Riding your OD to Canadian Optical Franchise Dominance in 10 Easy Steps

[eastgtaod]

Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).

And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.

I don't care what Wiki says.

Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?

It's pretty easy to find examples of where have-nots direct their anger at haves, and not just at policy makers.

[NAICITPO]

Can't someone be upset at BOTH the government AND Specsavers? At the government for poor policy and at Specsavers for benefitting from it?

You can be mad at whoever you want. But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list. You should also expect a government to prioritize what is best for their citizens. One did what was expected of them, and one did not.

[eastgtaod]

But you should expect a for profit company to put profit at the top of their priority list.

Yes. But I think you've been arguing more than this. That money acquired in ANY (legal) fashion is ethical because it benefits shareholders.

In this case, it's about almost a hundred million in tax dollars intended for businesses in dire need, whisked away by a foreign company valued in the billions. Legal yes. Morally correct? More like morally bankrupt.

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

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:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...umped/12623176

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...itive-earnings

"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...

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

The 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?

Is it a controversy? Sure. We are debating it right now, so it is controversial. But I don't care that you or wiki finds it controversial. I don't put anymore weight on wiki finding it controversial than you finding it controversial or anyone else.

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%.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-...umped/12623176

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...

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

What did they have to do to GET the 90 million? They had to stay open during the pandemic and continue employing people. That was the whole reason for the jobsavers provision in the first place, to keep people working and the economy afloat during the pandemic. That is not nothing.

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

That'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.

Does Specsavers operate stores in Australia? And are the people who work in those stores Australians? And if they are, could you call the jobs they work at 'Australian jobs'?

I don't understand why where the money goes afterwards is relevant?

[NAICITPO]

Why remove your posts? Did you get a job at Specsavers??