I thought that once my wife's income retuned to normal she would stop getting job keeper .This does not seem to be the case ,she will keep receiving job keeper until September no matter what she earns.All she has to do is report her earnings monthly but that won't effect her eligibility for job keeper
My wife's just been told by a Gym that she does a lot of work for that she's no longer required.Only non ABN instructors that are receiving jobkeeper through the gym will be kept on .Makes sense as there wages are paid for by the government.Makes her feel like **** though ( shafted after 10 years of service).So it looks like she'll need jobkeeper
She needs to be very careful Kev, even though she will still get JobKeeper by just reporting her income monthly, she is also declaring that the reported income is reduced enough to still make her eligible. It is her responsibility to ensure that she remains eligible every month when she reports to the ATO, and we both know what happens if you attempt to defraud the Commonwealth ............................... and they find out ......................
That's why I rang the ATO twice to confirm ,and was told all she needs to do is report her monthly income which will not effect job keeper payment .
Apparently all you need to do is qualify for jobkeeper for one monthly period and you will receive it no matter what until September The main reason I wanted to find out, is that we need to report our estimated income for next financial year and receiving jobkeeper will affect this
Maybe I misunderstood what what the ATO was saying but I did ask multiple times and received the same answer.
If anyone knows something different let me know
Select to expand quotekevinwd1 said..
That's why I rang the ATO twice to confirm ,and was told all she needs to do is report her monthly income which will not effect job keeper payment .
Apparently all you need to do is qualify for jobkeeper for one monthly period and you will receive it no matter what until September The main reason I wanted to find out, is that we need to report our estimated income for next financial year and receiving jobkeeper will affect this
Maybe I misunderstood what what the ATO was saying but I did ask multiple times and received the same answer.
If anyone knows something different let me know
Verbal agreement, not worth the paper it's not written on,
I agree cauncy 
Well Kev, up until today our understanding of JobKeeper is not the same as yours, however it's looking like we might be wrong and you could be right. The ATO info does seem to now state that the fall in turnover test only has to be passed once and then once you're eligible you just keep reporting your past month actuals and next month's projected turnover. Take a screen shot of that, the rules change daily
At the end off the day all you can do is report monthly income and then it's up to the ATO
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
She needs to be very careful Kev, even though she will still get JobKeeper by just reporting her income monthly, she is also declaring that the reported income is reduced enough to still make her eligible. It is her responsibility to ensure that she remains eligible every month when she reports to the ATO, and we both know what happens if you attempt to defraud the Commonwealth ............................... and they find out ......................
sorry Paddles you were def wrong about the reporting
once you've qualified for jobkeepers eg your turnover has dropped by 30% or more in relation to the 2019 corresponding month or quarter.
It can be cash or accruals.
One partner of the business and eligible employees are then entitled to receive the $750 per week
You then need to report your actual turnover for the month and your projected turnover for the following month on the last day of each month up until september
The ato wants to see how the business turn over has been affected in the coming months. YOU DO NOT need to pass the eligibility again regardless of your future turnover
if anything they want to see it improve throughout all business so they can stop the scheme earlier
The employer will receive $750 for themselves and $750 per employee up until the scheme stops or the business ceases to operate
As long as your employee has been payed the minimum $3000 or over per month then you do not need to top up their wages even if their regular pay has been reduced.
example John usually earns $1250per week working 5 days now earns $750per week working 3 days the employer is basically getting Johns wage paid through the ato
if john goes back to 5 days per week the employer will still receives the $750 towards his pay John goes back to earning his regular $1250
Some business were affected the minute the covid 19 rules were put in place eg gyms pubs hotels etc
Other business were still able to operate on sales that were made pre covid 19 but will be affected 3-4 months down the track the building industry is a good example of this if their sales were reduced after the shut downs
Im a tradie working for new home builders i have employees.
if in 2 months time my work drops due to poor sales after covid 19 then at least i can still pay my workers a min $750 if we are only working 1-2 days per week or no days at all
It helps keep my business running and my workers employed, at least this way you still have the same guys working for you when work picks back up.
There will be periods when the employer will get to pocket the whole Jobkeepers for themselves and the employers and will do okay out of it....but also there are times when employers have kept workers on at a loss just to keep them employed. it goes both ways.
But yes if work goes quiet then the employees that aren't eligible for Jobkeepers will more than likely be the ones who get laid off first, but then they can get jobseekers anyway but thats up to the employer and how keeping that employee employed will help the business in the future.
There will be people who rort the system there always will be but as a whole it probably has helped keep more business running. which is a good thing in the long run especially small business that usually only operate on tight profits margins anyway
I realise all that Gazza, we just expected there to be a requirement for continual compliance with the 30% drop in turnover declared by the employer though and that isn't the case.
www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-17/catholic-church-asks-priests-getting-jobkeeper-to-donate-back/12359600
Fancy that, priests getting put out of work by a plague. I wonder what they spend their pocket money on normally, since at about $400/week with free board and lodging and transport thrown in, they have more than many family breadwinners in their pocket.
www.michaelwest.com.au/lendlease-and-blue-care-join-throng-of-large-corporations-cheating-jobkeeper/
And aged care homes have found a way to rort the system. somehow, because they aren't taking oldies on outings, so they can't charge them for tickets, they have had a fall in their turnover big enough to put their staff on Jobkeeper. All the money that they get from the government to provide aged care isn't counted in the income test.
I'm ordering some new gear with my Jobkeeper.
I'm trying to keep the economy moving
Problem is that federal and state governments have sent us into a boom then bust cycle with $60,000 for first home buyers. But only up to Dec 31 2020. This is after 4 years of declining work in the land development industry.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Its hard discussing anything with someone who just regurgitates word for word what he reads and watches on his reality box.
Argentina inflation was 5000 percent. How am I supposed to know the reason for this?
It looks like artificial intelligence is posting your responses such is your absolute adherence to mainstream.
Inflation anyone?
It is looking like continual compliance for JobKeeper will be back on the table hey?
Over the last 7 days we've witnessed a very good argument for why the JobSeeker payment should be reduced as well and I'm wondering whether this scenario may be repeating itself all over Australia. We know of an instance where a business owner had a part time (or casual if requested) position available for three full days per week and had two candidates commence employment within the last 7 days and each of them bailed on the same day as commencing employment after less than 8 hours work (at additional frictional cost to the employer) because commencing work allowed them to keep their JobSeeker "status" and the JobSeeker payment was greater than the (above award) rate that the employer was offering for the 3 days work. They're now on a third candidate who seems to be happy to have employment and you know what's sad, this candidate is not eligible for JobSeeker because of their citizenship status. So if we look at economics as the theory of motivations; in this instance; it appears that an increase in the JobSeeker payment could be making unemployed Australian citizens less motivated to look for work than unemployed non-citizens (but still Australian residents) 
