Libs Just Lost the Election with this Policy

Does any company include stock/equity options ?
If no: does any company allow sickies without doctors certificates ?

The employee's choice also depends on the empowerment and engagement permitted by the employer. Employee's response is not necessarily indicative of his mindset, but his response to the work environment. Engagement will be better if profits are shared. It takes two hands to clap.

 

Yes, equality is terrible. First women and non-white people, now gays. Terrible!

 

To be fair as an employee, a business with $98m of expenses sure leaves a lot more room for there to be some pretty big salaries in there so it makes sense.

It equally could mean they're doing a lot more work though.

Realistically you'd need more information to accurately decide.

 

Why is 2 worse for the employee?

Did you jump to conclusions? Why is it worse for the employer?

In my post, I wasn't talking about selling. I was talking about working for. Did you jump to conclusions? I don't understand why you raised selling, Google, etc. I don't understand how this adds to the point I was making.

These are great questions but they have nothing to do with the point I was making in my Post #26.

Did you jump to a big conclusion here?. From my experience, a lot of staff (especially salespeople) focussed on revenue/turnover. The answer they gave to my simple question in my Post #26 supported this.

But turnover is not the 'main game in town'. Profit is. By asking that simple question and getting answers from staff, I could move staff to think more about profit and just importantly about expenses and cashflow. The point of that simple question was nothing more than that.

The importance of profit was demonstrated to staff of one of my business just after I sold it. There were two business, A (that I owned) and B (that two others owned). Both companies sold the same software and delivered the same services. A's territory was QLD; B's was NSW and VIC. B has twice the number of staff as A. The staff of B would probably argue that they worked for the better company.

B's turnover was 5 times that of A but both companies did the same profit in dollar terms. The owners of B were totally focussed on increasing turnover; I was totally focussed on maintaining/increasing profit. That is why A's profit was 20% and B's was 4%. Can you see the red flag here.

As part of their revenue growth strategy, the owners of B made me an offer I couldn't refuse and they bought me out. Sadly, 18 months later, the merged business of A and B went into liquidation, 80 staff lost their jobs, the owners of B lost their homes, etc.

It is very important for a business, its owners and its staff to understand the difference between turnover and profit and which one is the more important. That is the point I was making in Post #26; nothing more, nothing less.

 

Haha. You missed my point entirely. Having just voted the marriage equality bill down, I feel it is too soon for the ALP to raise it again. It's like, sorry guys, I know we only just voted against marriage equality but we support it now we are in opposition. And I would believe them why? Marriage equality for the ALP is a conscience vote anyway. No guarantees they won't just vote it down again like last time.

Plibersec posted some rant on facebook stating that she was putting up a bill for marriage equality. She copped it. Not because people don't support marriage equality... they do! But because the ALP only just voted it down and now want to suck up by saying this time they will support it. Pathetic.

I also don't agree with the Libs wasting money on a non-binding, very expensive, survey on the topic. They should just vote for it already and move on.

 

I just watched the first election ads by Malcolm Turnbull, It's not making sense.

Innovation, Science and Technology
Liberals killed off the NBN, made deep cuts to CSIRO - how do you innovate when you've lost all your scientists especially in climate science when you need it even more to ensure your crops grow?
Libs are cutting 80b to schools and hospitals over 5 years but giving 48.5b, maybe more, especially to businesses who earn 4-10 million over 10 years.

19000 export job opportunities created - for who? For the Beef farmers, dairy farmers, milk companies, to ship stuff to China, Korea and Japan.
All I could think about was the crushing the of the car manufacturing and job losses in associated industries. We used to have a proud car industry, Our blue collar workers could hold their head high - I made this! Now all that is gone or about to go
And now I worry about whether I can get cheap parts for my obsolete cars.

Can't remember the rest of the ad.. so depressing...nothing for the ordinary Australian

 

And here is a very interesting paper on the effect of the company tax cut.

Melbourne Economic Forum

Modelling the Impacts of a Cut to Company Tax in Australia (J.M Dixon and J. Nassios)

We investigate the impact of a cut to the company tax rate using a miniature version of the Vic-Uni computable general equilibrium model of the Australian economy with additional detail on ownership of physical capital. Because of Australia’s system of dividend imputation, a change to the company tax rate only affects the final post-tax rate of return for foreign investors. Therefore a cut to the company tax rate would transfer government revenue to foreigners, and add to pressure on government to reduce spending or to raise personal taxes.

