Letter from your Boss - interesting read

[Stattic]

Originally Posted by SB076

I agree, the government both past and present have done nothing but increase the burden on the manufacturing industry and still expects it to compete with overseas manufacturers.

and we just lost Bonds and King Gee.. another 1800 jobs down the toilet

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I don't agree.
If the business can't make a profit after ALL expenses (inc tax and wages) then there's no point to the business.
The story is very emotional and not very factual. This is why 99% of people are employees, they're not mad enough to think being an employer is a good thing.

I don't see that tax on businesses has changed very significantly at all over the past 5, 10 or even 20 years.

If your business can only survive the good times and not the bad, then it's not a viable business and the govt should not be blamed.

Another 23 year old expert.

You don't see how tax and conditions have changed in the past 5, 10 or 20 years while you were at school?
So you don't remember what it was like when there was not tax on labour way back in 1999 or Sales tax was paid ONCE not GST everytime a transaction happens (which is why your second hand car is 10% dearer than it should be.
Or when superannuation was covered by the pension and did not cost the employer 9% extra).
Or when a good employee could be given a nice work car to drive as a reward and not cost a fortune in fringe benefit tax.

Of course not, you were at school, living off your parents and being provided with education paid for by employers' tax.


I dare you to PM me (or post it on here) your employer's name and phone number so I can show him what an intelligent, aware, caring employee you are......

[Black F6]

Good read but if he is paying $288,000 a qtr in GST, his turnover is at least $3,168,000 a qtr, $12,672,000 a year and cant employ 14 peoples wages

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

I don't see that tax on businesses has changed very significantly at all over the past 5, 10 or even 20 years.

It's not so much that the amount of overall tax take from businesses has changed significantly over the past 20 years, it's more to do with the onerous compliance requirements of the various taxes applied that is causing a major headache for them. What with income tax, FBT, GST, SGC, PAYG, CGT, Payroll tax, Stamp Duty and Customs excise...(I'm sure there are others I've missed) so where does it all end?

GST, introduced on 1 July 1999 (or was it 2000 ??)brought with it major compliance and accounting issues for businesses ....For some all it meant was registering for GST, applying for an ABN and chaging invoice fromatting, while for others it meant all of the above plus an overhaul of their accounting systems and training staff so that they can show the ATO they are complying. I can't complain though as all this keeps me in a job.

The point of the article was to highlight that, in the writers opinion, the stimulus package would have been better spent encouraging small business to invest rather than hand it over to welfare beneficiaries if heading off unemployment was the governments primary objective. I don't think its purpose was to complain about the high administration costs of running a business, however those don't help... In any event it is fictitous - I've had 3 copies sent to my email this morning, so it's just another one of those "Joke" type emails doing the rounds...Don't knock yourself out over it !

[JC]

Originally Posted by BFXRScott

Good read but if he is paying $288,000 a qtr in GST, his turnover is at least $3,168,000 a qtr, $12,672,000 a year and cant employ 14 peoples wages

Sounds like his expenses may be up around the $12m mark too, so yes, it is cutting it fine. Turnover does not take into account cost of business (it's just gross sales).

I thought it was a very good read, and I absolutely agree that the $900 being given to government benefit recipients (generalised as single mothers etc) is a complete waste (unless the single mothers spend it on condoms, lol). Some families who are actually working, but living close to the poverty line, actually could use the extra money; unfortunately, they will most likely buy things they couldn't otherwise afford (such as PLasms TVs, or a blue ray DVD player, or both). So does the money help Australia deep down? Probably not; to me, it's just a band aid for the retail sector that will last all of 2 days!

For the record, I am married and have 3 kids and I and the kids won't get a cent in the handout (I think the missus gets her $900 though - it's already been spent on replacing the F&P washing machine that died last week after 15 years good service); but then apparently we get paid enough not to need it (I wish). Had my missus not gone back to work part time, and we relied on the Tax A and B payments etc that we would otherwise get, we would have got this "stimulus" and probably been better off than we are now, but we believe in generating our own taxes...er income, not sponging off the govt..

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Stattic

and we just lost Bonds and King Gee.. another 1800 jobs down the toilet

One thing you do need to remember the government has been given them money to keep going and offered them 15 million dollars to keep operations going here but they rejected it.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by BFXRScott

Good read but if he is paying $288,000 a qtr in GST, his turnover is at least $3,168,000 a qtr, $12,672,000 a year and cant employ 14 peoples wages

That $288k would be a combination of GST as well as PAYG (tax instalment on company profits) , payroll tax, FBT...not just GST

[Black F6]

The point of the article was to highlight that, in the writers opinion, the stimulus package would have been better spent encouraging small business to invest rather than hand it over to welfare beneficiaries if heading off unemployment was the governments primary objective.


