Class Warfare

[Patrick Bullet]

Tell me this. When I donate money to my church, the money I donate has already been taxed. Whey should the government then tax that money a 2nd time?

I thought one could claim donations >=$2 as tax-deductable; i.e., you get the tax you have paid on that money back. Is this no longer the case?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

and underutilised investments that don't stimulate the economy, like deposits

thresholds apply of course, as it is supposed to be targeting the wealthy



our biggest issue is still tax evasion though through cash businesses, charities, not for profits and gambling (laundering). Internationally the big wealth scam is front running of government investments. All of these really hurt the poor and the ordinary guy.

Deposits are a bit different though. While they don't directly stimulate the economy they are the cheapest source of finance for lenders, and therefore (if banks were asctually competitive) for borrowers including small business and primary producers. In that respect they stimulate the economy indirectly. Yet, we tax income on deposits as income tax with no deductions (which is fair enough, and in some ways is a tax on wealth as they higher deposit the higher the tax by potentially going into the next bracket for some of those earnings).

High property, and leasing, prices do not. Yet, we give big tax breaks to this.

The tax base is a big issue, and wealth may be a part of that. The shifting of corporate revenues offshore, and tax free revenue for non-charitable works of non-profits, are others.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I thought one could claim donations >=$2 as tax-deductable; i.e., you get the tax you have paid on that money back. Is this no longer the case?

I think he is talking about the collection plate or similar (tithes). There's usually no receipt for that.

But to answer the question.

When I buy groceries, I have already paid tax on that. Why should I then pay GST on the groceries, and Woolworths/Wesfarmers pay tax again on that money? Why should their employees pay tax on their earning if I, and other buyers, have already paid tax on ours?
Apart from the church's charity, which like any business it could claim a deduction for if religious institutions were taxed, why should that discretionary spend be treated preferntially to any other spend?

 

[Rear Admiral]

Capital gains tax.

Ah ha. Got it. I understand Capital Gains Tax, but didn't know of the acronym "CGT".
Thanks .

If they are going to do their policy, they should revise and limit it to Real Property to avoid killing important industry.

Don't understand that second bit....you lost me there.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Indonesia, india and many other countries around the world are seeking to cut states in two and build new capital cities.

Supply and demand.

We have too much demand and too little supply and what new supply comes online needs a return. High density has perversely made the cost of running a city cheaper but the cost of owning a part of the city more expensive.

Another policy shifting wealth from the new comer to the established.

In Australia, we definitely have a lack of supply of housing, no question about it. But we also have way too much demand. And when looking at the whole supply-demand equation of housing and affordability, we definitely need to look at both factors....but reducing demand is the bigger priority.

 

[Power Raid]

Deposits are a bit different though. While they don't directly stimulate the economy they are the cheapest source of finance for lenders, and therefore (if banks were asctually competitive) for borrowers including small business and primary producers. In that respect they stimulate the economy indirectly. Yet, we tax income on deposits as income tax with no deductions (which is fair enough, and in some ways is a tax on wealth as they higher deposit the higher the tax by potentially going into the next bracket for some of those earnings).

High property, and leasing, prices do not. Yet, we give big tax breaks to this.

The tax base is a big issue, and wealth may be a part of that. The shifting of corporate revenues offshore, and tax free revenue for non-charitable works of non-profits, are others.

Yep good argument

And on reflection agree as inflation achieves the penalty / double taxation anyway.

Thanks

 

[Power Raid]

Ah ha. Got it. I understand Capital Gains Tax, but didn't know of the acronym "CGT".
Thanks .



Don't understand that second bit....you lost me there.

There is already a special capital gains treatment for real property for non tax residents. The test has a few elements but in short if 50% or more is Real Property (mainly land) then they are taxed. If not no tax.

I digress but they should be taxed regardless and highlights real property can and should be classed different to operating assets such as businesses. Especially long term investment businesses like R&D.

Otherwise we will become the dumb nation unable to compete. I guess why bother with education under labor's poorly designed policy?

 

[Power Raid]

In Australia, we definitely have a lack of supply of housing, no question about it. But we also have way too much demand. And when looking at the whole supply-demand equation of housing and affordability, we definitely need to look at both factors....but reducing demand is the bigger priority.

Agree in Sydney, Melbourne, perth and Brisbane re demand.

Sadly we face the deli a of economic growth vs housing affordability.

Population growth is probably the only p in the three p's we have keeping our heads above water.

