This is an interesting business model.
I'd like to hear more about how this is achieved DSmithy.

Can you expand on it a bit more?

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M

of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals.

What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals. What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

Most people would list the number of employees as FTEs, but I'm open to see how he manages to employ 67 people for $2-3M turnover. If so, he'll must be paying them the very minimum along with minimum hours for each of them and making a GP so far above the average restaurant that he update be one of the most expensive restaurants in town with the smallest plates and a very exclusive clientele who will pay mega bucks for little food and rotating roster of service people through a single meal...but I'll wait for DSmithy to respond before drawing a conclusion.

that's it .... you've just confirmed that you don't employ 5.  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:

that's it .... you've just confirmed that you don't employ 5.  :D :D

Bzzt, try again.

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business.

Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

;D  ;D  ;D ;D

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO.

Cabs drive many more than 67 'mentally handicapped' people to their employment every working day right here on the Sunshine Coast.  The Endeavour Foundation is their employer.  They destroy confidential documents.  I doubt they would have a turn-over in excess of even $M1.

We are all too quick to pigeon hole/box people, aren't we. 

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person.

It seems possible.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

What is that supposed to mean?  Nah....on second thoughts ~ bugger it, explain it to Hicks, I can't be arsed with this Member family abuse.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs

Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible.

DSmithy?

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs What is that supposed to mean?  Nah....on second thoughts ~ bugger it, explain it to Hicks, I can't be arsed with this Member family abuse.

You could address the question in the OP?
Imagine if you ran a fleet of Uber cabs that turned over $2-3M and had 67 drivers.

Could you make it work?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:49pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy?

Not only that, but restaurant trade is busiest on weekends. We're talking time and a half or double time.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:49pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy?

you might want to run through your numbers again

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible.

We are talking turnover, not net, not gross.

DSmithy?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy?

OK - I thought there was $3 Million available for wages.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals. What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud.

The answer is of course no.

The numbers just don't add up.

Next!

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy?

Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again

Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone.
Please include income tax to be paid via the employer.
Payroll tax.
Penalty rates.
GST.
Rent/Lease.
Power.
Water.
Raw materials cost.
Company tax.
Wastage.
Advertising/marketing.
Business registration.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals. What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t Most people would list the number of employees as FTEs, but I'm open to see how he manages to employ 67 people for $2-3M turnover. If so, he'll must be paying them the very minimum along with minimum hours for each of them and making a GP so far above the average restaurant that he update be one of the most expensive restaurants in town with the smallest plates and a very exclusive clientele who will pay mega bucks for little food and rotating roster of service people through a single meal...but I'll wait for DSmithy to respond before drawing a conclusion.

DSmithy will be too frightened to come online now.

He's been exposed for talking utter cr@p.

Not to worry, he's got other multi nics to help get him by   ::)

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.'

No, they don't.
Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit.

Simple stuff.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.' No, they don't. Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit. Simple stuff.

Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.' No, they don't. Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit. Simple stuff. Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question?

Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question.

Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:12pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.' No, they don't. Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit. Simple stuff. Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question? Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question. Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M?

I already have given you one obvious example.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:20pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:12pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:07pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Bobby. wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:45pm: 3M / 67 = $44,776 per person. It seems possible. We are talking turnover, not net, not gross. DSmithy? Is there some difference between turnover and gross?  They mean the same don't they......revenue from 'sales.' No, they don't. Google it. Turnover vs GP vs Net profit. Simple stuff. Do you seriously reckon I did not google before asking the question? Yes. If you didn't you wouldn't have asked a stupid question. Can you tell me if you can employ 67 drivers with a turnover of $2-3M? I already have given you one obvious example.

You have given no examples. You asked a question and got told you were wrong. I can't teach stupid.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud.

anyone dumb enough to marry you shouldn't be calling others clueless

When you crawl out from under you rock and can understand the difference between turnover and gross profit, you can then have a look at the difference between markup and margin. Don't have a head explosion.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration.

don't change your story ... what you said was 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible'.

If you stand by THAT statement, you can't add up.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration.

Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:32pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:01pm: My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud. anyone dumb enough to marry you shouldn't be calling others clueless

^^^^^ posted by a chronically unemployed Aboriginal bogan who lives in Aboriginal Housing and who trolls online 24/7 under multi nics.

