-
I'm rolling my eyes so hard
-
@NTA If I qualify it will be a great program, if I don't It will be terrible
I agree it sounds good, but there will still be plenty who do not qualify. Probably be a few businesses that have let casuals go but have not had a 30% drop.
In my own personal circumstance I am out of work but am not an Australian citizen so Jobseeker could be an issue. If my employer is not eligible I get $0. If my employer is eligible I could get $18,000 over 6 months. So I will now wait patiently to see how my employers turnover is looking.
-
@chimoaus said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life Likely because many are low income workers who struggle on their current incomes. I think the supermarkets pay close to $25 an hour. That is what $800 after tax a week. Pretty tough for a family to pay the rent, groceries and live on that.
So if they are a family on that level of income they basically wouldnโt be paying any tax because they would be eligible for other benefits - FTA, FTB, Rent assistance.
-
going to be interesting to see how this all goes , proving the 30 percent less profit bit , you get flucuations on paper in good times from quarter to quarter , you almost need the full 12 months for it to be accurate in some cases ,
in my case I have a small( used to be big ) landscaping business ,scaled things down around xmas luckily, pay myself a wage , just myself permanent, and bring in contractors and casual labour as i need them ,
Work is showing signs of drying up now , mostly domestic work, not exactly a time where people want tradies at their house ,
So i should be legally eligible for $1500 a fortnight to sit on my arse while the missus goes to work , dont have many expenses at all,
I wasnt expecting this, hasnt happened yet, but I would almost feel guilty taking it to be honest
-
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Why do people who have jobs and are working need income support?
Because Australian politicians are terrified of recessions. Anything to not be 'that guy'.
Tbh, just a flippant remark. I haven't read up enough yet on the job keeper allowance. Seems like 'main street' stimulus, which is better than the other option.
-
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@mariner4life said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Why do people who have jobs and are working need income support?
Because Australian politicians are terrified of recessions. Anything to not be 'that guy'.
Tbh, just a flippant remark. I haven't read up enough yet on the job keeper allowance. Seems like 'main street' stimulus, which is better than the other option.
It's not a flippant remark - it's accurate. Rudd was so panicked at the thought of being the first he followed Henry's advice and handed out cash to dead people and people living overseas. This did just enough to prevent a technical recession. The Liberals have long presented themselves as the superior financial managers because they're not winning the electorate over on social spending.
Now the government has obviously realised there's nothing they can do to prevent a recession, so more than a decade of "we've got a plan for paying down the debt", we're instead going to have the government pay half the wages for half the workforce. A jump in total government spending of 50 per cent, or put another way; 13 per cent of national income for the ยญperiod.
I see commentators are applauding the breadth and depth of this plan to burden future generations but not one of them is capable of explaining how this stimulus works when people can't go out and spend money in a services based economy.
For less than 5000 confirmed cases and 18 deaths two months after the first confirmed case...
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
I see commentators are applauding the breadth and depth of this plan to burden future generations but not one of them is capable of explaining how this stimulus works when people can't go out and spend money in a services based economy.
The money won't evaporate out of their account magically every fortnight if they don't spend it. They'll either spend it on what they need for getting by, or hang onto what they can and discretionary spend once this is all over.
In the meantime, the measures in place are going to fucking hurt large parts of the business community.
So, if 18 deaths is too low a bar, put a number on it. What's your acceptable body count to the end of the year?
-
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
I see commentators are applauding the breadth and depth of this plan to burden future generations but not one of them is capable of explaining how this stimulus works when people can't go out and spend money in a services based economy.
The money won't evaporate out of their account magically every fortnight if they don't spend it. They'll either spend it on what they need for getting by, or hang onto what they can and discretionary spend once this is all over.
Given how many households in Australia live nearly pay cheque to pay cheque, 70% of the median income won't cover all their expenses and as I've already explained: In a services based economy they don't go out and catch up.
In the meantime, the measures in place are going to fucking hurt large parts of the business community.
So, if 18 deaths is too low a bar, put a number on it. What's your acceptable body count to the end of the year?
A couple of thousand Covid 19 associated deaths wouldn't be unexpected given that many are from each influenza season. The vast majority of which are from the same cohort.
So my question is how much debt burden do you find acceptable?
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So my question is how much debt burden do you find acceptable?
The answer to that depends on whether I need to get re-elected or not
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Given how many households in Australia live nearly pay cheque to pay cheque, 70% of the median income won't cover all their expenses
It's 80% according to the figures I saw (39k on 48k), and it will cover their expenses in a lot of cases IF they and the company they work for meet the hurdles. But that is no guarantee. The figure the government is using has been based on assumptions that aren't tested.