Further it's the only thing addressing our ageing population and making the cost of maintaining infrastructure across a large nation possible.

To think there was no sealed road to perth from the eastern states until recently.

Perhaps close shop for immigration in the east but keep it open for central and western states non capitals. We will see who really wants to be here!

 

[Power Raid]

In Australia, we definitely have a lack of supply of housing, no question about it. But we also have way too much demand. And when looking at the whole supply-demand equation of housing and affordability, we definitely need to look at both factors....but reducing demand is the bigger priority.

Agree 100% re your comments in the PM re baby boomers, reinvesting in the next gen, training and immigration.

Sadly most baby boomers still see themselves as 60s hippies, greenies and generous when the reality is no other generation has consumed more than they generated. Meaning they blushed off their parents, kids, grand kids and even the next gen not born yet.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

In regards to business....particularly small businesses....and Penalty Rates.

I want to make it clear that what I'm posting here are comments I've heard from some small business owner I've chatted to. That's not to say these comments are necessarily right or wrong, but I am not the one conjuring them up.

Trying to be as close as possible to word-for-word:

The main problem is that since almost all manufacturing and I.T./Finance/Call Centre jobs have gone off-shore, or been made obsolete because of technological unemployment....we Aussies have taken up small businesses like never before. The most obvious ones that spring to mind are cafes and eateries, but there are many other types. The problem is, in many sectors, these types of small businesses have completely and utterly over-saturated the market. And massively so. As a result, many of these small businesses simply aren't earning enough revenue to make them viable, yet councils and local governments allow almost anyone to set up a small business anywhere, regardless of the bigger picture. Sure, wages are an issue, but nowhere near as much as the lack of spending customer numbers walking through the door. The problem is, as soon as there's some sort of business/economic issue, the Government always looks at the lowest common denominator - workers and wages. These people I chatted to said that the whole wages issue needs to be looked into, bigtime, but nowhere near as important as our whole economic structure. And especially how we're allowing cheap overseas wages to wipe Australia off the map.

I'm of the opinion that unless we sit down and seriously assess and restructure how our entire economy is functioning....simply arguing about Penalty Rates (either keep, change, or get of them) isn't going to help matters all that much. We need to think a helluva lot deeper than that. What I can say for certain is that all these people sitting on their property investments (especially those reaping rent from commercial leases) need a serious wake up call. Your rental profits can't keep going up and up, while those small businesses paying your rent are barely able to scrape by.

The reason why there are so many cafes/eateries is because Australia is relatively wealthy and regular retail is getting smashed by the internet. That means you have leases available on high streets or in malls, etc. It's not a case of "councils and local governments allow almost anyone to set up a small business anywhere", there are rules about where people can set up and if someone plans to break those rules they need to have a good reason.Also, Australia is not being wiped off the map in anyway. A lot of manufacturing has gone to China, but we still manufacture a lot. The cars leaving is a big blow, especially given only a few years after the decision, right-wing voters have suddenly decided they liked subsidies after decades of demonising them.

I'm thinking the biggest problems in Australia (at the moment) are Negative Gearing and Multinationals dodging taxes.

Few things I'd like to see change is our taxation system. In particular:

Governments taxing people on all manner of Registration/Stamp Duty type transactions, and especially Payroll Tax (which I hate). Nobody has "necessarily" made any profit from anything, but the Government is taxing people/organisations purely because some sort of legal or financial transaction has taken place.
Get rid of that crap entirely. Taxation should apply purely to profits and assets (e.g. land)....not simply because some sort of legal transaction has taken place. Also, I hate the whole concept of:

"Ok, we'll introduce New-Tax-A, but we'll rebate/compensate certain people for it." (e.g. like the GST)

Stop all this complication, and taxing and rebating people. i.e. double handling of money. F*ck that off entirely.
I want to see wealthy people taxed more, absolutely, but I also want to see the taxation system massively streamlined. The way I would go about it is have sets of tax scales:

• One for individuals and private businesses.
• Another for publicly owned companies (i.e. with Shareholders)
• A scale of Land Tax.

Abolish all these stupid pain in the arse additional taxes and deductions, getting rid of every last sort of consumption tax, stamp duty, etc. Just massively simplify things, but have a much greater burden on big business profits....particularly public companies. That way, small businesses won't be able to complain they're being unfairly taxed. One of the big problems we face at the moment is the small family businesses that earn f*ck all are being treated entirely too much like big businesses, in terms of taxation. Entirely different rules need to apply to each type.