;D ;D ;D

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer.

What payslip?

He doesn't even get that!  ;D

Quote:

I can't teach stupid.

I thought it would be a specialty of yours!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:32pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:01pm: My husband just read your post, laughed and said you're a clueless fraud. anyone dumb enough to marry you shouldn't be calling others clueless ^^^^^ posted by a chronically unemployed Aboriginal bogan who lives in Aboriginal Housing and who trolls online 24/7 under multi nics. ;D ;D ;D

the scrofa is still flapping her gums

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer.

not sure if your talking to me or Dsmithy now ... but I've already addressed your comment. Try again

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:36pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. don't change your story ... what you said was 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible'. If you stand by THAT statement, you can't add up.

There is no change in story. I doubt you could even quote the payroll tax for your state.

Like DSmithy, your business credentials are bullshit.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:37pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer. not sure if your talking to me or Dsmithy now ... but I've already addressed your comment. Try again

No you haven't. Fill in the blanks with 67 casual employees and let me know the figure you come up with.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:36pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. don't change your story ... what you said was 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible'. If you stand by THAT statement, you can't add up. There is no change in story. I doubt you could even quote the payroll tax for your state. Like DSmithy, your business credentials are bullshit.

Ahhh but these 2 know a lot about the business of collecting the dole and trolling online full time under multi nics.

Pffft! Weak, pathetic online nobodies!

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:42pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:37pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer. not sure if your talking to me or Dsmithy now ... but I've already addressed your comment. Try again No you haven't. Fill in the blanks with 67 casual employees and let me know the figure you come up with.

so you have no idea how you came up with your number?  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:42pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:37pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer. not sure if your talking to me or Dsmithy now ... but I've already addressed your comment. Try again No you haven't. Fill in the blanks with 67 casual employees and let me know the figure you come up with. so you have no idea how you came up with your number?  :D :D

Ruuuuun Forrwest....ruuuuun  ;D

And in breaking news :

The Sharks beat The Bulldogs

20 v 18

And what a great game of football it was too.

Sharks are now at the top of the NRL ladder  :)


Ok...back to the current Smith BS fiasco  ;D

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:48pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:44pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:42pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:37pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:03pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:54pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:49pm: Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:38pm: In answer to the thread question, no. Wages would outstrip TO, or close enough to it to detract from the owner undertaking the business. Unless he employs Aussies Indian wife. They could save on toilet paper costs Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours as they are legally obliged to do (sorry kids, your after school job at the newsagent is no longer viable because unions), I cannot see how this would be possible. DSmithy? you might want to run through your numbers again Perhaps you can spell it out for everyone. Please include income tax to be paid via the employer. Payroll tax. Penalty rates. GST. Rent/Lease. Power. Water. Raw materials cost. Company tax. Wastage. Advertising/marketing. Business registration. Waiting Smith. I'm guessing you have never even heard of most of these, just happy to have a pay slip at the end of the week and bitch about your employer. not sure if your talking to me or Dsmithy now ... but I've already addressed your comment. Try again No you haven't. Fill in the blanks with 67 casual employees and let me know the figure you come up with. so you have no idea how you came up with your number?  :D :D Ruuuuun Forrwest....ruuuuun  ;D

I don't need to put up anything ... you made the claim that Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours I cannot see how this would be possible.

it's up to you to provide your numbers. I gave you enough of a hint. Either back yourself or stop making comments about things you have no idea about

Payroll  tax is a joke. It penalises business for employing people. If I recall correctly, in SA if you pay more than $500k in wages, you get hit with payroll tax.

Anyone want to defend that? I doubt the Chinese have payroll tax. And that's who we're competing with.

No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover.

I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond?

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can.

You made the claim.

Now prove it.

Betcha you can't.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

Payroll  tax is a joke. It penalises business for employing people. If I recall correctly, in SA if you pay more than $500k in wages, you get hit with payroll tax. Anyone want to defend that? I doubt the Chinese have payroll tax. And that's who we're competing with.

Never a truer word was spoken. It's a tax on employing people and should be abolished immediately.