We concur with the Treasury’s finding that a cut to the company tax rate would attract more foreign investment to Australia, making workers more productive and increasing wages and output. However, there is a lag between new investment activity and capital growth, and a large share of future company profits will accrue to foreign investors.

We also find that increased wages will reduce returns to domestically owned capital.

While the impact on national production, as measured by GDP, will be positive, this is not a suitable measure of national benefit. The right indicator of national benefit is the impact of a company tax rate cut on national income and we find that this will fall.

 

Elections

 

Apparently food crops and trees in general are growing quicker now because of the extra CO2 in the air. But yea, you're right, it's stupid that so many cuts to research and technology have been made. We can't stay relevant if we don't keep pace with the other first world countries.

 

A car industry that was so decrepit that it was costing the taxpayer billions of dollars a year in subsidies to keep it going - while they were churning out cars that no one wanted. If they'd moved into smaller, competitive, electric vehicles, then yes, keep it going ... but otherwise cut it off.

I think you'll find that funding to schools has increased, but with the provisory that the money is to be spent wisely ... sadly the states are demanding extra money with no accountability on how the extra money will improve outcomes ... this is akin to Westpac sticking $4mil in some 18yr olds account and then getting up in arms cause she wasted it in on handbags and luxury hotels ... oh ... that's right .. whereas, if the 18 yr old had been accountable the money could have been spent on investments that increased in value, both would have come out better off (please Westpac - my account number is xxxx).

The harping that really gets on my goat is "fairness to all Australians" ... now ... we know for a significant percentage of Australians, their opinion of a "fair go" is "bugger everyone else, give me more money". Few realise there is a difference between equality and equitability.

One is giving everyone the same thing - whether they need it or not - the other is giving the opportunity for everyone to achieve the same thing (which some chose not to take). I think the current government is more about equitability.

Another factor that seems to be overlooked by the Labs is that small business employs around 80-90% of the workforce in Australia ... to increase the viability of these small business leads, down the track, to more employment .... more employment means more people off welfare, paying taxes and (hopefully) becoming self sufficient and contributing members of society ... small business is also where the majority of innovative ideas and future business developments grow from.

So that leads to the pondering of - by decreasing CSIRO spending - but increasing the spending power of small, innovative business - where will the future employment and technological advancements come from?

 

Grow faster but with less protein.

Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis - TAUB - 2007 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library

Effects of elevated CO2 on the protein concentration of food crops: a meta-analysis

Meta-analysis techniques were used to examine the effect of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on the protein concentrations of major food crops, incorporating 228 experimental observations on barley, rice, wheat, soybean and potato. Each crop had lower protein concentrations when grown at elevated (540–958 μmol mol−1) compared with ambient (315–400 μmol mol−1) CO2. For wheat, barley and rice, the reduction in grain protein concentration was ∼10–15% of the value at ambient CO2. For potato, the reduction in tuber protein concentration was 14%. For soybean, there was a much smaller, although statistically significant reduction of protein concentration of 1.4%. The magnitude of the CO2 effect on wheat grains was smaller under high soil N conditions than under low soil N. Protein concentrations in potato tubers were reduced more for plants grown at high than at low concentrations of ozone. For soybean, the ozone effect was the reverse, as elevated CO2 increased the protein concentration of soybean grown at high ozone concentrations. The magnitude of the CO2 effect also varied depending on experimental methodology. For both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers produced a larger CO2 effect than those performed using other types of experimental facilities. There was also indication of a possible pot artifact as, for both wheat and soybean, studies performed in open-top chambers showed a significantly greater CO2 effect when plants were ****** in pots rather than in the ground. Studies on wheat also showed a greater CO2 effect when protein concentration was measured in whole grains rather than flour. While the magnitude of the effect of elevated CO2 varied depending on the experimental procedures, a reduction in protein concentration was consistently found for most crops. These findings suggest that the increasing CO2 concentrations of the 21st century are likely to decrease the protein concentration of many human plant foods.