But it did, investment allowance, small business (under $2m turnover) purchase assets over $1,000 and get an additional 30% deduction, plus the depreciation on that asset, big business (over $2m turnover) assets costing more than $10,000 get additional 30% deduction, but i agree they should be building more infrastructure, then giving money to people to waste, as it all ends up in China anyway :

[Black F6]

Originally Posted by GT0132

That $288k would be a combination of GST as well as PAYG (tax instalment on company profits) , payroll tax, FBT...not just GST

Yeah but with that amount payable, even taking into account instalments, still should be very profitable, if being run efficiently, mind you

[timmo]

I've managed and run businesses since I left school. Never went to uni, but the majority of my mates did. It's interesting to speak to them about this sort of thing, as they feel as though they are owed a job, and they are doing their employer a favour by working there.
A lot was said in the build up to the election about Worker's Rights, but where are the businesses rights? The same people who whinge about losing their job, wouldn't think twice about jumping ship to a rival company if they were offered a better deal. This infuriates me.
My dad has always said "If you vote Liberal, you vote for the country. If you vote labor, you vote for yourself". I think this is really starting to show now, and the more I see K Rudd on TV spruiking a new incentive, I think where is the money coming from? And how are we going to pay it back.
On a side note, if the original stimulus package was designed "for you to go out and spend" why was it not given to the people who have the ability to spend it as recklessly as the Government intended, the high income earner? It's playing politics, and buying votes at a time when politics shouldn't have come into it...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by vztrt

One thing you do need to remember the government has been given them money to keep going and offered them 15 million dollars to keep operations going here but they rejected it.

I dont think money is actually the answer - thats just a short term thing. They need to address the differences in costs between running businesses in Australia and elsewhere around the world (not talking about labour costs)

[flappist]

Reading all these posts written by employees about running business is like reading posts on here about V8SC drivers.

You have never done it, probably can't actually do it and have no idea what you are talking about.

You DO, however, have a keyboard........action, instant, CONTACT...........

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by BFXRScott

But it did, investment allowance, small business (under $2m turnover) purchase assets over $1,000 and get an additional 30% deduction, plus the depreciation on that asset, big business (over $2m turnover) assets costing more than $10,000 get additional 30% deduction, but i agree they should be building more infrastructure, then giving money to people to waste, as it all ends up in China anyway :

You're right Scott, I take it then that the business owner portrayed in this article must be in a service related organistion that doesn't require huge investment in plant and machinery as part of its operation given that he says he got zilch, zero etc.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by SB076

I dont think money is actually the answer - thats just a short term thing. They need to address the differences in costs between running businesses in Australia and elsewhere around the world (not talking about labour costs)

My reply was more isolated to the Pac Brands issue.

I agree with you that the costs of running a business does need to be made more competitive with the rest of the world.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by flappist

Reading all these posts written by employees about running business is like reading posts on here about V8SC drivers.

You have never done it, probably can't actually do it and have no idea what you are talking about.

You DO, however, have a keyboard........action, instant, CONTACT...........

AMEN!......... THANKYOU!!!!

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by vztrt

My reply was more isolated to the Pac Brands issue.

I agree with you that the costs of running a business does need to be made more competitive with the rest of the world.

And just HOW shall we achieve THAT?... Pay our workers a bowl of rice for their new 16hr working days?

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by flappist

Reading all these posts written by employees about running business is like reading posts on here about V8SC drivers.

You have never done it, probably can't actually do it and have no idea what you are talking about.

You DO, however, have a keyboard........action, instant, CONTACT...........

Who are you referring to exactly?

[BLOWNF6UTE]

Originally Posted by BFXRScott

The point of the article was to highlight that, in the writers opinion, the stimulus package would have been better spent encouraging small business to invest rather than hand it over to welfare beneficiaries if heading off unemployment was the governments primary objective.


But it did, investment allowance, small business (under $2m turnover) purchase assets over $1,000 and get an additional 30% deduction, plus the depreciation on that asset, big business (over $2m turnover) assets costing more than $10,000 get additional 30% deduction, but i agree they should be building more infrastructure, then giving money to people to waste, as it all ends up in China anyway :

It's an incentive thats for sure, iv'e gone out and purchased some new equipment with the deductions as opposed to renting equipment & hiring subbies. This has just created 2 full time positions for me alone, it's this sort of thinking and planning that will create jobs as opposed to handing cash to everyone.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by charliewool

And just HOW shall we achieve THAT?... Pay our workers a bowl of rice for their new 16hr working days?

How about looking at the costs behind what you pay a worker.
Funny when someone says make it more competitive automatically someone thinks to cut wages.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Who are you referring to exactly?