There's a reason why offshoring is increasing. Payroll tax is just one of them.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:56pm:

No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond?

Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity.

Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons.

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

Payroll  tax is a joke. It penalises business for employing people. If I recall correctly, in SA if you pay more than $500k in wages, you get hit with payroll tax. Anyone want to defend that? I doubt the Chinese have payroll tax. And that's who we're competing with.

I really hope you keep your cynicism regarding the costs to business from govt when you move to the public sector. You will be surrounded by people who claim otherwise and will try and convince you that they are intrinsic to the business community. My wife worked for years in a state dept of PM&C and the waste, useless meetings, politics and rubbish that went on is demoralising for anyone who is driven and looking for a challenge.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:02pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons.

So you keep saying Jones. It is in your dna.  You never offer anything except vacuous abuse, never any substance.  Really.....give it up.

I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:07pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons. So you keep saying Jones. It is in your dna.  You never offer anything except vacuous abuse, never any substance.  Really.....give it up. I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter.

So you're saying DSmithy is lying.

DSmithy must be getting his 67 employees ready for the next week of work.

That's a hell of a roster...

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:56pm:

No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond?

DSMithy doesn't need to confirm anything. Without wishing to speak for him, I'm pretty sure he doesn't really care if you believe him or not.

Nevertheless, you claimed that Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours I cannot see how this would be possible.

I'd just like to see how you came to that conclusion.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons. So you keep saying Jones. It is in your dna.  You never offer anything except vacuous abuse, never any substance.  Really.....give it up. I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter. So you're saying DSmithy is lying.

where did he say that? you retards just can't seem to grasp simple English can you?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons. So you keep saying Jones. It is in your dna.  You never offer anything except vacuous abuse, never any substance.  Really.....give it up. I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter. So you're saying DSmithy is lying.

No.  I said what I said.  I am starting to think your persistence in an apparent invasion of his privacy if now getting quite creepy.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? DSMithy doesn't need to confirm anything. Without wishing to speak for him, I'm pretty sure he doesn't really care if you believe him or not. Nevertheless, you claimed that Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours I cannot see how this would be possible. I'd just like to see how you came to that conclusion.

I've given you most of the costs involved. The consensus is that it can't be done. If you think it can be, then show it based on the the very obscure case of 67 employees all being casual and working the minimum hours.

Off you go. Prove it can be done. I'll even give you a head start and set this fictious business up as having a GP rate of 30%.

So you now have;
Turnover
GP
Number of employees

Any half competent businessman could work out net.

I'm guessing you are nothing but a useless pleb with a hand out begging for someone to pay you what you think your worth.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

I've given you most of the costs involved.

you've given me nothing. You just went on another dumb rant. You shouldn't go making statements about things you don't understand.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:07pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons. So you keep saying Jones. It is in your dna.  You never offer anything except vacuous abuse, never any substance.  Really.....give it up. I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter. So you're saying DSmithy is lying. No.  I said what I said.  I am starting to think your persistence in an apparent invasion of his privacy if now getting quite creepy.

It's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated. I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge.

It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:38pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:34pm: I've given you most of the costs involved. I drool into my cornflakes.

That's closer to the truth.

67 employees ON 2 TO 3 m... ?

Well excuse me while I go for a polite chuckle..


.......


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;

Quote:

t's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated.

So, when he said that he did, you would not accept what he said, and want to delve into his privacy.  Me, I accept what he said.  He always has been a pretty straight shooter in my experience, and gets up me almost always.


Quote:

I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge.

I gave you a simple and easy example, one you have ignored completely.


Quote:

It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well.

I have neither side nor dog in this fight.

hell..

even if he was running a low paid immigrant whore house I wouldn't believe this garbage...

the lease on a 67 room building
power
water
condoms
sex toys
KY jelly
mouth wash
batteries
sheet cleaning
fuel for the kick start vibrator
feed for the pony..

the expenses never stop..  :o

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

Quote: t's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated. So, when he said that he did, you would not accept what he said, and want to delve into his privacy.  Me, I accept what he said.  He always has been a pretty straight shooter in my experience, and gets up me almost always. No privacy was involved. He claimed he employed 67 people so I asked him a simple question based on business knowledge. He cam up wanting [quote]I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge.

