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

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 #45 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 8:59pm

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.

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 #46 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:02pm

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.

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,

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 #47 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:06pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39706
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #48 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:07pm

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

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.

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.

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 #49 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:08pm

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

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

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.

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.

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 #50 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:17pm DSmithy must be getting his 67 employees ready for the next week of work. That's a hell of a roster...
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 #51 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:20pm

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.

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 #52 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:25pm

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39706
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #53 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:27pm

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 #54 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:34pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #55 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:38pm 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.
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 #56 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:39pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 #57 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:41pm John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:38pm: Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:34pm: I've given you most of the costs involved. I drool into my cornflakes. That's closer to the truth.
Back to top	IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17501 Gender:	Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M Reply #58 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 9:53pm 67 employees ON 2 TO 3 m... ? Well excuse me while I go for a polite chuckle.. ....... ; ;
Back to top	Q The STORM has arrived Every Dog Has Its Day... Dark to Light. Sheep no more. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39706
Gender: male

Re: Can you employ 67 ppl with a turnover of $2-3M
Reply #59 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged