eBay

davidc4430 · ‎12-03-2020

Coronavirus support package will see businesses get cash payments and tax relief to get them spending

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-12/coronavirus-economic-stimulus-combatting-the-spread-of-covid-...

oh, its a 'support package' not a 'stimulus package'

totally different then.

give money to welfare cheats? really?

i can think of at least 1 poster here who will not be a happy camper.

brerrabbit585 · ‎16-03-2020

@rogespeed wrote:
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
Call it what you will but double dipping is double dipping. You were prepared to start up a business before the package was announced so nothing has changed, you're no worse off than you were. If the govt gave your business a handout and the business failed, what good has the money done? If it's a sound business it'll survive without a handout.

You seem to have a real obsession about this virus. I'd say it's going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, ie. you'll get it.
Financially a business is a separate entity to a private person , therefore a legal representitive or owner can on behalf of the entity apply for funding - not that it will be always granted , but ethically can apply

AS for me , the private individual , one must be careful in commenting about issues that may be soley relavent to another country as this can create a backlash from those that may feel intruded upon
There it is - the definition of your ethics. Screw what you can instead of working for it.
When is business somehow not working and when is assistance between jobs unethical ?
My point, as I've already stated, is that a business applying for government assistance, especially when they are sole trader (such as you), might be legal, but it is not necessarily ethical. You are the one claiming that as a business with one employee you should be able to avail yourself of government welfare and that that is ethical.

The term you should have used is 'legal', which has nothing to do with ethics.
My understanding is that business and private concerns are separate activities as evidenced by the requiement for separate tax returns . Is possible especially when starting a business to still be drawing upon Newstart if still meeting the job activity agreement and reporting earnings. This is common for those developing a hobby into a micro-business ( and seasonal casual workers - working poor) while still seeking regular employment. Earnings declared attract deductions as per a logarithmic scale from Newstart benefit disbursements - so is possible to be registered with Newstart and draw no benefits at all.
© 2020 rogespeed

I await comments regarding ethics and legality in context - also please note your location and national affilitation so as to assist with understanding

Only for a very limited period of time.

Fact: the government has said you can't double dip. To try and get it twice would be illegal. End of. Get over it!
Blue collar ?

I may be a genius but my abilities don't run to mind reading.

imastawka · ‎16-03-2020

Cash splash 2.0

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/morrison-considers-second-cash-splash-in-a-bid-to-save-the-...

rogespeed · ‎17-03-2020

@brerrabbit585 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@davewil1964 wrote:
@rogespeed wrote:
@brerrabbit585 wrote:
Call it what you will but double dipping is double dipping. You were prepared to start up a business before the package was announced so nothing has changed, you're no worse off than you were. If the govt gave your business a handout and the business failed, what good has the money done? If it's a sound business it'll survive without a handout.

You seem to have a real obsession about this virus. I'd say it's going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, ie. you'll get it.
Financially a business is a separate entity to a private person , therefore a legal representitive or owner can on behalf of the entity apply for funding - not that it will be always granted , but ethically can apply

AS for me , the private individual , one must be careful in commenting about issues that may be soley relavent to another country as this can create a backlash from those that may feel intruded upon
There it is - the definition of your ethics. Screw what you can instead of working for it.
When is business somehow not working and when is assistance between jobs unethical ?
My point, as I've already stated, is that a business applying for government assistance, especially when they are sole trader (such as you), might be legal, but it is not necessarily ethical. You are the one claiming that as a business with one employee you should be able to avail yourself of government welfare and that that is ethical.

The term you should have used is 'legal', which has nothing to do with ethics.
My understanding is that business and private concerns are separate activities as evidenced by the requiement for separate tax returns . Is possible especially when starting a business to still be drawing upon Newstart if still meeting the job activity agreement and reporting earnings. This is common for those developing a hobby into a micro-business ( and seasonal casual workers - working poor) while still seeking regular employment. Earnings declared attract deductions as per a logarithmic scale from Newstart benefit disbursements - so is possible to be registered with Newstart and draw no benefits at all.
© 2020 rogespeed

I await comments regarding ethics and legality in context - also please note your location and national affilitation so as to assist with understanding

Only for a very limited period of time.

Fact: the government has said you can't double dip. To try and get it twice would be illegal. End of. Get over it!
Blue collar ?
I may be a genius but my abilities don't run to mind reading.

At the original time of posting on this thread it was unclear whether sole traders , who are still registered on Newstart would be also be eligible for that Govt business disbursement and supports - i fail to understand grounds for charactor attacks , however i am obviously dealing with those of obvious narrow life's perspectives.

brerrabbit585 · ‎17-03-2020

It was made crystal clear that if people qualified in two different ways they'd only get one payment. Please don't pretend you didn't know that.

imastawka · ‎17-03-2020

Hey, maybe you can make a grab for the Cash Splash 2.0 as well?

That's for businesses

rogespeed · ‎18-03-2020

@imastawka wrote:
Hey, maybe you can make a grab for the Cash Splash 2.0 as well?

That's for businesses

There are hundreds if not thousands of different Govt financial assistances available to people , business and organisations , but one has to be aware and apply if eligiable - however sadly for many ignorance becomes lifestyle which is assumed convention for all.

brerrabbit585 · ‎18-03-2020

You should go into politics. You're well suited - never answer a question directly, always deflect the question by changing the subject, never admit to anything, always blame someone else, speak waffle, etc etc etc.

myoclon1cjerk · ‎18-03-2020

NEW ZEALAND'S $12.1 BILLION PACKAGE
Across the pond, New Zealand has dwarfed Australia with a $12.1 billion package aimed at healthcare capacity, businesses, seniors and low-income families, and people who cannot work during isolation. That’s roughly 4% of its GDP to Australia’s <1%, according to The Conversation.

rogespeed · ‎18-03-2020

@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
NEW ZEALAND'S $12.1 BILLION PACKAGE
Across the pond, New Zealand has dwarfed Australia with a $12.1 billion package aimed at healthcare capacity, businesses, seniors and low-income families, and people who cannot work during isolation. That’s roughly 4% of its GDP to Australia’s <1%, according to The Conversation.

True , however their situation might be more critical as they do not have our high export markets like mining and foreign students to keep the economy ticking along

davewil1964 · ‎18-03-2020

@rogespeed wrote:
@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
NEW ZEALAND'S $12.1 BILLION PACKAGE
Across the pond, New Zealand has dwarfed Australia with a $12.1 billion package aimed at healthcare capacity, businesses, seniors and low-income families, and people who cannot work during isolation. That’s roughly 4% of its GDP to Australia’s <1%, according to The Conversation.
True , however their situation might be more critical as they do not have our high export markets like mining and foreign students to keep the economy ticking along

What foreign students?

If they're not already here, they won't be let in.