I gave you a simple and easy example, one you have ignored completely.

I have asked you to repeat this. You have failed to do so


Quote:

It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well.

I have neither side nor dog in this fight. [/quote]
You seem to love jumping in for Leftwing idiots who like make up stuff they know nothing about, just like you.

DSmithy?

I understand that you are looking after all those employees, so you time would be valuable, but anyone who has that many employees would have enough of their finger on the pulse to be able to give some basic figures.

These aren't difficult figures and they are generally at the top of the mind of any businessman because they depend on them for operating, employing and keeping the doors open.

Unless you were lying of course...

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Quote: t's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated. So, when he said that he did, you would not accept what he said, and want to delve into his privacy.  Me, I accept what he said.  He always has been a pretty straight shooter in my experience, and gets up me almost always. No privacy was involved. He claimed he employed 67 people so I asked him a simple question based on business knowledge. He cam up wanting Nah.  You started to delve into his private details and he immediately arced up. [quote]I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge. I gave you a simple and easy example, one you have ignored completely. I have asked you to repeat this. You have failed to do so And I'm not going to.  Read the Thread.  It is there. [quote]It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well.

I have neither side nor dog in this fight. [/quote]
You seem to love jumping in for Leftwing idiots who like make up stuff they know nothing about, just like you.

I do not believe DSmithy made anything up.  That would be you being your usual self.
[/quote]

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

Quote: t's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated. So, when he said that he did, you would not accept what he said, and want to delve into his privacy.  Me, I accept what he said.  He always has been a pretty straight shooter in my experience, and gets up me almost always. [quote]I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge.

I gave you a simple and easy example, one you have ignored completely.


Quote:

It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well.

I have neither side nor dog in this fight. [/quote]
Maybe you could tell us what happens when a $500k investment (such as taxi plates) drops to $250k and how that affects the business and employing your second cousins thrice removes as you employ them on a 457 visa?

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:23pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 10:10pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:53pm: Quote: t's not an invasion of privacy, it's asking him to confirm what he has stated. So, when he said that he did, you would not accept what he said, and want to delve into his privacy.  Me, I accept what he said.  He always has been a pretty straight shooter in my experience, and gets up me almost always. No privacy was involved. He claimed he employed 67 people so I asked him a simple question based on business knowledge. He cam up wanting Nah.  You started to delve into his private details and he immediately arced up. Your claim has no basis [quote]I guess you must be annoyed that I called him out on his claim of employing 67 people and asked him to confirm based on his turnover (none of which reveals any personal details) but seems to have confirmed his lack of business knowledge. I gave you a simple and easy example, one you have ignored completely. I have asked you to repeat this. You have failed to do so And I'm not going to.  Read the Thread.  It is there. You fail to so again [quote]It seems you have a problem with your own side being called out for their stupidity. You seem to lead by example as well. I have neither side nor dog in this fight.

You seem to love jumping in for Leftwing idiots who like make up stuff they know nothing about, just like you.

I do not believe DSmithy made anything up.  That would be you being your usual self.
[/quote]
Of course you wouldn't. You love Leftwing posters no matter how much they lie or get caught out lying. It happens to you daily.

And as is you want....you are just such a predictable person, you yet again want to delve into the private business affairs of others. 


Quote:

Maybe you could tell us what happens when a $500k investment (such as taxi plates) drops to $250k and how that affects the business and employing your second cousins thrice removes as you employ them on a 457 visa?

Such is your level of ignorance on how it all works.  But, I guess if all you have is to toss personal grenades   ~  someone like you will.  457 visas?  My second cousins thrice removed????  Why are you so obsessed with the private details and business arrangements of other Members here?

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

And as is you want....you are just such a predictable person, you yet again want to delve into the private business affairs of others.  Quote: Maybe you could tell us what happens when a $500k investment (such as taxi plates) drops to $250k and how that affects the business and employing your second cousins thrice removes as you employ them on a 457 visa? Such is your level of ignorance on how it all works.  But, I guess if all you have is to toss personal grenades   ~  someone like you will.  457 visas?  My second cousins thrice removed????  Why are you so obsessed with the private details and business arrangements of other Members here?