It's worth keeping in mind that 'big business' doesn't equal 'profits'. Multi-nationals can easily shift profits by gaming the relationships between their different groups. So, for example, someone like Apple bases themselves in Ireland due to its low tax and therefore sets itself up to make the most profit there, while also sending purchases in Australia via Singapore to take advantage of their benefits. Accountancy trickery can allow for all sort of ways to avoid tax and take advantage of different government incentives.

Simplifying tax is what most people want, but it can create simple ways for businesses to avoid those taxes. A big part of the reason it is so complex is that incentives are brought in and new legislation is designed to try and stop loopholes. The best starting point would be transparency so we know what we're really dealing with, but of course business worries about confidential business information getting out. The ATO can audit to discover info, but there are limits to that with a multi-national too. I'd like to see the removal of tax deductions for individuals as a quick way to stop tax 'minimisation' and to force everything to be more open (salary sacrifice perks similarly can hide the real situation). But acting on businesses is much more complicated.

Also, I noticed you noticed a lot of the odd logic leaps that Power Raid makes in the midst of his attempts to sound informed. He is pretty much always pushing bandwagons separate to any desire for logic or consistency. e.g. Land tax is often his main repeated issue, on the basis of the wealthy having an unfair advantage sitting on 'unproductive' land, yet when it came to Labor's negative gearing and capital gains tax reform, which primarily sort to restrain the unfair advantage in property investment 2nd home buyers got, he went on a months-long campaign of saying it was actually harming the "poor" - as you saw him touching on again in responses to you. It wasn't a request for a tweak to the idea, it was posting comment sprees saying it was harming the poor and was a bad policy. That's why you'll see cynical responses to him like Ice-Wolf's:

Yes we get it you want to tax the family home so that developers can run further amok.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

It's only 'class warfare' when the ALP or the Greens advocate policy aimed at advancing the interests of the working class and/or lower classes. When the Liberal Party attempt to advance the interests of the capitalist class, it's just a neutral act and sound economic management.

Source: NewsCorp, every day of the week, every year, for a lifetime.

Is it class warfare when the Labor Party do the same?

 

[Rear Admiral]

Sadly we face the deli a of economic growth vs housing affordability.

Population growth is probably the only p in the three p's we have keeping our heads above water.

Further it's the only thing addressing our ageing population and making the cost of maintaining infrastructure across a large nation possible.

To think there was no sealed road to perth from the eastern states until recently.

Perhaps close shop for immigration in the east but keep it open for central and western states non capitals. We will see who really wants to be here!

Thanks for raising these points. This is starting to cut to the very core of the problem.

I am of the absolutely rock solid belief that we need to stop (or at least seriously throttle back) all immigration and foreign Visa workers. And that has absolutely nothing to do with racism or opposition to Islam; I utterly despise racism and openly embrace multiculturalism. The comments I am making are purely from an economic perspective, but getting off track here.

What's happening now is we're ramping up population numbers simply to boost the property/real estate industry, but as far as I can see there's been no serious thought given to what this ever-growing population is actually going to DO for a living. It's population growth for the sake of population growth. Some people argue that we need an increasing population to look after our retirees, but this theory is utter balderdash. First of all, doing this is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme, and we all know how they pan out. Secondly, it only makes economic sense to bring people into the country if there are actually PROFIT EARNING jobs for these people to fill....as opposed to:

The $$$ they bring with them.
Just building houses for them.
Displacing existing Aussie-born workers from the existing jobs available, where these job numbers are continually dropping.

At present, two of the biggest White Elephants in the room are:

• Population growth
• Technological unemployment

More and more jobs are being taken away by technology, while our population keeps growing. I've spoken to a number of Baby Boomers that I know well, and they all say the same thing - back in the 1950's - 1970's, there were pretty much jobs growing on trees....you could walk from one job to the other, blindfolded. It was blatantly obvious Australia was in a state of labour shortage, whereas now we're clearly in a state of labour surplus, yet we continually keep growing our population. In previous decades, especially after WW2, it made sense to bring in Migrants, as we did need many more people to help build our essential infrastructure, but those days are long gone. Now with immigration, all this is doing is:

• Raising housing/property prices, along with utilities costs.
• Pushing down wages.
• Displacing Aussie workers.

Great for businesses and land owners, but a massive detriment to everyone else. While businesses are reaping greater profits, the blowout due to Centrelink costs is going through the roof, not to mention our booming prison rates.

