It's highly unlikely that an employer will have them sitting at home and doing nothing whilst claiming JobKeeper because it is not in their interest to do so. If a basic unskilled casual earns $25/hr then $750/wk is 30 hours for the week so putting someone's hours up from 20 to 30 isn't too unreasonable unless they simply cant do it. Its more the case that most adult employees earn at least the $750 and JobKeeper really helps those guys out. I think some of you armchair analysts need to sit back and have think about reality here, this crisis is monumental and has occurred extremely rapidly and so the response must be similar. There will be some weird situations where 16 hr/wk kids take home more than they're used to for a few months but on the whole this package is not really for them. Tme is of the essence and there's no time to dream up a package that doesn't have holes or requires an employer to perform heaps of additional documentation per pay period, it's a blanket plan that hopefully helps the most people. If they f#$ked around, even more people would be out of work and they'd end up on Job seeker and we'd be even further down the tube.
wouldn't it be easier for the tax dept pay through the employees tax number direct ..?
My understanding is there is a choice, employers can get employees to work as many hours as the employer wants, but must pay super on the hours worked, or employee can sit at home doing nothing for $750 wk
Select to expand quotekevinwd1 said..
How does it work for a sole trader with no employees.Do they have to pay themselves
No you just have to prove your income has dropped by 30 - 50% (under a gross turnover 1 million?? I think), so apply to ATO, show your last years worth of monthly incomes up to March (for example) if April 2020 monthly gross income less than others by 30-50% you will be eligible
I got the 750 last week and slugged with 200 tax i think id b better offf on the dole as i then qualify for rent assistance and hlth care card
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
It's highly unlikely that an employer will have them sitting at home and doing nothing whilst claiming JobKeeper because it is not in their interest to do so. If a basic unskilled casual earns $25/hr then $750/wk is 30 hours for the week so putting someone's hours up from 20 to 30 isn't too unreasonable unless they simply cant do it. Its more the case that most adult employees earn at least the $750 and JobKeeper really helps those guys out. I think some of you armchair analysts need to sit back and have think about reality here, this crisis is monumental and has occurred extremely rapidly and so the response must be similar. There will be some weird situations where 16 hr/wk kids take home more than they're used to for a few months but on the whole this package is not really for them. Tme is of the essence and there's no time to dream up a package that doesn't have holes or requires an employer to perform heaps of additional documentation per pay period, it's a blanket plan that hopefully helps the most people. If they f#$ked around, even more people would be out of work and they'd end up on Job seeker and we'd be even further down the tube.
Hi Paddles, I am not critical of this scheme at all. I agree that its more important to get it out there than getting it 100% correct. People forget that, and indeed it was forgotten during the aftermath of the GFC too where all the armchair experts sat back at their leisure later and criticised it.
Pay people, and keep them ready for when things start to go back to normal, and give them money so that they can start up again.
If the govt. are paying the employees, is there something else to help the employers? Do they have to access Jobkeeper as well as one of their employees of the business?
If you qualify for the $10,000 early release of super, apply and get it, can you immediately re contribute it to super. As long as your under the concessional contributions cap of $25,000 it would mean an extra $1500 in your pocket.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
It's highly unlikely that an employer will have them sitting at home and doing nothing whilst claiming JobKeeper because it is not in their interest to do so. If a basic unskilled casual earns $25/hr then $750/wk is 30 hours for the week so putting someone's hours up from 20 to 30 isn't too unreasonable unless they simply cant do it. Its more the case that most adult employees earn at least the $750 and JobKeeper really helps those guys out. I think some of you armchair analysts need to sit back and have think about reality here, this crisis is monumental and has occurred extremely rapidly and so the response must be similar. There will be some weird situations where 16 hr/wk kids take home more than they're used to for a few months but on the whole this package is not really for them. Tme is of the essence and there's no time to dream up a package that doesn't have holes or requires an employer to perform heaps of additional documentation per pay period, it's a blanket plan that hopefully helps the most people. If they f#$ked around, even more people would be out of work and they'd end up on Job seeker and we'd be even further down the tube.
Understood but the needs to be at buisnesses discretion
For example I have girls/ juniors at school ,living with parents who have secure jobs from normally getting
Wageline award of $19 per, plus super and tax, the most hrs they can work being at school is 14 hrs at the wknd, they carnt work the extra hrs, so they get paid for nothing, this surplus is better spent elsewhere, also not a good working environment when other staff are working full hrs and receiving the same amount,
Staff with mortgages, and household bills, ,We as buisness owners have to go to the bank for $12000 per fortnight, looking at current dealings were having I doubt it'll be interest free, this isn't isolated as nearly every hospitality buisness has the same scenario
^^^ No doubt the government was totally aware of this. Now try and think of a fair alternative, with casuals working variable hours, and deciding who should get how much? No matter how else it was done there would still be flaws and anomalies, and it would be a mess to administer and audit. So instead, a simple rule, $750/week for everyone. It all makes it's way back to the government anyway, but hopefully greases a few economic gears on the way.
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..
wouldn't it be easier for the tax dept pay through the employees tax number direct ..?
They already have that Bazz ............... it's called JobSeeker and you get that if you can't get work.
I understand where you're coming from Cauncy, but it's less likely to be interfered with if the payment goes directly to the employer and then onto the employee and cannot be modified by the employer. The employer still has the discretion over whether to obtain the JobKeeper payment for the employee or not. But yeah, it's a good deal (for a few months) for eligible young employees who usually earn less than $1500/fortnight. Maybe it would have been better to limit it to employees who normally earn over a certain threshold, but I dunno how that would end up, maybe all those guys would simply lose their jobs.
Just thought this up
Righto you've nominated your buisness and sent proof of percentage loss to dept
So in my instance I'm around 50 percent down
So if I received 50 percent of staffs hrly rate that'd be fair, the ATO can check through 1 touch system that we've been made to have by the ATO ,
I know of some covid unrelated buisnesses that are using the job keeper to their financial gain
The reason I'm looking into this so much is the future costs to everyone, it won't just be the cafe's restaurants pubs etc paying for this for decades to come
So my job signed up for jobkeeper. over 100 employees also signed a jobkeeper form. Last Thursday was our first jobkeeper pay. We also dropped to 30hrs a week. Technically I gained a few dollars (approx $70 to $100)due to the cut in hrs. Other employees dropped around $300 - $700 a fortnight. As of today we had our hrs reduced again to a 6 day fortnight. My pay will still be the same as last week, just less hrs.
Win for me, not so much others at work on the previous higher rate.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
If you qualify for the $10,000 early release of super, apply and get it, can you immediately re contribute it to super. As long as your under the concessional contributions cap of $25,000 it would mean an extra $1500 in your pocket.
So you take out $10k tax-free (on which you already paid 15% tax when it went in) and then you lose $1.5k of it to tax (15% concessional tax rate on contributions) when you put it back in????? Ummmmm.....I think you've just lost $1.5k?
^^^ I'm also too dumb to figure out how you benefit from doing it. What am I missing?
Harrow / Cambodge..
This was available b4 COVID..
The circle of money around super at the tax payer's expense... two unrelated policies (I think) which used together = a tax loop hole..
It is sound as long as the super fund earns money to cover their fees or you lower your marginal tax rate to do the same... and some...
Criteria last year = 60+YO. Taxable income bracket over 30% of at least $3000 (returns not there under this) but more better.
1). establish a draw down fund at the super company to make regular payments from your Super nest egg into this account which is used to transfer money at a fee into your bank.
2). Divert income into your super to match (at least) the draw down amount.
3). At tax time declare the extra top-up payments into super fund - get a concessional tax rate too...
Basically you are lowering your marginal taxable income..
Like negative gearing just another non equitable way to create superannuation... but at least this one does not stop first home owners getting into the housing market..
Cheers
AP
Yep Waterloo is on it, for everyday Joe tax payer you could theoretically pull the $10k from super due to this relaxation then contribute it back in out of your pre-tax income but for it to have a positive benefit you need to be paying at least 15% income tax to cover the contribution tax for putting the super back in. I would maybe be expecting some additional "attention" from the ATO if you pull this stunt though
AP,
Yep, gotcha.
Paddles,
I doubt ATO would care. They only care about administering the rules as they stand, not matter how bizarre the outcome is. About 20 years ago I used to have a marginal tax rate of around 75% (taking into account the impact of Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B.) I realised that if I salary sacrificed for a laptop, and then depreciated it, I would actually end up making a profit of 50% on the price of the laptop, since my tax would be reduced by 2 x 75% of its price. I rang up the ATO and explained the concept to the help desk. They simply said "Yep, that's right". Then I was even more explicit in my explanation. I said to them, "Tomorrow I am going to by a $5000 laptop and I'll end up getting $7500 back from reduced tax and increased Centrelink payments, making a $2500 profit." Again, they said "Yep, that's right." I even rang up a second time so that I could ask a different person on the help line, and got the exact same response. There was no suggestion from either of them that there was anything wrong with doing it. Maybe different for this though, since you are making a case that you need to pull your super because you need it to live, although you could still make the argument you needed it now, but then are able to afford to put the money back a few months later.