Someone claimed while defending socialist policies that they employed 67 peoples. I simply asked what their TO was to support those 67 employees.

Their claims did not match reality.
That is what is called "calling people out"
You seem to have a problem with that. Why?a

That I managed to have a dig at you while calling out an alleged liar does not reflect on me. It reflects on you because you inserted yourself in the conversation.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen bitch.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:38pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:34pm: I've given you most of the costs involved. I drool into my cornflakes. That's closer to the truth.

and that's about all you have

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:50pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:38pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:34pm: I've given you most of the costs involved. I drool into my cornflakes. That's closer to the truth. and that's about all you have

Let me know when you have something to add about business and employment cost which I guess will be never considering you are barely employable and wouldn't have a clue.

Seriously, I would have weeded your kind out in the first round of interviews. No one wants to employ your ilk.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 10:38pm: And as is you want....you are just such a predictable person, you yet again want to delve into the private business affairs of others.  Quote: Maybe you could tell us what happens when a $500k investment (such as taxi plates) drops to $250k and how that affects the business and employing your second cousins thrice removes as you employ them on a 457 visa? Such is your level of ignorance on how it all works.  But, I guess if all you have is to toss personal grenades   ~  someone like you will.  457 visas?  My second cousins thrice removed????  Why are you so obsessed with the private details and business arrangements of other Members here? Someone claimed while defending socialist policies that they employed 67 peoples. I simply asked what their TO was to support those 67 employees. Their claims did not match reality. That is what is called "calling people out" You seem to have a problem with that. Why?a That I managed to have a dig at you while calling out an alleged liar does not reflect on me. It reflects on you because you inserted yourself in the conversation. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen bitch. Pathetic as usual.

Yet again, in your passion to invade privacy and to minimize your 'dig' (why bother ~ oh.....is that why you are here ~ to have a 'dig' at people???) at me you now invent an insertion which simply did not occur. 

Read the Thread.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 10:50pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:41pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:38pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:34pm: I've given you most of the costs involved. I drool into my cornflakes. That's closer to the truth. and that's about all you have Let me know when you have something to add about business and employment cost which I guess will be never considering you are barely employable and wouldn't have a clue. Seriously, I would have weeded your kind out in the first round of interviews. No one wants to employ your ilk.

still pretending you know what you're on about? ;D ;D ;D You had an opportunity to put up your numbers, you ran away from it.

are you related to Lisa perchance?

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 10:46pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 10:38pm: And as is you want....you are just such a predictable person, you yet again want to delve into the private business affairs of others.  Quote: Maybe you could tell us what happens when a $500k investment (such as taxi plates) drops to $250k and how that affects the business and employing your second cousins thrice removes as you employ them on a 457 visa? Such is your level of ignorance on how it all works.  But, I guess if all you have is to toss personal grenades   ~  someone like you will.  457 visas?  My second cousins thrice removed????  Why are you so obsessed with the private details and business arrangements of other Members here? Someone claimed while defending socialist policies that they employed 67 peoples. I simply asked what their TO was to support those 67 employees. Their claims did not match reality. That is what is called "calling people out" You seem to have a problem with that. Why?a That I managed to have a dig at you while calling out an alleged liar does not reflect on me. It reflects on you because you inserted yourself in the conversation. If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen bitch. Pathetic as usual. Yet again, in your passion to invade privacy and to minimize your 'dig' (why bother ~ oh.....is that why you are here ~ to have a 'dig' at people???) at me you now invent an insertion which simply did not occur.  Read the Thread.

There is no invading of privacy here, as much as you like to project your own failings into onto others.

This was simply about calling out a claim made by a poster who has yet to justify his figures considering his reveal of employees vs turnover. Of course if he he had any business sense whatsoever, he could have mentioned anything, but the fact that he had no idea and revealed his lie i uspct irks you more than anything.

Perhaps you should have all Leftwing members on speed PM so you can advise them before they put their foot in it. I suspect you will be not only busy, you will have to answer to the complete  crap you spew as well.

Okay....back to the Topic question.  You very obviously can and you can do so without having to account to a stalker seeking to invade your privacy as to how.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 11:13pm:

Okay....back to the Topic question.  You very obviously can and you can do so without having to account to a stalker seeking to invade your privacy as to how.

