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

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #30 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:37pm

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

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

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

Grin

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #31 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:38pm

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

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

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

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

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?

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! Grin

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39709 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #32 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:40pm Quote: I can't teach stupid. I thought it would be a specialty of yours!
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #33 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:40pm

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

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

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

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

Grin

the scrofa is still flapping her gums

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #34 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:42pm

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

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

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

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

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?

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #35 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:42pm

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #36 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:44pm

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #37 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:46pm

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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!

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #38 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:48pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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? Cheesy

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #39 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:49pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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? Cheesy

Ruuuuun Forrwest....ruuuuun Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 39047 Sydney Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #40 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:51pm 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
Back to top	If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free. HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415) IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #41 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:51pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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? Cheesy

Ruuuuun Forrwest....ruuuuun Grin

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Mistress Nicole Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1278 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #42 - 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie, Senior Member Offline Folks are dumb where I come from. Posts: 296 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #43 - 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

Lisa Jones Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 39047 Sydney Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #44 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:59pm 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.
Back to top	If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free. HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415) IP Logged