Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Moody]

... Or regulations on small business that have gone from "red and green tape is crushing SMBs" to "Peter Garret should have personally written a how-to manual on installing roof insulation" ....

I particularly like the way that Peter Garrett has gone from being a minister with blood on his hands that should be charged with manslaughter, to a scape-goat who tried to ring alarm bells and has now done the honourable thing and refused to serve under Rudd.

Predictable and pathetic and nauseating when people's lives are being kicked around like footballs.

Anyway - I have found some news reports on the coroner's findings (Coroner criticises Rudd insulation scheme over tradesmen's deaths | World news | guardian.co.uk) but is the full report available?

 

[medhead]

[/B](cool! I can bold user names as well!)

I have always taken bolding the username to be the generally accepted standard around here to denote that it is a username.

 

[medhead]

Well there aren't that many union members left, so some of us do care for those who are dumb enough to hand over their cash to a bunch of stooges to squander.

A do-gooder conservative! Well that's a turn up for the books. Talk about nanny state. Regardless it's none of your business.

Yes, but currently the laws that apply to a company do not apply to a union, which is coalition policy to rectify.

My initial reaction is BS! But go on name the legislation that unions are incorporated under. The not for profit society I'm involved with is incorporated under legislation that makes it subject to the exact same financial rules as companies. In any case, unions like companies can still spend their money in any way that they see fit, provided they met all the legal requirements.

 

[Pushka]

A do-gooder conservative! Well that's a turn up for the books. Talk about nanny state. Regardless it's none of your business.



My initial reaction is BS! But go on name the legislation that unions are incorporated under. The not for profit society I'm involved with is incorporated under legislation that makes it subject to the exact same financial rules as companies. In any case, unions like companies can still spend their money in any way that they see fit, provided they met all the legal requirements.

Ok, here is one then. Fringe Benefits Tax. Benevolent institutions allow salary sacrifice up to $17,000? Companies are only allowed SS for Super Funds and essential business items. Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to, and if they do, the pay for it in extra FRINGE BENEFITS TAX. (I can bold too. )

 

[BadgerBoi]

I have always taken bolding the username to be the generally accepted standard around here to denote that it is a username.

Of course, medhead, however, medhead I've always taken doing it several times in the one short post as overkill, medhead. It read as though that poster had a fetish for my user name, medhead. See what I mean?

I'm still not sure if the poster in question was trying to send me up or was sending himself up, but in any case I did enjoy the irony that the point I was making, and that he was attempting to sneer at, was proven within a few minute of my post appearing.

 

[Hvr]

Whilst it is extremely convenient when apportioning blame that the government was the purchaser of the services (i.e. home insulation and installation) why aren't we hearing the names of the companies and their owners who were actually responsible for allowing an unsafe workplace?

This example clearly shows the need for industrial manslaughter laws where company owners are punished if their employees die at work.

It would also be a useful exercise to compare how many workers in similar industries died in the same time. Sounds like there is an inherent problem with industry not complying with established standards and procedures.

 

[Pushka]

Whilst it is extremely convenient when apportioning blame that the government was the purchaser of the services (i.e. home insulation and installation) why aren't we hearing the names of the companies and their owners who were actually responsible for allowing an unsafe workplace?
This example clearly shows the need for industrial manslaughter laws where company owners are punished if their employees die at work.
.

The companies were named in an article I read and the Coroner has indeed requested further investigation. There are other elements of discovery though - eg if the people were properly trained by their employers, but the employees did not observe that training in the conduct of the work. It isn't just a matter of employers being charged with manslaughter if people die at work, but rather, whether their culpability/negligence is involved.

 

[medhead]

Ok, here is one then. Fringe Benefits Tax. Benevolent institutions allow salary sacrifice up to $17,000? Companies are only allowed SS for Super Funds and essential business items. Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to, and if they do, the pay for it in extra FRINGE BENEFITS TAX. (I can bold too. )

You're still missing the very important point, even as you write it yourself. They can spend money on anything they wish provided they meet all their legal obligations, including being willing to pay FBT. Very important point, not doing something because they don't want to pay FBT does not mean they cannot do it. Also companies invariably pass in the FBT liability to the employee, as they are allowed to do. eg vehicle leases.

