Canberra Grammar says JobKeeper criticism an 'ongoing campaign' targeting private schools

Give it a break, chewy. It is easy to understand and support the intent and effect of JobKeeper. It was the complete lack of provision at the time for confirmation of need and possible recovery of apparent over-payment which was egregious.
Sometimes, one must acknowledge the indefensible among the good or even the self-interest.

Exactly, so much for “good economic managers” – who designs a scheme that excludes any accountability or ability to reclaim government funding when the recipient, after the fact, is not eligible for the funding. Compare that to the Robodebt scandal.

Phydeaux,
Putting in recovery provisions would have made businesses far less likely to access Jobkeeper, the exact opposite of what it was designed to achieve.

The money didn’t go to the businesses, it went to their staff to keep them connected to the workforce. It was extremely successful and it’s actually surprising that it was delivered by a Coalition government who are often against such type of stimulus.

Honestly, the fact that some businesses were able to rebound their profits so quickly is actually testament to how well the policy worked and how well Australia has managed the pandemic.

Attacking private schools like Grammar for this, is extremely lazy and intellectually dishonest.

It’s the politics of envy and it’s not a good look no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

Chewy,
“Putting in recovery provisions would have made businesses far less likely to access Jobkeeper”
How do you know? With what design of recovery? I have run a couple of businesses. If in a crisis I were offered an interest-free loan automatically forgiven up to the point where I exceeded ordinarily expected profits then don’t try getting between me and the money. A design of that general nature is not beyond the wit nor understanding of anyone relevant to the case. I have done contractual design of that nature myself, and have you ever met the Tax Office?

“Attacking private schools…”
I draw your attention to my comment in reply to kenbehrens,
“I am making zero comment on the merits or otherwise of the CG case…”
because I do not have the facts, so do not try to smear me into the picture.

Thanks.

Phydeaux,
Because a large proportion of the people receiving Jobkeeper weren’t physically working during the acute phase of the Pandemic or were on significantly reduced hours.

What business owner in their right mind would sign up to a scheme that paid their employees money for doing nothing when the business would have to pay the money back later if they made a profit?

The risk to business for signing up to such a scheme would be huge even if they managed to keep operating during that period.

Like all stimulus schemes before them, there was leakage and rorting from people who probably didn’t deserve or need the money.

But that wasn’t the point of it.

And this is an article about people attacking a private school for receiving Jobkeeper and then making a profit, so whilst I respect you might not be referencing them, that’s what this article is about.

That is not a case, it is a non sequitur trailed by misrepresentation through misquotation. Perhaps you do not understand it, or do not wish to. Your other words are irrelevant.

The Government went out of their way to exclude payments for Universities which are privately run, but for some reason they could not extend this same treatment to schools at the primary and high school level? I don’t buy the “we didn’t have time” excuse.

Phydeaux,
Was that meant to be a reply to me?

My comment directly references the point you made, explaining why recovery provisions wouldn’t have worked and would have significantly affected the policy outcomes negatively.

Perhaps you don’t understand it or don’t wish to but it is what it is

OK chewy, I’ll spell it out for you. You wrote “What business owner in their right mind would sign up to a scheme that paid their employees money for doing nothing when the business would have to pay the money back later if they made a profit??
No-one, no-one, proposed that particular (and ridiculous) model but you. Anyone else can read my actual words (9:43 AM 23 Jan) to see I wrote differently, and have the experience to know it, as does the ATO among its existing practices.
Would you, personally, be so naive or nescient as to propose your design in reality? Do you expect the federal financial departments would if asked? Whether you answer yes or no, the discussion is effectively over. Either the subject is outside your capability or most likely you are attempting a weak straw man argument showing that you are defending a political position, not a rational point. A commercially sensible model can be (or could have been) implemented; you don’t want to know it, so you fling the straw about. What logical fallacy will you try next?.
Further, if CG would like to pay me a very large fee, open their books and answer questions, I will form an opinion on their situation. Otherwise I will make no comment here on them or correspondingly on any private or public company. Is professional detachment an alien concept for you, or are you so politically bound up here that you imagine it must be mirrored by others?

Phydeaux,
You talked about the design of recovery provisions and the offer of a loan with the policy.

Now you are talking about a complete redesign of the policy from what was proposed, which would necessarily have different components and delivery.

There’s no logical fallacy there, I was responding to your comment and written words.

Could a better overall policy have been delivered? Yes.

Would it have been akin to anything like Jobkeeper? No.

Within the actual policy that was proposed, have a think about all of the negative implications about putting in recovery provisions around stimulus money designed to get cash flowing into businesses, consumers and the economy quickly.

You are actually saying that the government should have provided an incentive for businesses to lose money after the acute phase of the Pandemic.

The negative economic consequences of doing so and the bad business behaviour it would have encouraged are huge.

Chewy,
I wrote “…an interest-free loan automatically forgiven up to the point where [it] exceeded ordinarily expected profits”
You wrote “…a scheme that paid their employees money for doing nothing when the business would have to pay the money back later if they made a profit”
Obviously very different statements to anyone with financial or commercial knowledge.
As one end of the continuum, you do not understand the question. As the other end, you present a straw man to defend your political position. I do not really care where you try fall on that spectrum, your position fails anyway.

I note that you now agree a better policy could have been delivered, which was my opening point (11:17 AM 22 Jan). It would be a simple extension. Whether you personally would describe it as “[not] akin to anything like Jobkeeper” is your taste but of no relevance.

In the interests of ending this peaceably, I have avoided comment now on your further words. Suffice to say they are wrong.

Phydeaux,
My comment:
“…a scheme that paid their employees money for doing nothing when the business would have to pay the money back later if they made a profit”

Was specifically around the actual implementation of Jobkeeper and the flaws in your proposal of a loan scheme as it related to the delivered scheme.

You claim that a new, better policy could have been designed but give no details as to what that would look like.

Because you know as well as I do that there are significant downsides to any proposal that either added complexity to accessing the stimulus money, slowed down payments or reduced the willingness of businesses to sign up in the first place.

Any stimulus package is always going to face issues of balance and competing policy objectives. As I said, I don’t think it was a perfect scheme but in general it was well designed and achieved some significant objectives that helped us through that phase of the Pandemic.

And your last paragraph is amusing, suffice to say, I disagree.

Chewy, do try reading the previous comments again. Still the same straw man now with special added fluff, although the more you keep digging the more I am leaning to place you on the “no idea” end of the continuum. You betray that again with your third paragraph.

For your further amusement, here is my previously elided comment.
You wrote “You are actually saying that the government should have provided an incentive for businesses to lose money after the acute phase of the Pandemic”.
Garbage. Less comprehension or heaps more straw. My general model does not offer any such incentive to a company whatsoever; they would lose from what you purport.
Are you familiar with company operations and accounts? Have you any familiarity with how the ATO or financial analysts find and investigate apparent anomalies? Have you designed and negotiated contracts which manage “over-success”? Or is it all just your political bias for you, constantly chasing shadows of self-justification?

Phydeaux,
I’m leaning towards placing you in the same part of that continuum also.

So seems we have finally come to some level of agreement on the issue.

and as a not for profit educational institution they are exempt from income tax!

As are trade unions.

And political parties and their “investments” (like Labor Clubs).