The "expert" posts on here that are written by people who have never run a business or worked in the field of accounting/administration of any business.

[BLOWNF6UTE]

Originally Posted by vztrt

My reply was more isolated to the Pac Brands issue.

I agree with you that the costs of running a business does need to be made more competitive with the rest of the world.

I think a large percentage of this issue has come about by the main stream stores dictating prices to their suppliers. If bonds had 5,000,000 pairs of socks and wanted $10 a pair woolies will tell them they wont pay more than $6 for them, when the $ was at .90c they would have been buying their raw materials with a healthy $ but now it's slid back down the materials are costing more cutting there profits to nothing and woolies wont budge. Labour & production costs have remained the same throughout & now the only way to survive is to cut those costs.

This is in all industries where companys such as woolies get in and crate a monopoly, i see it every day and you either play by their rules or not at all. These guys shouldnt have taken the work on or decided to supply to these larger stores if it means they will require to move production off shore to increase sales/turnover. Seccond to that the govenment needs to step in and regulate how much pressure these guys can put on the smaller suppliers & manufacturers.

[Bearman]

I believe compliance costs are a big impost on business. It's ludicrous!! I work for a Federal Govt department and each department has it's own compliance requirements. It's a huge headache for business and it's only getting worse. Couple this with subtle cost shifting onto private enterprise makes running a business quite unattractive.

The solution rests with Government but there is neither the finances or political will to address this.

Someone said we're the "worlds biggest warehouse". Spot on!!

[XWGT]

Remove Sarb Ox from the equation (which has been demonstrated to be fundamentaly useless time and time again) and you would cut large coporate costs by 10% at least.

Overall however it is a balance. The article was written to extract an emotive response (which it did looking at some of the replies) and thats fine, it was an article.

The only thing I would point out to the author is that he did not pay those taxes personally. The customer did in the price of the product or services. The customer even paid for the compliance costs.

The trick of course is to ensure the customer pays enough, often enough to provide the business owner a reasonable profit. And that, is indeed the tricky part :-)

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by vztrt

How about looking at the costs behind what you pay a worker.
Funny when someone says make it more competitive automatically someone thinks to cut wages.

Mate... Wages ARE the largest single component of an hourly charge-out rate!
Especially when we include 9% super, RDO's, Annual and sick leave, 17% leave loading, workcover.....
But, fine.... I won't pay any of those "extras" anymore.
How about, I also put it to the guys to accept normal rates for their 10 or 12hr days? No more time and 1/2 or double time! No more tea-monies!

Now, what else comes into "overheads"?... Hmmmm, The factory rent and power!..... OK, Scrap them too... I'll put up a tent on the vacant block over the road, with mice running around in an electricity generating treadmill?

Hey, we'll get rid of the computers too, and use an abacus!
Two tincans and a bit of string instead of our Commander phone system?
What about I send one of the apprentices down to the creek at lunchtime with all the overalls and a pumice washing stone so we don't need to pay anymore laundry?

Fair dinkum.... Do you honestly believe any astute business owner doesn't constantly examine all associated costs and overheads and try to minimise them???

[flappist]

Originally Posted by charliewool

Mate... Wages ARE the largest single component of an hourly charge-out rate!
Especially when we include 9% super, RDO's, Annual and sick leave, 17% leave loading, workcover.....
But, fine.... I won't pay any of those "extras" anymore.
How about, I also put it to the guys to accept normal rates for their 10 or 12hr days? No more time and 1/2 or double time! No more tea-monies!

Now, what else comes into "overheads"?... Hmmmm, The factory rent and power!..... OK, Scrap them too... I'll put up a tent on the vacant block over the road, with mice running around in an electricity generating treadmill?

Hey, we'll get rid of the computers too, and use an abacus!
Two tincans and a bit of string instead of our Commander phone system?
What about I send one of the apprentices down to the creek at lunchtime with all the overalls and a pumice washing stone so we don't need to pay anymore laundry?

Fair dinkum.... Do you honestly believe any astute business owner doesn't constantly examine all associated costs and overheads and try to minimise them???

Hey I have an even BETTER idea for wages.

Under King Flappist the new rules are:

All employees are casual contractors.
They are given ALL of the money they earn (so they get roughly double what they get now).
They are paid the same hourly rate whenever they work (dont want to work on weekends or night, no problem someone else will).
They look after their own tax.
They look after their own super.
They look after their own holidays.
They look after their own comp/insurance.
They look after their own training, tools and equipment.
They can come and go as they please.
They can be stood down at a minutes notice.
There is no long service leave.
There are no sickies.
RDOs are available whenever they want to take them.

After all, employees are responsible adults and can look after themselves, why do they need someone else to do it for them?