In your example, salary packaging is up to $9094 ($17000 is the grossed up amount not the benefit the employee can gain). For employees in PBIs the range of things they can buy with this money is very broad. However employees of non-PBIs can also salary package for certain work related items, like novated vehicle leases or (perhaps in the past) laptop computers, taxis for travel to work and not be liable for FBT. (To name a couple from the last time I looked at this). The employer also has to offer such packaging benefits. They can also package items that are subject to FBT in theory, but no one is going to do that as there is no benefit. This is probably also the reason such options are not offered.

Salary sacrifice is a entirely different matter and only applies to super payments.

I have NFI what your bolding comment is all about. Perhaps your confusing me with someone else, in the same way you seem a bit confused about salary packaging and salary sacrifice. In any case your example fails.

 

[medhead]

See what I mean?

No.........

 

[drsmithy]

Well there aren't that many union members left, so some of us do care for those who are dumb enough to hand over their cash to a bunch of stooges to squander.

Right. Because how will we keep that wealth divide growing when those uppity working class folks keep trying to get on equal footing with their employers by working together ?

Yes, but currently the laws that apply to a company do not apply to a union, which is coalition policy to rectify.

I'm sure the unions would love to have a similar lack of attention and oversight that comes with being equivalent to a corporation under a Liberal Government.

 

[Pushka]

You're still missing the very important point, even as you write it yourself. They can spend money in anything they wish provided they meet all their legal obligations, including FBT.

In your example, salary packaging is up to $9094 ($17000 is the grossed up amount not the benefit the employee can gain). For employees in PBIs the range of things they can buy with this money is very broad. However employees of non-PBIs can also salary package for certain work related items, like novated vehicle leases or (perhaps in the past) laptop computers, taxis for travel to work and not be liable for FBT. (To name a couple from the last time I looked at this). The employer also has to offer such packaging benefits. They can also package items that are subject to FBT in theory, but no one is going to do that as there is no benefit. This is probably also the reason such options are not offered.

Salary sacrifice is a entirely different matter and only applies to super payments.

I have NFI what your bolding comment is all about. Perhaps your confusing me with someone else, in the same way you seem a bit confused about salary packaging and salary sacrifice. In any case you example fails.

I have no confusion about salary packaging thanks. And you have no need for the swearing either.

 

[medhead]

Whilst it is extremely convenient when apportioning blame that the government was the purchaser of the services (i.e. home insulation and installation) why aren't we hearing the names of the companies and their owners who were actually responsible for allowing an unsafe workplace?

This example clearly shows the need for industrial manslaughter laws where company owners are punished if their employees die at work.

It would also be a useful exercise to compare how many workers in similar industries died in the same time. Sounds like there is an inherent problem with industry not complying with established standards and procedures.

Apparently (according to The Oz) the coroner has referred two of the [sainted, pure as the driven snow, victims of ALP incompetence] business owners for prosecution.

 

[medhead]

I have no confusion about salary packaging thanks. And you have no need for the swearing either.

Clearly you are confused. You don't even know the relevant benefit amount. You called it salary sacrifice. You claim packaging is not available to companies, which is wrong. You also tried to demonstrate that i was wrong by claiming that packaging cannot be used but then go on to say that it can be used.

That's before I even get onto some pointless, irrelevant comment about bolding that's come out of left field.

I'm sorry if you don't like to hear the failings of your post.

 

[Pushka]

Salary packaging (also known as salary sacrifice or salary exchange) is a term used to refer to the inclusion of employee benefits (also called fringe benefits) in an employee remuneration package in exchange for giving up part of monetary salary. Such arrangements are entered into most commonly if there are tax or other benefits to be derived by the employer or employee from the arrangement.

