All due to the orginal setup of having to declare your work hours in advance which off course was impossible for
most casual employees but they had to put something down so most underdeclared as that was better then to
over declare and get maybe nothing in payment and get less from working.
The simple fix was to work out the payment on what they earned the previous week but off course that was to
simple and hence the tax figures were different to what they earned.
@go-tazz wrote:All due to the orginal setup of having to declare your work hours in advance which off course was impossible for
most casual employees but they had to put something down so most underdeclared as that was better then to
over declare and get maybe nothing in payment and get less from working.
The simple fix was to work out the payment on what they earned the previous week but off course that was to
simple and hence the tax figures were different to what they earned.
Not completely.
A lot of it was with people who got jobs during the financial year. Those wages were averaged over the financial year, taking no account of the fact that when most recipients in that boat were receiving CL payments, they were entitled to them. Robodebt then tried to gouge back the perceived overpayments. Which weren't overpayments as the vast majority were entitled to them.
An example - somebody is unemployed for 3 months. They then get a job that pays them $75k over 9 months. Robodebt averages their income as $75k for the year, decides they weren't entitled to any or all of the income CL gave them when they were unemployed, and sends a letter of demand, with threats of dire consequences if the leaner doesn't cough up.
I doubt a large percentage were subject to your scenario - if that were the case, they would be liable to return the overpayment. That wasn't the problem with Robodebt; they were being asked to repay money they had been entitled to receive.
@davewil1964 wrote:
@go-tazz wrote:All due to the orginal setup of having to declare your work hours in advance which off course was impossible for
most casual employees but they had to put something down so most underdeclared as that was better then to
over declare and get maybe nothing in payment and get less from working.
The simple fix was to work out the payment on what they earned the previous week but off course that was to
simple and hence the tax figures were different to what they earned.
Not completely.
A lot of it was with people who got jobs during the financial year. Those wages were averaged over the financial year, taking no account of the fact that when most recipients in that boat were receiving CL payments, they were entitled to them. Robodebt then tried to gouge back the perceived overpayments. Which weren't overpayments as the vast majority were entitled to them.
An example - somebody is unemployed for 3 months. They then get a job that pays them $75k over 9 months. Robodebt averages their income as $75k for the year, decides they weren't entitled to any or all of the income CL gave them when they were unemployed, and sends a letter of demand, with threats of dire consequences if the leaner doesn't cough up.
I doubt a large percentage were subject to your scenario - if that were the case, they would be liable to return the overpayment. That wasn't the problem with Robodebt; they were being asked to repay money they had been entitled to receive.
The problem was that they The best advice we have is that raising a debt wholly or partly on the basis of ATO-averaged income is not sufficient under law," Government Services Minister Stuart Robert said.
More than 370,000 people were affected, with some having been issued multiple notices.
I have a Daughter and a Grand Daughter who both went through the scenario I posted and they've both
received letters about the class action and so have all their work mates most of which work in aged care and
other casual jobs as that new system was a nightmare from the start specificall set up for casuals.
The close to 25% plus of the casual workforce makes up a big number in this class action as a lot of them went
through hell trying to deal with a system that just doesn't work and at the start many over stated until they
worked out that they were losing money if they worked less hours so they under stated and then Centrelink
would either stop the next payment or made them fill out that they would get more the following week which
would then leave them short and unable to pay all of their bills.
There were also plenty off times where they didn't claim any Centrelink payment for the fortnight as they worked
enough hours.
The class action runs for people that receiving some sort of Centrelink payment and worked during the years
after July 1 2010 which is just about all of the casual workforce as that was the main reason new systems were
brought into place and Robodebt just compared what they earned and what they stated they earned without
checking actual figures stated each week so they received a debt that they didn't own.