These issues above aren't conjured up out of thin air, there have been numerous discussions on them for years -

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...th-can-make-us-worse-off-20150704-gi57fx.html

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migration-population/report/migrationandpopulation.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/02/23/4183437.htm#transcript

"But there's one fundamental problem: there are many more unemployed people than there are available jobs."

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/07/04/4491818.htm#transcript

"CHARLES BRASS, THE FUTURES FOUNDATION: We are already at the point where there are not enough jobs for everybody who wants them in Australia. There are, quite apart from the 5.8 per cent who are unemployed, there are a significant number of others who have just given up trying to find a job, they're discouraged. So we're already at the state where we haven't got enough jobs and it seems that it's increasing."

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migration-population/submissions/sub009/sub009.pdf

Masanauskas, John. "Skilled migrant program failing", The Herald Sun, July 21, 2005

Crowe, David. "Immigrants taking local IT jobs: report." Australian Financial Review, 7 July 2004

This is the real crux of it:



http://dicksmithpopulation.com/2012/11/06/1254/#more-1254

"Australia’s wealth primarily comes from our mineral and energy reserves and our agriculture. The size of the 'wealth cake' is pretty-well finite. In effect, double the population and each individual Aussie is likely to be worth half as much."


These articles above are just the very tip of the iceberg. No matter which way you look at this, there don't seem to be any real benefits to the vast majority of Australians by bringing in more and more people, or for existing Aussies to be having massive families. Not talking about having just a few kids, like most people do, but really big families.

 

[WCE1987]

Thanks for raising these points. This is starting to cut to the very core of the problem.

I am of the absolutely rock solid belief that we need to stop (or at least seriously throttle back) all immigration and foreign Visa workers.

It's population growth for the sake of population growth. Some people argue that we need an increasing population to look after our retirees, but this theory is utter balderdash.

I've spoken to a number of Baby Boomers that I know well, and they all say the same thing - back in the 1950's - 1970's, there were pretty much jobs growing on trees....you could walk from one job to the other, blindfolded.

Great for businesses and land owners, but a massive detriment to everyone else. While businesses are reaping greater profits, the blowout due to Centrelink costs is going through the roof, not to mention our booming prison rates.

Agree, the VISAs need to updated and their needs to be a restructure on how we upskill Australian workers.

Populations growth isn't a necessary a bad thing if we have more people hitting retirement age then we need to have more/same amount in the working age we need more workers to generate tax revenue. The bigger issue population density and we need to spread more of the migration to regional towns we're housing is low cost.

Back in the 50's you could easily get into un-skilled work, that just is not the case anymore and we need to have more intelligent and capable work force through either secondary education or apprenticeships. High school into the workforce is just not going to be enough anymore.

All the businesses I've worked in all have genuine effort to improve the communities they themselves and their workers live in. It would be of no benefit to a business negatively impact their company to such an extent that it would stop consumerism.

IMO Drugs have a way bigger problem on our Centrelink system and prison system than Foreign Workers and Immigration

Australia is a very fast country we can take in more people, we just to find the right mix and pace of immigration

 

[WCE1987]

I think he is talking about the collection plate or similar (tithes). There's usually no receipt for that.

But to answer the question.

When I buy groceries, I have already paid tax on that. Why should I then pay GST on the groceries, and Woolworths/Wesfarmers pay tax again on that money? Why should their employees pay tax on their earning if I, and other buyers, have already paid tax on ours?
Apart from the church's charity, which like any business it could claim a deduction for if religious institutions were taxed, why should that discretionary spend be treated preferntially to any other spend?

I'm not sure what you're saying.
Wesfarmers/Woolworths don't pay GST they just collect it on behalf of the government and pass it onto the government.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Agree, the VISAs need to updated and their needs to be a restructure on how we upskill Australian workers.

Monumentous understatement.

Populations growth isn't a necessary a bad thing if we have more people hitting retirement age then we need to have more/same amount in the working age we need more workers to generate tax revenue. The bigger issue population density and we need to spread more of the migration to regional towns we're housing is low cost.

I understand your sentiments, but most people are looking at 1950's-type economic policy to dictate terms. The problem is, the entire economic landscape has changed, and changed massively. People just don't realise the extent of job losses, mainly due to technological unemployment. Even if we massively decreased our population overnight, we'd still have massive unemployment problems, and more than enough people to look after retirees. I have elderly relatives in aged care, and rest assured, you do not need one extra person for every retiree. In fact far from it.

It would be of no benefit to a business negatively impact their company to such an extent that it would stop consumerism.