@Harrow, you're now touching on the other function of a taxation "system" and that is to motivate economically desirable "behaviours" ................ it's not just about raising money to run a country, it's about economically motivating people to act how you want them to. They obviously wanted people (in your position at the time) to spend money on new technology. Not many tax payers have the opportunity to salary sacrifice a laptop, and I don't know how you managed to get a laptop tax free and then somehow depreciate it even though you paid no tax .............. no-one else attempt this 
Paddles, at the time there were about two years where the tax rules allowed salary sacrifice for a laptop, (you're right, I think it was to promote use of technology at home), and provided you used it for work, then the ability to depreciate it remained. I just happened to be in the sweet spot of having the right number of kids below school age and a salary that placed me right on the edge of losing the Family Tax Benefit. It really was a case of all the planets aligning, and I'm guessing very few people probably figured it out, let alone acted upon it.
The salesman at Harvey Norman was sure confused. The conversation went something like this....
Salesman: "How can I help you, sir?"
Me: "I'd like to buy a laptop."
Salesman: "How much were you thinking of spending?"
Me: "As much as possible."
Salesman: "Here's our most expensive model, I can probably take 5% off that price for you."
Me: "No need to do that, I'd prefer to pay full price."
Salesman: "Certainly sir, and is there anything else I can help you with today?"
Me: "Yes, I'd like to see your most expensive Pocket PC." (You were also allowed a portable digital assistant at the time.)
Salesman (trying to hold back his grin): "Right this way, sir!"
He had no idea what was going on, but I guess was happy with his commission that day.
Yeah, I remember that time from my previous life in engineering and they were offering salary sacrifice for a fair bit of stuff over a couple of years. Certain occupations can still salary sacrifice certain items, but there isn't much available these days
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Paddles, at the time there were about two years where the tax rules allowed salary sacrifice for a laptop, (you're right, I think it was to promote use of technology at home), and provided you used it for work, then the ability to depreciate it remained. I just happened to be in the sweet spot of having the right number of kids below school age and a salary that placed me right on the edge of losing the Family Tax Benefit. It really was a case of all the planets aligning, and I'm guessing very few people probably figured it out, let alone acted upon it.
The salesman at Harvey Norman was sure confused. The conversation went something like this....
Salesman: "How can I help you, sir?"
Me: "I'd like to buy a laptop."
Salesman: "How much were you thinking of spending?"
Me: "As much as possible."
Salesman: "Here's our most expensive model, I can probably take 5% off that price for you."
Me: "No need to do that, I'd prefer to pay full price."
Salesman: "Certainly sir, and is there anything else I can help you with today?"
Me: "Yes, I'd like to see your most expensive Pocket PC." (You were also allowed a portable digital assistant at the time.)
Salesman (trying to hold back his grin): "Right this way, sir!"
He had no idea what was going on, but I guess was happy with his commission that day.
You would have confused the sales guy. It might have been better if you asked if he could throw something in to the deal. Customers that want to pay full price are so rare that it would cause all sorts of questions.
Try living on 40 dollars a day for a while.....
www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-27/jobseeker-payment-relief-questions-payments-doubled-coronavirus/12183678
In the U.S the unemployment benefit is to rise by 600 dollars a week or 1200 a fortnight till July31 at least.
This money is in addition to the current benefit. Adds up to around 985 per week - wtf?
Working 40 hours a week for 15 dollars an hour is 600 a week.
You guessed it employees of low paying jobs are asking employers to sack them.
www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/unemployment-benefits-will-be-reduced-after-july-31.html
If you can drag yourself away from youtube and look at a bit of mainstream media, check out Planet America from last night on the ABC. Towards the end there was an examination of USA dole payments. It seems that it is quite hard to get. I think that the figure mentioned was 29% of unemployed people actually get paid benefits.
Start watching at 21 minutes, and go on to the end for some discussion of the covid epidemic in prisons (spoiler alert - it's huge)
My wife is a sole trader and has qualified for job keeper.After doing some research online it seems that once you qualify for job keeper you will keep receiving it until September.It doesn't matter if your income returns to normal you will still receive $3000 per month on top of your earnings
I rang the ATO and they confirmed this
which I find hard to believe
Our understanding is that you have to apply monthly for JobKeeper Kev, and it's for the preceding month
The ATO said you have to report monthly but it won't affect your payment, no matter what you earn
I said to them "If my wife earned $3000 dollars last month would she receive job keeper on top of her earnings ". They said yes
The person I spoke to said things might change as some people who get jobkeeper are now back earning large amounts of money
I actually rang the ATO twice and received the same answer as I didn't quite believe it
Now I understand what you're saying. Well yes, that was always the case for this scheme, the payment is $3000/month paid for the preceding month at the end of that month and does not change.