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So my question is how much debt burden do you find acceptable?
How long is a piece of string?
Ask some of the proto-capitalists on here and they'll happily tell you tax is theft and small government is the way to go. Which is great right up until shit like this happens and suddenly you need a dose of big government socialism
My view is: whatever is required.
If they're good or bad decisions, it doesn't actually matter, because you don't get a do-over. They're decisions, they're made by the government we elected, and we live with the consequences. The economy was already half-fucked under the last 20 years of mismanagement, from both sides of government, while the rich got richer through schemes that you need a certain amount of influence to access. The poor increasingly get left behind.
I'm fully aware that I fit into the "rich" category according to most peoples' definition, based on household income, debt capacity and equity etc. My kids? No guarantees, increased national debt or not.
$130B in a 2 trillion dollar economy should be easily absorbed - that's only a decade of franking credits with a bit of fossil fuel subsidy on the side, and throw in some politician travel expenses to boot.
-
To further the notion that we're in lockdown in NSW (except for the name), I read this morning "Anyone in NSW who leaves their house without a "reasonable excuse" could spend up to six months in prison and face an $11,000 fine under an emergency ministerial directive gazetted overnight."
Also we had another reduction of new NSW cases, with 114 recorded yesterday.
-
@NTA said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
Given how many households in Australia live nearly pay cheque to pay cheque, 70% of the median income won't cover all their expenses
It's 80% according to the figures I saw (39k on 48k), and it will cover their expenses in a lot of cases IF they and the company they work for meet the hurdles. But that is no guarantee. The figure the government is using has been based on assumptions that aren't tested.
It will cover their expenses for the still-employed baristas and casuals in hospitality, well those who aren't now out of work because government policy forced the closure of their industry. In fact they'll end up better off.
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - Australia:
So my question is how much debt burden do you find acceptable?
How long is a piece of string?
I answered your question.
Ask some of the proto-capitalists on here and they'll happily tell you tax is theft and small government is the way to go. Which is great right up until shit like this happens and suddenly you need a dose of big government socialism
My view is: whatever is required.
That's not an answer.
If they're good or bad decisions, it doesn't actually matter, because you don't get a do-over. They're decisions, they're made by the government we elected, and we live with the consequences. The economy was already half-fucked under the last 20 years of mismanagement, from both sides of government, while the rich got richer through schemes that you need a certain amount of influence to access. The poor increasingly get left behind.
Well, what's the point in discussing it really?
BTW the Federal Government was in a net positive financial position just over a decade ago.
$130B in a 2 trillion dollar economy should be easily absorbed - that's only a decade of franking credits with a bit of fossil fuel subsidy on the side, and throw in some politician travel expenses to boot.
You do realise government revenues aren't GDP? But I guess to Keynesians, there's no amount of other people's money you can't spend.
-
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
To further the notion that we're in lockdown in NSW (except for the name), I read this morning "Anyone in NSW who leaves their house without a "reasonable excuse" could spend up to six months in prison and face an $11,000 fine under an emergency ministerial directive gazetted overnight."
Also we had another reduction of new NSW cases, with 114 recorded yesterday.
This is my big problem with how this has been playing out - there has been no announcement to say that the restrictions are compulsory and Morrison himself said they only advised. How can they push that through overnight without notifying the public. Or is it there and ready to go, but dated for a couple of days in the future to allow a proper announcement?
Do you have a link to the story?
-
-
@Nepia said in Coronavirus - Australia:
@barbarian said in Coronavirus - Australia:
To further the notion that we're in lockdown in NSW (except for the name), I read this morning "Anyone in NSW who leaves their house without a "reasonable excuse" could spend up to six months in prison and face an $11,000 fine under an emergency ministerial directive gazetted overnight."
Also we had another reduction of new NSW cases, with 114 recorded yesterday.
This is my big problem with how this has been playing out - there has been no announcement to say that the restrictions are compulsory and Morrison himself said they only advised. How can they push that through overnight without notifying the public. Or is it there and ready to go, but dated for a couple of days in the future to allow a proper announcement?
Morrison can't enforce the penalties though, as it is a matter for the States.
The Premier in NSW has been pretty clear for the past few days in communicating the penalties for doing the wrong thing, and they have publicised a few cases where people have been jailed for breaking quarantine.
Coronavirus - Australia