In fact this is exactly what most businesses are doing. Most (not all) businesses only care about money going into the till, and that's pretty much it. What/where/how customers got that money, or whether the system is sustainable....most business owners could give a rat's arse. If you do an Internet search, most of our modern economies are running on debt. In real terms, wages haven't increased since the 1970's, but consumption is continuing to increase. How is this done? Credit cards and debt. Does it make sense? No, but that is precisely what is happening, and has been for some time.

IMO Drugs have a way bigger problem on our Centrelink system and prison system than Foreign Workers and Immigration

Agreed, drugs are a huge problem, but the vast, vast majority of people turn to drugs because of unemployment and the poverty it brings about. People become disillusioned and despondent, and often turn to drugs as a result. This does not represent all drug users, not at all, but definitely the vast majority.
Those on the Right always spruik that it's the other way around, that many people are lazy/bad/stupid/drug addicts, and poverty is the outcome. Those that spruik this nonsense....I don't bother discussing anything with them and just walk away.

Australia is a very fast country we can take in more people, we just to find the right mix and pace of immigration

Agreed, but at the moment we're a million+ miles away from this. Most (not all) businesses don't want this. Why?

Firstly, educating and upskilling people costs money, and that means more taxes (God forbid).
Secondly, any effort to reduce our immigration intake, whether permanent or temporary, means two things:
1. A reduction in the labour market and a resultant increase in wages.
2. A drop in demand on housing, meaning housing prices (rent and mortgages) don't keep increasing.

Both of these factors mean businesses and land owners have a reduction in profits, and they will fight tooth and nail to stop that happening.

As I said above, do some Internet searches on these issues, starting on the articles I included previously.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I'm not sure what you're saying.
Wesfarmers/Woolworths don't pay GST they just collect it on behalf of the government and pass it onto the government.

It was bit tongue in cheek, but the earlier question was asking why churches should pay tax on money that has already had tax paid on it.

Tell me this. When I donate money to my church, the money I donate has already been taxed. Whey should the government then tax that money a 2nd time?

Anyway, to your question, obviously I phrased this part poorly
Why should I then pay GST on the groceries, and Woolworths/Wesfarmers pay tax again on that money?
I/you/consumer pay the GST, that's the first bit. As you say, the retailer or service provider acts as a tax collection agency.
Wesfarmers/Woolworths/whoever pay tax on their profits - a third tax, except where items were GST exempt.

I was simply, as other had done, drawing the parallel between various types of spending. Once income tax is paid, tax is usually applied at - and after - income being spent. Why should religious institutions; or most "not-for-profits"; be any different.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Simplifying tax is what most people want, but it can create simple ways for businesses to avoid those taxes. A big part of the reason it is so complex is that incentives are brought in and new legislation is designed to try and stop loopholes. The best starting point would be transparency so we know what we're really dealing with, but of course business worries about confidential business information getting out. The ATO can audit to discover info, but there are limits to that with a multi-national too. I'd like to see the removal of tax deductions for individuals as a quick way to stop tax 'minimisation' and to force everything to be more open (salary sacrifice perks similarly can hide the real situation). But acting on businesses is much more complicated.

If a wage earner wishes to claim some sort of tax deduction for any work-related expenses, they are expected to provide receipts/invoices/documentation, and rightly so. But when it comes to business....particularly big businesses (especially Multinationals)....they hire teams of lawyers and accountants to muddy the waters. If big business want to make absurd deductions, or just not pay any tax to begin with - can we ask them questions? Good Lord, no....that would be too invasive. The way big businesses dodge tax and dictate terms to our Governments is beyond a joke. And the Government departments that oversee these regulations and any potential fraud/misconduct are next to useless. Just take a look here for an example:



If Multinationals want to take their business elsewhere, but still sell to Australia, no problem - just slap a huge Tariff on any goods they sell to us. Simple. It isn't Communism, it's common sense. I can guarantee you our local businesses that have to compete with these greedy corporations won't be complaining.
If there's one thing that we need to put an end to that would help sort out this ridiculous mess, it's this:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/05/23/4465448.htm

 

[WCE1987]

It was bit tongue in cheek, but the earlier question was asking why churches should pay tax on money that has already had tax paid on it.



Anyway, to your question, obviously I phrased this part poorly
Why should I then pay GST on the groceries, and Woolworths/Wesfarmers pay tax again on that money?
I/you/consumer pay the GST, that's the first bit. As you say, the retailer or service provider acts as a tax collection agency.
Wesfarmers/Woolworths/whoever pay tax on their profits - a third tax, except where items were GST exempt.

