Libs Just Lost the Election with this Policy

It would be according to some people on this forum!

 

Can't afford to smoke anymore. 12.5% tax increase per year.


As a reformed smoker and parent I'm actually happy with this one.

 

Whilst I agree 100m is a lot for a small business there is a massive difference between turnover and actual profit after all costs etc

 

Not sure what context you're talking but i think you'll find they are changing the definition for tax purposes to $10m not $100m!
Well overdue - its been a bracket creep of the worst kind since small business reforms were brought in after the Ralph Review toward the end of last century.

As far as Turnbull's re-election chances go, he should hide in a cupboard for the next couple of months and just let the public see the clear difference between Morrison and Bowen as treasurer.
Bowen could not hide his contempt for small business when commenting about this very topic. If he's calling the shots on the economy we will go right back to the Swan era in terms of managing the economy. Still, if that's what people want......

 

$100M turnover would be one development project for some on PC.

Whether they make a profit is a totally different story.

 

When I owned businesses, I used to ask my staff whether they would rather worked for a business (in the same industry) that generated:

1. $100M revenue and generated $2M profit
2. $10M revenue and generated $2M profit

Some staff chose Business 1 as they perceived it as a larger business. Others felt the two businesses were the same (same profit, in dollar terms at least). Very few would choose Business 2 - this always amazed me.

 

You could be just right, our esteemed shadow treasurer Bowen was just on Channel 10 criticizing Morrison for giving Companies with a Billion dollar turnover the small business tax reduction.

Corrrect me if I'm wrong but the last time I looked a 1,000 million is a billion not 100 million

 

I believe eventually their model is that ALL businesses will be charged a flat 25% tax regardless of revenue.

 

Funniest most uninformed thing I've read all day. We are talking about the same Swan right?

 

This is very smart. Love it.
I would rather own and run business 2 obviously

 

.20 cents in the dollar revenue versus .02 cents..easy decision.

In my line of work I know retail business that achieve 15 million in sales and make a loss of 500k

 

Do both options employ the same number of people?

 

I'm not really a gambling man, but when the RBA decisions started being leaked to the SMH, I started betting small amounts on the interest rate. Then I pulled out the money I had put in initially and put the rest on the next rate movement being down rather than up.
That obviously finally came through yesterday and I was left with $145.50 in my betting account.

I had a look at the odds of Liberals versus Labor and Labor is getting $3.25 odds currently. I thought that they were very good odds and put all of my "free" money on it.
I'm not sure that they will win, but given that they currently lead on a two party preferred basis and the budget didn't seem that positive to me, I think there's at least a good chance that the odds will tighten, at which point I can always put money on the Liberals.

 

That wasn't part of the conversation but most likely not.

There is really no definitive right or definitive wrong answer although I (as a business owner) would prefer 2.

It was more about identifying the mindset of the business and its staff.

 

Surely as a business owner one would think, wow you jumped to conclusions without having all the data required to make the most correct answer.

 

Father Christmas?

 

So that I don't jump to conclusions, can you please elaborate.

 

If you also said, "all other things being equal", option 2 might be better. But why is it better for the employee.

Why is it better for the employer? Let's say Google came knocking on your door, which company would you prefer to sell?

But there are many other questions to be answered, such as:

• Do they employ the same number of people
• Which has better conditions for emplyees
• Which conducts it's business more ethically and sustainably
• Which is a more long term prospect for profit, ie no good making a profit for just another 2 years
• Which has better growth prospect vs profit, (just like negative gearing)

Without these being answered, you can't solve the main problem. Even then some of these questions might not have meaning to particular employees.

I would like to assume you meant "all other things being equal". But you explicitly used a much narrower qualifier: "in the same industry".

 

Honestly this election just feels like choosing between being stabbed to death or drowning...

 

hahaha I agree. I keep taking points off. Points off the Libs for not supporting a Royal Commission into banking. Points off the Labs for whinging because the Feds blocked the sale of the Kidman estate to the Chinese. Points off Libs for changes to super. Points of Labs for floating marriage equality (too soon). Points off, points off, points off. They are both well and truly both in minus territory. It's a shame because my local MP is actually a decent bloke. I might have to send him a Dear John email.