 

You are incorrect. Gonski funding that was promised, has been removed. There funds were vital to ensure that schools that need help to lift their standards, got help to do so. The future prosperity of our country is dependent on an educated productive work force. Without good teachers and schools we are nothing.

 

Reneging on "promised money" is not cutting funding ... actual funding is increasing ...

However - on the second point - educated, productive work force with good teachers ... I totally agree ... I think you will find the Libs also totally agree ... what they (and I) don't agree with is simply handing out money with no plan in place for the education system to achieve this - which would lead to "status quo" albeit costing more.

I think you will find this is the crux of the "funding" issue - Gonski is fine, as long as the money is spent wisely and appropriately ... the problem is that there are no checks and measures in place, and no plan, for this to happen - ergo - a real chance of no improvement happening.

 

So you totally discredit the findings of Gonski, really? Where is your dissenting report? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

 

Not discrediting anything - pretty sure I said the ideas of Gonski is fine - the sticking point was the measures of implementation and results - and accountability of such by the States.

If the government is going to supply significant amounts of taxpayers money into a scheme to improve the education and innovation of young Australians, is it unreasonable to expect a confirmed plan, on a state by state, area by area, basis on how this is going to be achieved before simply handing the dollars over?

Seen enough lousy teachers (and some super wonderful ones) in my days to know that simply throwing more money at schools, without specific plans and anticipated outcomes, will not improve anything.

A huge leap forward occurred, a few years back, when a few NSW principals were given more autonomy and accountability into how government money was best spent for their particular school, in order to achieve the outcomes necessary to improve the kids education (which differed wildly from school to school) ... but the principals first had to present a plan, with measureable goals, before the money was handed over ... is it to much to ask the States to step up in a similar fashion?

Now - I gotta stop procrastinating and do my homework or Miss Reid (French) and Miss Murphy (interior design) will both be on my case

 

Here are some key recommendations from Gonski. Do you seriously think they just wanted to establish a massive pot of cash and just give it away? Do you know who David Gonski is? Why would he head up and put his name on a report like this?

• Funding for capital works (e.g. a hall or other school buildings) should be available to both government and non-government schools from a separate funding system. There should be more public accountability for public funding of school capital projects.

• School Planning Authorities should be established with representatives from government and non-government schools to develop a coordinated approach to planning for new schools and school growth. The Australian Government should establish a School Growth Fund for building new schools and for major school expansions, and the School Planning Authorities would be responsible for the approval of funding for these projects.

• Federal and state governments should establish a National Schools Resourcing Body responsible for a range of tasks including: maintenance, development and review of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) ; research, analysis and data collection and improvement; and for the development of school building standards.

• The Federal Government and state and territory governments should legislate for the new funding framework to ensure certainty and transparency of public funding for schools over a 12-year cycle.

• Public accountability is highly regarded, with the recommendation that there be greater collection and publication of more sophisticated data measuring the relationshiop between educational outcomes and funding.

• Funding for the teaching of disadvantaged students should target flexible, evidence-based strategies, expertise in the leadership of the school, early intervention for students at risk of underperformance, and programs that encourage parent and community engagement.

• Governments should give priority to the collection of nationally consistent data on students with disadvantage so that funding is directed to where it is needed most, and improvements in educational outcomes can be measured and improved over time.

 

I dont want to get too much into Australian politics...but ill just say that from a business and high value jobs perspective, we would be foolish to get labour in.

 

... don't know why you're getting upset and seem to think I'm anti-Gonski... all those points are great and fantastic ... and all begin with "should" ... so, I completely understand the government wants a "how, when, what, where" to be detailed before handing the money over.

 

Ah, the "you're being emotional, so shutup" defence. Thanks for your uninformed comment on my state of mind but I think you should refrain.

I'm not saying you are anti Gonski. You are against what has been recommended by experts. Nice try at a strawman, but did say you are against pointless funding, etc. And I've show that this is certainly not the case, the funding is needed, it is well thought out, considered and accountable.

You can continue to "debate" syntax and semantics, but the fact is, the LNP promised very much needed funding, they said they were in "lockstep" with Labor on Gonski. Now we see, that this was just a plain lie to the public. They lied on their job application on this and many other fronts, which I could point out. So now it's time for them to be accountable.