Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,923
That can't possibly be true, the public sector can never be trusted to do anything right, at least that's what some people tell me.

DS

They did it funds funds stolen under the threat of violence from land owners
 

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,792
Of course the population of Norway feel good about it, they've taken by force the hard-earned fruits of the labours of a small cadre of international billionaires and big oil corporations. They've contributed to the general impoverishment of these well-meaning folk.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,113
18,923
Of course the population of Norway feel good about it, they've taken by force the hard-earned fruits of the labours of a small cadre of international billionaires and big oil corporations. They've contributed to the general impoverishment of these well-meaning folk.

So back to their roots of raping and pillaging from others. Skol!
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
18,199
17,593
Camberwell
Only a 60 Billion dollar error..

I don’t understand how a government can blame employers filling out forms incorrectly for the error when the forms didn’t exist when the announcement was made
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
17,850
21,179
I don’t understand how a government can blame employers filling out forms incorrectly for the error when the forms didn’t exist when the announcement was made

They did. The $130bn figure was the original estimate of 6m workers. They came out last week saying 6.5m workers had been registered which was the incorrect part. Seems its really a lot lower than 6.5m workers
 

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
24,150
19,618
Surely the over 1 million casuals who missed out on JobKeeper will now be recognised and looked after by the Government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

HR

Tiger Superstar
Mar 20, 2013
2,441
1,517
Surely this error is just good news. There is no "bad" in this. Nothing to see here move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
24,150
19,618
Surely this error is just good news. There is no "bad" in this. Nothing to see here move on.

Some casual workers have received a pay rise, while other casuals who haven't worked for the same employer for 12 months miss out on the JobKeeper. Something needs to be done to fix, what was, in principle a good initiative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 26, 2004
78,241
38,240
www.redbubble.com
It is good news (this time). However it all comes down to the Government's ability to manage the country's fiances.
They misplaced $60 billion taxpayer dollars. It's displays incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
18,199
17,593
Camberwell
They did. The $130bn figure was the original estimate of 6m workers. They came out last week saying 6.5m workers had been registered which was the incorrect part. Seems its really a lot lower than 6.5m workers
Not sure how application forms could have existed for something that hadn’t been announced Mr P . The government blamed the errors made in the application forms for the difference between the 6.5 million and the 3.5 million it is now. The application forms validated the estimate of 6.5 million, the forms were filled in after the announcement was made with that estimate. It’s only the payments that have picked up that the number was overestimated.
The original estimate from treasury was wrong. That can happen but it’s a pretty big error. Not sure why the government just didn’t say that.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
29,892
12,161
Surely this error is just good news. There is no "bad" in this. Nothing to see here move on.
No, definitely a bad thing that there’s been an estimated $60b that doesn’t have to be added to the national debt....
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,661
11,698
No, definitely a bad thing that there’s been an estimated $60b that doesn’t have to be added to the national debt....
i dont think anyone is worried about less debt, but some may see a teeny concern that our Fed Government that prides itself on economic management, even many others dont, can have be $60B out in their estimates.

on a different note, it is disappointing that the announced surplus (back in back i think was the slogan) has been ditched due to Covid19. im sure all their estimates in the budget would have been spot on.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
21,434
25,771
$60,000,000,000 is a fair bit of dough to put through the washing machine in your jeans pocket.

sure, its great when you find it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
24,150
19,618
OH dear, 10 days ago........ before the JobSeeker error was known, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar said this in an interview on ABC Radio "Now you and I would perhaps be having a different conversation today if you said to me ‘Michael, there’s only 3 million employees who are covered, it’s half what we expected’? In that case I would be saying to you ‘yeah, look there’s more of a likelihood of wholesale changes but given where it’s tracked, I think it’s largely tracking in a substantial way"

Mr Sukkar it's probably best you don't play the hypotheticals.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TT33

Yellow & Black Member
Feb 17, 2004
6,815
5,802
Melbourne
This should explode the myth that the Libs are great economic managers.
The myth largely perpetuated by Rupert & friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
17,850
21,179
Not sure how application forms could have existed for something that hadn’t been announced Mr P . The government blamed the errors made in the application forms for the difference between the 6.5 million and the 3.5 million it is now. The application forms validated the estimate of 6.5 million, the forms were filled in after the announcement was made with that estimate. It’s only the payments that have picked up that the number was overestimated.
The original estimate from treasury was wrong. That can happen but it’s a pretty big error. Not sure why the government just didn’t say that.

