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
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
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.
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 madeOnly a 60 Billion dollar error..
Sick of confusing ATO forms? This one's responsible for a $60 billion error
What's the difference between one person and 1,500? Hundreds of businesses massively overstate how many employees they have on the books, thanks in part to a question the Government admits "could have been clearer".www.abc.net.au
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
Surely this error is just good news. There is no "bad" in this. Nothing to see here move on.
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.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
No, definitely a bad thing that there’s been an estimated $60b that doesn’t have to be added to the national debt....Surely this error is just good news. There is no "bad" in this. Nothing to see here move on.
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.No, definitely a bad thing that there’s been an estimated $60b that doesn’t have to be added to the national debt....
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.
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?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?