Salary packaging in Australia[edit]

Main article: Fringe benefits tax (Australia)
Items commonly salary packaged include:

• vehicles (either a company car or through a novated lease)
• mobile phones
• laptop computers

Some companies also allow their employees to salary package other items, including household utility bills, although this is complicated and normally requires the assistance of a third-party company who specialise in salary packaging arrangements.
Charities and public & not for profit hospitals can do this most effectively as they are exempt from fringe benefits tax up to a certain limit per employee (currently $9095 for public hospitals)
Salary packaged benefits in Australia generally attract Fringe Benefits Tax within the Australian taxation system, with a few exceptions - some benefits are Fringe Benefits Tax exempt, including mobile phones and laptop computers.

This is what I have said previously. If a company allows you to salary sacrifice/salary package then except for a few business related items (and super) they will be required to pay fringe benefits tax. And FRINGE BENEFITS TAX is why the majority of non charitable business do not offer it.

which is exactly why I said this:
Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to, and if they do, the pay for it in extra FRINGE BENEFITS TAX.

 

[medhead]

Well done on finding wikipedia.

Lets read exactly what you said previously:

Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to, and if they do, the pay for it in extra FRINGE BENEFITS TAX.

The second part contradicts the first part. Companies can spend whatever they what provided they pay FBT. That is exactly what you have written. The key phrase is "if they do". Do relates to what? Spending money on anything they want. As you say they can spend money on anything they want provided the pay FBT. The other fact is that the company can pass on the FBT liability to the employee under a salary package.

However, you have narrowed your comments on to salary packaging only. Which is about employees packaging their salary. Therefore, these comments are about employees spend employee salary, not companies spending company money.

My comment, to which you've provided this limited response, was much more broad and related to all company expenses using company money. Not employee salary, which frankly makes no sense in relation to what happened with Thomsen. He was spending union money, via a union provided card. That is not salary packaging. Companies are fully entitled to authorise staff to purchase anything using company funds (NOT SALARY) provided they account for it and keep within all the legal requirements.

That has been my consistent point. Companies and unions can spend their money in any way that they choose provided they keep within all legal requirements. You're salary scarifice distraction does not change that in anyway.

Salary packaging (also known as salary sacrifice or salary exchange) is a term used to refer to the inclusion of employee benefits (also called fringe benefits) in an employee remuneration package in exchange for giving up part of monetary salary. Such arrangements are entered into most commonly if there are tax or other benefits to be derived by the employer or employee from the arrangement.

Salary packaging in Australia[edit]

Main article: Fringe benefits tax (Australia)
Items commonly salary packaged include:

• vehicles (either a company car or through a novated lease)
• mobile phones
• laptop computers

Some companies also allow their employees to salary package other items, including household utility bills, although this is complicated and normally requires the assistance of a third-party company who specialise in salary packaging arrangements.
Charities and public & not for profit hospitals can do this most effectively as they are exempt from fringe benefits tax up to a certain limit per employee (currently $9095 for public hospitals)
Salary packaged benefits in Australia generally attract Fringe Benefits Tax within the Australian taxation system, with a few exceptions - some benefits are Fringe Benefits Tax exempt, including mobile phones and laptop computers.

This is what I have said previously. If a company allows you to salary sacrifice/salary package then except for a few business related items (and super) they will be required to pay fringe benefits tax. And FRINGE BENEFITS TAX is why the majority of non charitable business do not offer it.

which is exactly why I said this:
Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to, and if they do, the pay for it in extra FRINGE BENEFITS TAX.

 

[eastwest101]

Right. Because how will we keep that wealth divide growing when those uppity working class folks keep trying to get on equal footing with their employers by working together ?.

Keep going with your class warfare rhetoric if you want, its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the recently installed ALP leader hinted the electorate had stopped listening to the ALP for some reason?

I'm sure the unions would love to have a similar lack of attention and oversight that comes with being equivalent to a corporation under a Liberal Government.