I'm not sure that's right. When they 1st stated JobKeeper back in March they said initial estimates were that they were providing support for around 6m workers and the value of that was $130bn for the full 6 months. That was the stated amount which was a clear estimation as it was the announcement of the scheme.

The scheme opened for applications at the end of April and thousands have businesses have signed up. By the 6th May it was announced they had received applications for 4.7m workers and this was increased in the last week. All of these statements have been after applications were open. They culminated with the ATO / Government stating that 6.5m workers had been signed up to the scheme, I think mid May but this was then revised down to 3.5m at the end of last week.

The initial estimate of supporting 6m workers is not the issue here. The issue here was that they had stated 6.5m workers had been signed up to the scheme (hence re-iteration of the $130bn cost) yet this has now been revised down to 3.5m once the ATO has had a chance to validate claims when they have identified the "error".

Its a big variance but seems like a massive media beat up. Maybe the ATO / Government were too quick to come out and say how many applications had been made but that's the only real criticism that can be laid out against this.

What the lower takeup by workforces now enables is for the government to make amendments to the scheme. Obvious one seems to be that they should review the $1500 for those that earn less than that. At work we have people that are part time workers who will receive a pay rise should we qualify in May yet we have other staff that are ineligible. This gives them the ability to clean up some of these issues but also potentially extend it if the economy requires it.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,661
11,698
I'm not sure that's right. When they 1st stated JobKeeper back in March they said initial estimates were that they were providing support for around 6m workers and the value of that was $130bn for the full 6 months. That was the stated amount which was a clear estimation as it was the announcement of the scheme.

The scheme opened for applications at the end of April and thousands have businesses have signed up. By the 6th May it was announced they had received applications for 4.7m workers and this was increased in the last week. All of these statements have been after applications were open. They culminated with the ATO / Government stating that 6.5m workers had been signed up to the scheme, I think mid May but this was then revised down to 3.5m at the end of last week.

The initial estimate of supporting 6m workers is not the issue here. The issue here was that they had stated 6.5m workers had been signed up to the scheme (hence re-iteration of the $130bn cost) yet this has now been revised down to 3.5m once the ATO has had a chance to validate claims when they have identified the "error".

Its a big variance but seems like a massive media beat up. Maybe the ATO / Government were too quick to come out and say how many applications had been made but that's the only real criticism that can be laid out against this.

What the lower takeup by workforces now enables is for the government to make amendments to the scheme. Obvious one seems to be that they should review the $1500 for those that earn less than that. At work we have people that are part time workers who will receive a pay rise should we qualify in May yet we have other staff that are ineligible. This gives them the ability to clean up some of these issues but also potentially extend it if the economy requires it.
the gov brought in a scheme that with their brilliant economic minds they forecast would cost $130b. it appears it will cost $65b. kinda puts their credibility for any forecasts in doubt doesnt it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
17,850
21,179
the gov brought in a scheme that with their brilliant economic minds they forecast would cost $130b. it appears it will cost $65b. kinda puts their credibility for any forecasts in doubt doesnt it?

They made an estimate of how many businesses would require support. The fact that many businesses didn't fall by as much as expected, I'm not sure why that is their fault?

Even the business I work for for example, we made a forecast based on what we knew at the time (start of April) and for both April and May have come in ahead of forecast. This isn't a normal economic environment and there are a lot of inputs into a forecast that are completely unknown and you have to fill them in at a very high level.

If an individual business can overestimate the impact by so much (and I expect a lot of businesses are in the same position) then why wouldn't you expect the government to do the same?

It seems like a massive beat up to me. They expected x number of businesses would require support for their workers. Its pretty easy to work out that this was 6.5m workers. That a lot of businesses have not signed up, is a good thing not a bad thing and seems like a massive beat up to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
8,005
2,154

Even federal ALP want Andrews to come clean with what’s happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user