The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Defining a small business, have both major parties got it wrong.

Defining a small business, have both major parties got it wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Here we have the libs and labor going head to head about what they feel is a small business, with the libs saying ten million in turnover, while labor says leave it at the two million as is currently the case.

Surely a better way of determining a small business would be to use a 'before tax profit figure' as not all small businesses are the same.

As an example, a business with an annual turnover of twenty million, with a 2% margin, is not as profitable as one with a two million turnover with a 75% margin.

The first has a gross profit of $400K, while the second a GP of 1.5 million. Why is the second a small business, and the first not?

Surely the amount one makes effects outcomes more than the amount one sells.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 3 June 2016 2:16:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your idea does not make sense Rehctub, as then a large company making a loss, would be classified as a small business, which is clearly not the case.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 June 2016 12:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Yabby, but that's because you are using the current method of defining a small business and this is my point.

Would it not be more reflective to use before tax income to define the size of a business?

Why turnover?

There are some businesses with huge turnovers who employ just a few. They buy and sell but warehouse nothing. They might turn over twenty million, but only make half a million in taxable income, what makes them a large business.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 5 June 2016 1:56:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Butch, don't you think it would be better to define a small business as one that rips off the tax system, exploits its workers by underpaying with cash in hand. Sorry that's a shonky business a bit different.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 June 2016 6:59:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Paul, I didn't expect that!

Just remember Paul, if you shop at a market, or even online, chances are you are contributing to the very thing you hate. Food for thought!

The point is a small business should be defined by the amount of pre tax profits made, not turnover. Its just my opinion.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 6 June 2016 7:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Butch, so in 2014 QANTAS was a small business, a very small business, with a whopping loss of $2.8 billion, that would make QANTAS a non business in fact. But like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, one year later, QANTAS posted a profit of $557 million, making them a very big business. What's it to be, what kind of business is QANTAS?
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 6 June 2016 7:37:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy