posted on Expand The A-League facebook page. Do I email my state, federal, or both members asking them what they're going to do about this? Which one? Anyone able to help? Who do I email?? Since that graph came from the article linked below I'd say your response should be targeted at the NSW state government level but nothing is stopping you from emailing both to highlight your displeasure at the unequal status of government grants. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rugby-union-rugby-league-win-big-grants-over-higher-participation-sports-20170302-gup5i9.html
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Michaelia Cash failing to disclose her swag joint. Why is it so hard to just fucking declare this shit? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMichaelia Cash failing to disclose her swag joint. Why is it so hard to just fucking declare this shit? -PB Too busy syphoning tax $$$ into offshore bank accounts. She really has to lose her job. This happens too often and the excuses never change. The PM/Opposition leader comes out defending their character and tries to sweep it under the carpet. Not good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xMichaelia Cash failing to disclose her swag joint. Why is it so hard to just fucking declare this shit? -PB Too busy syphoning tax $$$ into offshore bank accounts. She really has to lose her job. This happens too often and the excuses never change. The PM/Opposition leader comes out defending their character and tries to sweep it under the carpet. Not good enough. Yup, they are gonna lose the next election regardless, but show some spine ffs. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Victoria have stood down their two speakers over legal but dodgy looking misuse of ministerial vehicles (using them for transport to a Bruce Springsteen concert). When will these fuckers learn? -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
No one really buys the pay gap bs do they?
|
|
|
|