topic Robodebt in Community Spirit

Robodebt

cezm — Fri, 29 May 2020 07:11:38 GMT

Such a shame they didn't get sound advice before putting people through this trauma - bullies

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.

Therefore, we will return that money and move forward with our income-compliance program.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-29/federal-government-refund-robodebt-scheme-repay-debts/12299410

Re: Robodebt

k1ooo-slr-sales — Fri, 29 May 2020 07:25:12 GMT

how many millions of dollars ~~spent~~ wasted on a scheme that will now deliver a negative return seeing as all monies collected will now be refunded?

I am sure this will be probed in Senate Estimates.

Re: Robodebt

go-tazz — Fri, 29 May 2020 08:03:44 GMT

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.

Re: Robodebt

myoclon1cjerk — Fri, 29 May 2020 08:09:16 GMT

And those hard done by could be waiting up to 12 months to get their money refunded.

Re: Robodebt

debra9275 — Fri, 29 May 2020 08:33:10 GMT

I hear the class action is till going ahead which is good news,,, with over 2,000 suicides caused by the illegal robodebt.. I imagine the Govt are also going to have a huge 'damages. bill to pay as well

Re: Robodebt

davewil1964 — Fri, 29 May 2020 08:58:36 GMT

@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.

Re: Robodebt

go-tazz — Fri, 29 May 2020 12:27:02 GMT

@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.

Re: Robodebt

cezm — Fri, 29 May 2020 21:19:52 GMT

They will apparently also be refunding any monetary costs incurred as a result of having to pay the non-debt so I guess that'll cost a bit more to work out

Re: Robodebt

davidc4430 — Fri, 29 May 2020 22:01:09 GMT

i heard this discussed on ABC radio last night

and Scomo did his press conference knowing this was about to be anounced and said NOTHING

leaving it to his underling to face the music about 5 minutes later with the anouncement.

scomo, when bad news happens, he runs.

oh and they released this late on a friday so it missed most news coverages, by the time monday gets here it will be 'old' news

just like last weeks friday anouncement of that little 60 billion dollar mess.

Re: Robodebt

davidc4430 — Fri, 29 May 2020 22:02:17 GMT

@cezm wrote:
They will apparently also be refunding any monetary costs incurred as a result of having to pay the non-debt so I guess that'll cost a bit more to work out

luckily they have a spare 60 billion in the bottom drawer

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sat, 30 May 2020 02:59:34 GMT

@debra9275 wrote:
I hear the class action is till going ahead which is good news,,, with over 2,000 suicides caused by the illegal robodebt.. I imagine the Govt are also going to have a huge 'damages. bill to pay as well

2,000 robodebt related suicides ? Arguably our Centrelink is more deadly than what coronavirus is currently

One could say the after the war , America got the Geman rocket scientists, Russia the German jet aircraft scientists and Australia the German social-welfare technocrats

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sat, 30 May 2020 03:06:18 GMT

The ATO cross reference should have only been used at the end of the financial year , when both Centrelink earning inputs can be logically fairly compared with ATO lodged gross earnings

Simple but they obviously could not wait - like yeah , someone will money grab and flee overseas !

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sat, 30 May 2020 03:34:05 GMT

@rogevibe wrote:
The ATO cross reference should have only been used at the end of the financial year , when both Centrelink earning inputs can be logically fairly compared with ATO lodged gross earnings
Simple but they obviously could not wait - like yeah , someone will money grab and flee overseas !

But anyhow they must have sorted out the data mining because last year when I had conventional casual work they were cross referencing my declared fortnightly income with obviously data from the employer directly

However i do remember years ago you had to calculate earnings in advance or partially in advance - a crazy fantasy for some casual work that is piecemeal - always a difference in reporting - and knowing that any chronic clerical incompetence will result in centrelink workplace intervention....

I was thinking no wonder the commercial cash-in-hand economy is so prevalent , as instinctively if a process is unreasonably problematic , then alludes to disqualification from the endeavour

Re: Robodebt

davidc4430 — Sat, 30 May 2020 08:45:00 GMT

Robodebt class action to continue as vindicated recipients push for damages, ask for an apology

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-30/robodebt-class-action-continue-damages-debts-waived/12302174

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbMKjLe-RFA

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sat, 30 May 2020 10:12:47 GMT

@davidc4430 wrote:
Robodebt class action to continue as vindicated recipients push for damages, ask for an apology

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-30/robodebt-class-action-continue-damages-debts-waived/12302174

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbMKjLe-RFA

Class action by one of those companies that advertise no win no fee ?

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sat, 30 May 2020 10:20:06 GMT

Stupid and arrogent of big aunty not to have an accessable appeal process before final debt notice - so serves themselves right , wonder how many fat cats end in "fisheries dept" over this

Re: Robodebt

go-tazz — Sat, 30 May 2020 11:00:34 GMT

@rogevibe wrote:
Class action by one of those companies that advertise no win no fee ?

Yes the S and G one without the S.

Re: Robodebt

myoclon1cjerk — Sat, 30 May 2020 12:57:55 GMT

Yes and Attorney-General Christian Porter is working on pro bono laws to make it harder to take class actions against governments and the big end of town. The I.P.A will be happy.

Re: Robodebt

davewil1964 — Sat, 30 May 2020 13:47:05 GMT

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Yes and Attorney-General Christian Porter is working on pro bono laws to make it harder to take class actions against governments and the big end of town. The I.P.A will be happy.

Hardly surprising. After all, the alternative is to admit incompetence. I would like to see how he goes in the Senate trying to pass laws that infringe on peoples' rights.

Not having any access to the purported laws, how is the AG going to stop lawyers offering pro bono services? It would be easy enough to get around - everybody chucks in a buck. Every lawyer (or any business person) has an absolute right to decide what they charge for their goods or services.

Re: Robodebt

rogevibe — Sun, 31 May 2020 12:37:35 GMT

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Yes and Attorney-General Christian Porter is working on pro bono laws to make it harder to take class actions against governments and the big end of town. The I.P.A will be happy.

Class actions are considered a bit precious and frivolous in the Australian cultural context - the accepted down side of a " fair go" is "poo happens"

If an individual feels aggrieved enough they can pursue recompense through normal legal channels , and for this issue I suspect most will not feel aggrieved enough nor have moral justification ( as they were in debt to DHHS )