Bit of a fail in logic there as your logic seems to be that because the Liberal party favours private business then all of a sudden the rule of law and independent bodies like ACCC/ASIC and other various corporations/safety/environmental/banking/tax law seem to vanish into thin air. If you have specific examples of wilful or negligent lack of attention and oversight then by all means - gather your selective evidence - but I think you'll find that overall - a lack of attention and oversight is just as likely to happen under an ALP government as a Liberal one because if there are failures - its usually the same public servants that have somehow failed regardless of the political colours of the particular government.

Its the relationship between unions and the ALP in NSW that has been the subject of a lot of conjecture lately.

 

[Pushka]

I figured wikipedia was at your level. But the bottom line is that salary sacrifice and salary packaging mean the same thing. Something you denied before and told me I was confused. Clearly, I was not the one who was confused. Lets try another site, oh yes, here is one:

https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_000525

What is salary sacrificing?

1. Salary sacrificing is provided for under the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

2. Salary Sacrificing (or packaging)means salary packaging/deductions for benefits from a staff member's pre-tax salary.


You are seeing something that isn't there.

Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to. Because doing so attracts FBT. So it is a penalty for doing so.

And anyone who is in business is told by their accountants to avoid FBT like the plague.

Just as everyone can drive over the speed limit. Because of course, physically, everyone can speed. But if you get caught there is a penalty.

 

[Moody]

I figured wikipedia was at your level. But the bottom line is that salary sacrifice and salary packaging mean the same thing. Something you denied before and told me I was confused. Clearly, I was not the one who was confused. Lets try another site, oh yes, here is one:

https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_000525

What is salary sacrificing?

1. Salary sacrificing is provided for under the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

2. Salary Sacrificing (or packaging)means salary packaging/deductions for benefits from a staff member's pre-tax salary.


You are seeing something that isn't there.

Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to. Because doing so attracts FBT. So it is a penalty for doing so.

And anyone who is in business is told by their accountants to avoid FBT like the plague.

Just as everyone can drive over the speed limit. Because of course, physically, everyone can speed. But if you get caught there is a penalty.

I've lost the gist of the core issue here, so do you think we can get back onto politics rather than esoteric FBT arguments???

 

[BadgerBoi]

Keep going with your class warfare rhetoric if you want, its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion,

That's rich coming from the same person who, just last night, made a schoolboy attempt at ridiculing me for expressing my own opinion.

 

[medhead]

I figured wikipedia was at your level. But the bottom line is that salary sacrifice and salary packaging mean the same thing. Something you denied before and told me I was confused. Clearly, I was not the one who was confused. Lets try another site, oh yes, here is one:

https://policies.anu.edu.au/ppl/document/ANUP_000525

What is salary sacrificing?

1. Salary sacrificing is provided for under the ANU Enterprise Agreement.

2. Salary Sacrificing (or packaging)means salary packaging/deductions for benefits from a staff member's pre-tax salary.


You are seeing something that isn't there.

Companies cannot spend money on anything they want to. Because doing so attracts FBT. So it is a penalty for doing so.

And anyone who is in business is told by their accountants to avoid FBT like the plague.

Just as everyone can drive over the speed limit. Because of course, physically, everyone can speed. But if you get caught there is a penalty.

The agreement at one institution (ANU) does not help you. I'll hold up my current employer that uses the two terms in relation to 2 different things, if that is your standard. Sacrifice of super, packaging for other benefits.

The point remains having to pay FBT does not mean the money cannot be spent. Avoiding FBT does not mean a company cannot spend the money if they wish. You argument is limited and fails as such. It is also completely irrelevant.

Finally the point remains that my statement was made in relation to the HSU and the suggestion that there was something illegal in the use of one of its credit cards. The union can decide to spend its money however it likes, within the bounds of all legal requirements. Any company can decide to do the same as well.

The HSU did not involve salary packaging or sacrifice and you comment is complete irrelevant. I have no idea why that is so hard to understand. But I have nothing more to say about the matter beyond irrelevant and wrong (as in does not address my point at all).