Are you drunk?

I have done nothing but wait for DSmithy to advise how he can employ 67 people on a turnover of $2-3M.

This requires no revealing of personal information (which I know you love). All it requires is a knowledge of business and costs of doing business. It is to rocket science. It does not require you hand me your books or your accountants number.

It requires you can demonstrate a basic knowledge of $$$ inputs and outputs. Both of which have been lacking and you deliberately stiring the pot to distract form the failings of the others.

Here's a hint. It doesn't distract from the failings of the others. It just puts you in the same pot of failures.

I see DSmithy has dropped in and viewed this thread but failed to address it.

Such a shame that a major employer is depriving people of his views.  :D

The right question to ask is, what is the state of the balance sheet of this enterprise and there will in lie the answer.

It is possible if you run at a loss.

Top Line vs Bottom Line

Turnover 2-3mil, outgoing say 5-6 mil, = Loss,
followed by cash flow issues = capitalization, loan or investment

The balance sheet must look awful with huge liabilities it.

Many startups have lower turnover than outgoings... for a period..... The loss is covered by Investments from shareholders or loans.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 12:12am:

I see DSmithy has dropped in and viewed this thread but failed to address it. Such a shame that a major employer is depriving people of his views.  :D

Ah. The lying unemployed fraud logged on to check the PMs sitting in one of his many nic's addys.

He knows he's been owned with his DSmithy a/c.

And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving nong.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 10:04pm:

hell.. even if he was running a low paid immigrant whore house I wouldn't believe this garbage... the lease on a 67 room building power water condoms sex toys KY jelly mouth wash batteries sheet cleaning fuel for the kick start vibrator feed for the pony.. the expenses never stop..  :o

Too funny lmao  ;D

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:07pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:56pm: No, it's up to DSmithy to prove his 67 people employed with $2-3M turnover. I'm only speculating, so we need DSmithy to confirm his claims. Perhaps you can ask him and get him to respond? Ah....these 2 are linked only in terms of their last name and clueless stupidity. Otherwise they are 2 very distinct moor ons. I could employ more than 67 people with that turn over.  Whether that is at a net profit might be another matter.

In your dreams!

You couldn't employ anything/anyone.

Why?

You can't even employ yourself, Mr Cyber Junkie/Leper.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. You made the claim. Now prove it. Betcha you can't.

Oh look! Surprise! Surprise!

The long term unemployed bogan fraud couldn't.

He ran away in cyber fear instead lmao  ;D

Quote:

Many startups have lower turnover than outgoings... for a period..... The loss is covered by Investments from shareholders or loans.

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:

Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. Dsmithy works in the restaurant industry. A lot of those would be casuals. What I find hard to believe is your claim that you employ 5 .... I'm calling bullsh1t

A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:39am:

A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer.

or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do?

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:40am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do?

I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover.

You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:53am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue.

I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen.

Ruuuun Johnny ruuuuuun  :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:55am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen.

Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change.

Here's a free tip :

You'll need to finish high school 1st.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Ruuuun Johnny ruuuuuun  :D

Wollow in your ignorance IQismissing

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:57am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Ruuuun Johnny ruuuuuun  :D

Ah. He does it all the time.

He gets owned.

He logs off.

He gets owned.

He logs off.

It's hilarious to watch actually  ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:59am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:57am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Ruuuun Johnny ruuuuuun  :D Wollow in your ignorance IQismissing

It's WALLOW, you ignorant, unemployed bogan grub!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:58am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change. Here's a free tip : You'll need to finish high school 1st.

I hear DSmithy is looking for more casuals.

Can you say "do you want fries with that?" John, or is that beyond you?

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

It's WALLOW, you ignorant, unemployed bogan grub!

you're the expert

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:04am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change. Here's a free tip : You'll need to finish high school 1st. I hear DSmithy is looking for more casuals. Can you say "do you want fries with that?" John, or is that beyond you?

you should do a course in business .....  find out how the real world works

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:04am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change. Here's a free tip : You'll need to finish high school 1st. I hear DSmithy is looking for more casuals. Can you say "do you want fries with that?" John, or is that beyond you?

