Well OUG, where do I start.

Taxes, collected for the government, by employers, on behalf of the employee, are all collected by business totaly on a 'no cost recovery basis'. In other words, the collecting, colating and on-paying of imcome taxes is all done free of charge, yet possibly costs businesses billions each year.

Of cause, a better way for us would be to pay the employee the full amount and let them pay their own taxes.

Yea, as if that would happen.

These taxes are then paid to the government either on a monthly, or three monthly basis depending on the size of the business.

At no time does the business own the money they collect from the tax payer and in fact, there are heafty fines in place should these taxes not be passed on.

Now if you work for someone, just show a little respect for the risks they take in providing you with a job.

Yes rehctub but, in order that employers demand respect, they should also be required to engender some. In order that bottom feeders do not rise to the top in business.

Therefore we have laws to determine the basis between employers and their employee's.

When those laws, infringe on the rights of one party or the other, the result is more uncertainty for the party taking the risk and the other party loses sight of what it is, that constitutes a real job. Thus was the case with ideological horrors such as Work-choices.

Industrial landscapes where the employee has no capacity to participate in the outcome of their own future,
is one step from total disempowerment, vis a vis, slavery.

Employers like all gamblers are vying for, and betting on, privilege; and therefore should be placing larger bets than the average punter,
and bearing the cost of the risk.

In such environments I presume only those capable of leadership can rise to the top, while the bottom feeders come and go.

Overall rehctub, I'm thinking that business to a certain extent, should be responsible for it's own actions and held accountable for it's own mistakes.

Also, it is nothing more than sheer unproven political doctrine to suggest that certainty should exist for businesses, other than ensuring that the most excessive or extreme tendencies of particularly Big Business be curbed or discouraged.

T2, respect goes out the door when one has to 'belittle' staff with silly little notices informing them of a breach that has occurred, you know, written warning.

As trivial as it may seem, it is a requirement otherwise the employer has no leg to stand on.

The days of 'give and take' are all but gone in many cases.

You can thank unfair dismissal laws for that breach in trust and respect.

>>Employers like all gamblers ....and bearing the cost of the risk.

Yes, but it would be nice for them to enjoy their fruits, free from the 'tall poppies' they often encounter, who, by the way, have little or no respect for that risk.

>>Overall rehctub, I'm thinking that business to a certain extent, should be responsible for it's own actions and held accountable for it's own mistakes.

If only politics was this way!

Certainty is the basis of many decisions. It is what many ordinary folk look for when making every day decisions like, what school will we enroll our kids in, or, can we afford to upgrade our home.

Most decisions require certainty by way of 'how secure is my job'.

Business is no different, only riskier.

Although employers and employees go hand in hand, I know many of you think that the ball starts with the employee, but believe me it doesn't. Employees are simply a bi-product of risk and, if you build to much uncertainty into that risk, it is often seen as 'to hard'.

700 jobs gone from Testra call centres and all the government cares about is the employees rights.

Obviously the risk became to much and the risk taker has changed its mind.

companies realised its easier to collect a tax on wage
by pretending its income[by lie and deciete
than to pay tax ..from their proffits
[that really is income]

a busines tells its employee
to fill; in a form..[to get a tax number]
from then on they are officially liable to pay tax[on income]

that business collects tax from wages is by fraud
but the tax dept loves the money..so both shaft the worker

see by applying for a tax number
[this is called gaining an advantage][benefit]
the law presumes we do not apply for a disadvantage

this tax file number creates a coorperate entity..[who do need to pay tax on income..[as income is defined as money earned by no added value[no value added]

a corperation cant add value as its a fiction..
[a legal fiction..an incorperal entity]

[created to interract with other incorperal entities
[such as states or countries]

[to wit artificial persons
[often called 'the people']

as in when usa
was formed by the states..['we'..the 'people']

""Employees are simply a bi-product of risk""
no they do the work..[are the only reality
that work for the fiction..to earn income

""if you build to much uncertainty
into that risk,..""

uncertainty..[the workers?]
""it is often seen as'to hard'.

do you even know
what your trying to say?

""700 jobs gone from Testra call centres
and all the government cares about is the employees/rights.""

govts are corperate fictions
people can care..corperations cant

govt as such..dont care a damm..for the workers
let alone employee-rights
[recall howards work/contracts?]

note the jobs arnt gone..!

they went to tender
and the lowest bidder won
those doing the job for lower wages
still arnt liable for income tax

[till they declare they are
a dead coroperate fiction..[by applying for a tax-file/number]

""Obviously the risk became to much
and the risk-taker has changed its mind""

no..the trustees of the howard created coorperation
want more income to go to their shareholders[ie the workers super trustee]

so the jobs go to india
and the super/trustee gets a bonus
and the super/contributors get the shaft

Bankers Looting Nations Through World Bank/IMF

The World Bank/IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild &Sons plus 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world.For over 150 years they have planned to take over the planet through money.The former chief economist of the World Bank,Joe Stiglitz,was fired in 2000.

He pointed out to top executives that every country the IMF/World Bank forced their way into ended up with a crashed economy,a destroyed government,and some even broke out in riots.Former President of the World Bank/IMF Sir James Wolfensohn,would not comment on his dismissal.

Before Joe Stiglitz was fired he took a large stack of secret documents out of the World Bank.

These secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveal that the IMF required nations:

1...To sign secret agreements containing 111 destructive items. (I’d love to get a hold of that list)

2...To agree to sell off their key assets – water, electric, gas, etc.

3..To agree to take economic steps which are devastating to the nations involved.

If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all international Import/Export.

If you can’t borrow money in the international marketplace, no one can survive,whether you are people,corporations or countries...If that doesn’t work they overthrow the government and rewrite history.

The Argentina Plan
Inside documents from Argentina show the top-secret Argentine plan. This was signed by Sir James Wolfensohn,the former president of the World Bank...Argentina has had six presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed.

This happened because they started out in the end of the 1980s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets,

like their water system...
banking/media/electric/phone/legal systems

Then they taxed the people...
levies/fees base charges...gst
[even policing]..compulsory supper and insurances
[health/vehicle govt infastructure insurance]

They created big government and big government handed it off to the private IMF/World Bank.

They pay off the politicians billions in Swiss bank accounts.

Read Full Article
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=15161

http://employmentpolicy.org/topic/23/blog/if-it-sounds-too-good-be-true-what-you-need-know-don%E2%80%99t-about-privatizing-infrastructur

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/more-jobs-mirage-in-februarybls.html

rehctub
What do you suggest? We halve the minimum wage?

How is that going to help the economy when a good portion of the buying power is reduced and we have to ramp up the infrastructure to support greater poverty.

Telstra went offshore because it is greedy and our economy is geared to shareholders and Boards rather than employees and consumers. These companies that go offshore are often earning billions in profit prior to those decisions.

The problem is not just 'one' thing it is the whole system including the pressures of global agreements reducing the sovereignty of individual nations (often with huge built-in disadvantages for the weaker positioned partners).

What is happening to our mindset that we seek to be on par with the underdeveloped and developing world.

The only light at the end of the tunnel is that these countries will eventually raise living standards and put us all on par and we can go back to electing politicians that represent our collective interests rather than that of a small powerful elite. But I cannot in all honesty predict the future - the bubble has to burst sometime.