After all this is how it is for me and anyone else who is an employer.........

[snappy]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hey I have an even BETTER idea for wages.

Under King Flappist the new rules are:

All employees are casual contractors.
They are given ALL of the money they earn (so they get roughly double what they get now).
They are paid the same hourly rate whenever they work (dont want to work on weekends or night, no problem someone else will).
They look after their own tax.
They look after their own super.
They look after their own holidays.
They look after their own comp/insurance.
They look after their own training, tools and equipment.
They can come and go as they please.
They can be stood down at a minutes notice.
There is no long service leave.
There are no sickies.
RDOs are available whenever they want to take them.

After all, employees are responsible adults and can look after themselves, why do they need someone else to do it for them?

After all this is how it is for me and anyone else who is an employer.........

Thats what i get now . Exactly ( edit no rdo's And i cant come and go as i please)
And dont say get a new job because thats all that out there .
I closed my business up due to lack of work .
So until things pick up this is all i have

Never had a rdo in my life, Ten years of work have roughly $20 super .
Goverment does bugger all . and bugger all i can do unless i wish to be unemployed

[GT0336]

Great read, its the truth, people have a go at me for the things I have and because I work from home, but they don't see the work that I put in to build my company so that I can do that today.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by charliewool

Mate... Wages ARE the largest single component of an hourly charge-out rate!
Especially when we include 9% super, RDO's, Annual and sick leave, 17% leave loading, workcover.....
But, fine.... I won't pay any of those "extras" anymore.
How about, I also put it to the guys to accept normal rates for their 10 or 12hr days? No more time and 1/2 or double time! No more tea-monies!

Now, what else comes into "overheads"?... Hmmmm, The factory rent and power!..... OK, Scrap them too... I'll put up a tent on the vacant block over the road, with mice running around in an electricity generating treadmill?

Hey, we'll get rid of the computers too, and use an abacus!
Two tincans and a bit of string instead of our Commander phone system?
What about I send one of the apprentices down to the creek at lunchtime with all the overalls and a pumice washing stone so we don't need to pay anymore laundry?

Fair dinkum.... Do you honestly believe any astute business owner doesn't constantly examine all associated costs and overheads and try to minimise them???

Easy Tiger.

I was meaning more the taxes that business have to pay. Also incentives should be given by the government that would help other industries. If this can generate more jobs then you would assume the extra income tax given by the worker would offset the losses to the government.

I'm not having a go at business owners, but companies closing down here and going overseas then there has to be something that can be done to give us leverage against countries that we would struggle to compete with on a price basis.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hey I have an even BETTER idea for wages.

Under King Flappist the new rules are:

All employees are casual contractors.
They are given ALL of the money they earn (so they get roughly double what they get now).
They are paid the same hourly rate whenever they work (dont want to work on weekends or night, no problem someone else will).
They look after their own tax.
They look after their own super.
They look after their own holidays.
They look after their own comp/insurance.
They look after their own training, tools and equipment.
They can come and go as they please.
They can be stood down at a minutes notice.
There is no long service leave.
There are no sickies.
RDOs are available whenever they want to take them.

After all, employees are responsible adults and can look after themselves, why do they need someone else to do it for them?

After all this is how it is for me and anyone else who is an employer.........

People who have never run their own business would have no idea that's how it sits...
you left one out:
They must think about their jobs for 16 hrs a day including weekends and waking during the night..

[flappist]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Easy Tiger.

I was meaning more the taxes that business have to pay. Also incentives should be given by the government that would help other industries. If this can generate more jobs then you would assume the extra income tax given by the worker would offset the losses to the government.

I'm not having a go at business owners, but companies closing down here and going overseas then there has to be something that can be done to give us leverage against countries that we would struggle to compete with on a price basis.

No.

While people want high wages, low hours and penalty rates for night/weekend/holiday YET scream if the pubs, shops and whatever are not open 24 hours a day 7 days a week so you can do whatever WHEN IT SUITS YOU and people argue and bargain and try to screw cheaper prices on everything they buy e.g. a new FPV for $50k it will continue.

To make it simpler. While YOU (collective you) the consumer are selfish and do not care about anyone else then YOU have no right to complain when no one cares about you.

Here is a thought. In a hypothetical situation, Ford Australia are about to close manufacturing.

They offer a plan to recover. ALL new Falcons/FPVs are fixed price, no discount and you must order what you want in advance so there will be no end of model runouts or discounted demos.

Do you:

a) Pay $68,995 for your GT or $55,655 for your XR6T and feel happy that you are saving your favorite marque from extiction.

or

b) Whinge and moan on an internet forum that you have been forced to buy a FWD Taurus or Mondeo because falcons are too dear and blame everyone but yourself for the loss of of an Australian Icon.