He's too busy trying to figure out if he's wollowing or wallowing in the hole he's been digging for himself non stop over the past 24 hrs lmao!

He's probably reached China this morning lol ;D

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:00am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:57am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Ruuuun Johnny ruuuuuun  :D Ah. He does it all the time. He gets owned. He logs off. He gets owned. He logs off. It's hilarious to watch actually  ;D

Oh and the unemployed bogan grub digs holes....all the way to China.

I give you this topic as Exhibit 1  ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:04am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change. Here's a free tip : You'll need to finish high school 1st. I hear DSmithy is looking for more casuals. Can you say "do you want fries with that?" John, or is that beyond you? you should do a course in business .....  find out how the real world works

Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy.
Even DSmithy can't explain it  ;D

Maybe you can answer this question: Why do lefties lie?

Ummm....the unemployed bogan troll is over in the Mansions topic up top.

Oh mate, you have to see the hilarious ignorant cr@p he's spewing there.

Makes you wonder why people like him start drinking this early in the morning lmao  ;D

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:11am:

Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy.

no, I asked first ... put up your numbers. You said 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours  I cannot see how this would be possible'.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

Ummm....the unemployed bogan troll is over in the Mansions topic up top. Oh mate, you have to see the hilarious ignorant cr@p he's spewing there. Makes you wonder why people like him start drinking this early in the morning lmao  ;D

listen stupid, if you have nothing better to do other than make a fool of yourself, do so quietly

your constant barking is interrupting the adults

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:11am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:07am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:04am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:55am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:53am: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:40am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:39am: A restaurant is not a "start up" so im guessing DSmithy is more likely to be one of the 67 casuals rather than an employer. or perhaps he has a better idea what he's doing than you do? I'm happy to get an explanation from either him or you on how he achieves this miracle of employing 67 people from $2-3M turnover. You've already demonstrated that you haven't got a clue. I'm sure you would be happy for me to educate you .... that's still not going to happen. Go get a job lazy bogan grub and pay some taxes for a change. Here's a free tip : You'll need to finish high school 1st. I hear DSmithy is looking for more casuals. Can you say "do you want fries with that?" John, or is that beyond you? you should do a course in business .....  find out how the real world works Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy. Even DSmithy can't explain it  ;D Maybe you can answer this question: Why do lefties lie?

Because they're so used to it.....it's become an addiction.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 7:36am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. You made the claim. Now prove it. Betcha you can't. Oh look! Surprise! Surprise! The long term unemployed bogan fraud couldn't. He ran away in cyber fear instead lmao  ;D

Correction : He's WOLLOWING away  ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:32am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:11am: Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy. no, I asked first ... put up your numbers. You said 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours  I cannot see how this would be possible'.

Maybe you could log back in as DSmithy and explain numpty?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:32am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:11am: Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy. no, I asked first ... put up your numbers. You said 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours  I cannot see how this would be possible'. Maybe you could log back in as DSmithy and explain numpty?

He's logged off.

Let's see which other nong of a nic he logs back in with  ;D

Aussie, wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:32am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 8:11am: Still waiting for you to explain DSmithys miracle, John boy. no, I asked first ... put up your numbers. You said 'Even if the 67 were all casuals and all employed for the minimum of 3-4 hours  I cannot see how this would be possible'. Maybe you could log back in as DSmithy and explain numpty?

Still waiting for you to put up your numbers .... and I don't care which alias you log in as.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:42am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 7:36am: Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 8:59pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 6th, 2016 at 7:16pm: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M of course you can. You made the claim. Now prove it. Betcha you can't. Oh look! Surprise! Surprise! The long term unemployed bogan fraud couldn't. He ran away in cyber fear instead lmao  ;D Correction : He's WOLLOWING away  ;D

The clueless nong has been owned so MANY TIMES...yet he keeps coming back for more lmao  ;D

I hope a G.od reads this thread.

Disgusting behaviour.

mothra wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

I hope a G.od reads this thread. Disgusting behaviour.

Back a couple of pages you will see where Mr Hicks lashed out with a wet lettuce.

Edit:  See this now locked Thread from Post # 42 and on and on.

Link.