I was simply, as other had done, drawing the parallel between various types of spending. Once income tax is paid, tax is usually applied at - and after - income being spent. Why should religious institutions; or most "not-for-profits"; be any different.

Business's are taxed excluding GST income. Only the end user pays the tax, so GST is a single tax.

Companies do not pay company income tax on revenue (total income) - they pay it on profits after paying all expenses including wages, capital replacement, supplier costs, fleet costs and other operating expenses,

 

[WCE1987]

In fact this is exactly what most businesses are doing. Most (not all) businesses only care about money going into the till, and that's pretty much it. What/where/how customers got that money, or whether the system is sustainable....most business owners could give a rat's arse.

Agreed, drugs are a huge problem, but the vast, vast majority of people turn to drugs because of unemployment and the poverty it brings about. People become disillusioned and despondent, and often turn to drugs as a result. This does not represent all drug users, not at all, but definitely the vast majority.
Those on the Right always spruik that it's the other way around, that many people are lazy/bad/stupid/drug addicts, and poverty is the outcome. Those that spruik this nonsense....I don't bother discussing anything with them and just walk away.

Firstly, educating and upskilling people costs money, and that means more taxes (God forbid).
.

I would think it would be hard to find a large scale company that doesn't have a corporate social responsibility aspect. I think you under-estimate the influence that a person has within the business. People want to work for companies that make a positive impact on their communities, this naturally without the help of government has seen a change in how business's deal with their communities. Yes, they are there to make money but they have to also attract, hire and retain people. Look how Gen Y is causing business's to change to attract talent.

Agreed there is an impact of unemployment leading to drug use. In my life experience however I've seen drugs lead to poverty/unemployment even though those people were already successful or had every opportunity to be successful.

Agreed, personally will happily pay money to help others upskill and be educated. I work for a large Australian national company (just recently expanded overseas), they've paid for my diploma's. For others they've paid for degrees and MBA's. Big business has the resources to do this so I believe their is a good opportunity in medium and small business go 50/50 in education costs with government . These smaller/medium business can't afford the HR departments etc that can facilitate such training.

 

[WCE1987]

This is the real crux of it:



http://dicksmithpopulation.com/2012/11/06/1254/#more-1254

With respect i don't rate Dick Smith. He isn't an economist, and never thought he was that good of a businessman.

I read your other articles (except the 430pg one), some good points raised.

 

[Rear Admiral]

I would think it would be hard to find a large scale company that doesn't have a corporate social responsibility aspect. I think you under-estimate the influence that a person has within the business.

Have to agree to disagree. And quite strongly, might I add.

 

[Power Raid]

Have to agree to disagree. And quite strongly, might I add.

The only organisations that I have been involved with that don't have a strong community focus and a desire to give back was the ADF. Every other entity focuses on employee well being, family well being and community.

I know not every entity is like that but I dare say the majority are very keen to be socially responsible.

 

[Present Not Past]

Agreed, personally will happily pay money to help others upskill and be educated. I work for a large Australian national company (just recently expanded overseas), they've paid for my diploma's. For others they've paid for degrees and MBA's. Big business has the resources to do this so I believe their is a good opportunity in medium and small business go 50/50 in education costs with government . These smaller/medium business can't afford the HR departments etc that can facilitate such training.

I've got to tell you "You're dreaming".
These days the Federal Government is scaling back in a big way the funding of it's employees. Basically the only people they employ now are people who have funded their own education.
To say that the Governemnt is then going to fund the education costs of people in medium and small business is a fantasy.

 

[Present Not Past]

The only organisations that I have been involved with that don't have a strong community focus and a desire to give back was the ADF. Every other entity focuses on employee well being, family well being and community.

I know not every entity is like that but I dare say the majority are very keen to be socially responsible.

The government falls over itself to fund the ADF. Free degrees, subsidised education, subsidised housing, subsidised salaries, retention bonuses, tax free service.
The ADF has never had it as good as it is now.

 

[WCE1987]

I've got to tell you "You're dreaming".
These days the Federal Government is scaling back in a big way the funding of it's employees. Basically the only people they employ now are people who have funded their own education.
To say that the Governemnt is then going to fund the education costs of people in medium and small business is a fantasy.

Governments still do graduates programs
Tafe education can be fully tax deductible If studies are in the field your working in.
University can still be done via hex debt

At no point in my life have I pre funded my education. Either government paid or my work place paid.