removed
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Riding your OD to Canadian Optical Franchise Dominance in 10 Easy Steps
Collapse
X
-
They took money the government freely offered. They legally used it for the purposes the government wanted them to use it for, to stay open and keep Australian's working during the pandemic. They or any other company were under no obligation to give money back to the government, this was not a loan but a grant. Who knows what could've happened to the Australian economy if a clawback provision had been in place and many companies decided not to take the funding? I've taken maybe 4 college economics classes in my life--I only know enough about it to understand how much I really don't know about it.
I do know that Payroll accounts for approximately 70% of a business's operating costs, so if the government gave a big grant to keep Australia open I wonder how many other companies posted a profit because of this program? In the US we get to see the balance sheets of publicly owned companies, I am not sure if that is the case in Australia. So that makes me would wonder how many small businesses made a profit too?
You can see the payroll accounting for a majority of operating costs here:
The labour share of income for Australian workers has fallen below 50 per cent for the first time in decades, while the profit share hit record levels. Here's why this has happened, writes Gareth Hutchens.
New analysis shows ASX300 corporations banked a total of $3.8bn in government subsidies in 2020, including $2.5bn of jobkeeper
"The ASX300 companies were responsible for claiming just 3% of the $83bn of wage subsidies on offer in 2020, suggesting large public companies are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to companies banking subsidies."
We get it, you hate Specsavers...Last edited by NAICITPO; 04-24-2023, 10:37 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by optio View PostThe issue we're discussing, is whether the word "controversial" can be applied to what happened. That's it. Is it reasonable that Wiki describes it as a "controversy".
Who benefitted from that 90 million dollar tax expenditure? Certainly not the tax payers as it came out of their pockets. Certainly not the government as it didn't go to any public works. What about Specsavers franchisees - did it benefit them? Well no. They took the hit on their reputation for receiving the money, but they didn't even benefit from the payout - it was offshored to head office. So even they didn't benefit.
90 million Australian tax dollars spent and nothing to show for it. It went to the pocket of a billionaire. In Canada, there was an ethics probe of a Liberal MP because of a contract worth $17,000.
(https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trad...ules-1.6192820)
So again, I'm not asking you to deem what happened illegal. What we're arguing needs to clear a much lower bar. 90 million dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Wiki deems it a controversy. You don't even have to agree with it, but is the use of the word reasonable or unreasonable?
90 million and nothing to show for it? The economy didn't collapse, that was the idea of jobsavers in the first place was it not?
The ASX300 companies they were only responsibile for 3% of the 83 billion of wage subsidies. Which means pretty much all business, not just foreign business got profits. You can see from here that through September 2020, during the height of the pandemic, profits for companies were up 14.9%.
The labour share of income for Australian workers has fallen below 50 per cent for the first time in decades, while the profit share hit record levels. Here's why this has happened, writes Gareth Hutchens.
And again it is really not difficult math to understand. If 70% of a business's operating cost is payroll and the government is paying that you can run incredibly lean and make profits.
Why aren't people calling for all the small businesses that showed a profit to also send back the wages subsidies too? Why are you so up in arms about the 90 million Specsavers got when there's another $82,910,000,000 out there sitting in the pocket books of business owners?
Again we get it, you hate Specsavers...
Comment
-
Originally posted by optio View PostThat's exactly it. The Jobsavers provision was to save jobs in Australia. It wasn't intended to line the pockets of a foreign billionaire.
But you do allude to something else. Of course you can sit back and say, "Well, in the big picture, Specsavers has been helpful to the Australian economy as a whole, despite that 90 million-dollar black hole." That I'm not going to argue. But narratives are important. We live in cancel culture. There's a lot of people and things that get cancelled, despite their overall benefit to society. It is what it is. We remember what you do wrong, not necessarily what you do right, especially when it comes to tax subsidies, wealth inequality, and offshoring of public dollars.
I don't understand why where the money goes afterwards is relevant?
Comment
Comment