Pam Robson 1,537 Report post Posted April 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Red Rum said: Would there be a case of every sport / code getting exactly their cut of TAB profit wagered on their sport/code and no pokie money to pro sport at all if the taxpayer gave a handout, maybe govenment could tie that in for the handout . I know Rugby , Football, Netball and League at community level are hurting bad at moment , cricket luckily got through most of season but rumblings are they are are willing to chip in later in season and forego a bit of time early season in Spring , no doubt that will cost them but if so good on them if they do . Don't know how the maths would work..but I do like that idea. Much fairer all round. Red Rum 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter R S 408 Report post Posted April 27, 2020 2 hours ago, Leggy said: Found it. If an employer has received the wage subsidy on behalf of an employee, MBIE says that generally the full amount should still be passed on to the employee even if they return to work during level three. https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/20-04-2020/what-you-need-to-do-to-open-your-business-under-alert-level-three/ That’s half the situation. Think of it this way; unless their employer is paying below the subsidy (could happen for a under 20 hours employee) , all employees will have received the whole subsidy by the end of 12 weeks. The fact they have worked some or all of that time is irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilcoyne 191 Report post Posted April 28, 2020 On 4/27/2020 at 10:05 AM, Leggy said: Maybe someone on here can clarify. Can't immediately find where I read that now. The subsidy is paid to the employee over the 12 week period to assist the employer to keep their staff on the books during the lockdown period It is for the employees benefit not to help the employer pay his bills while in lockdown. Thats why there are so many now being required to pay the money back because they have used it to cover other expenses and not for the employees. It was a badly thought out decision made in haste to pay the subsidy to the employers for the benefit of the employees rather than paying it direct to the employees account but with all the other payouts being made the govt agencies that normally handle these sorts of things (ie IRD and MSD) were already going to be overworked. Leggy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillipe 81 Report post Posted April 28, 2020 2 hours ago, kilcoyne said: The subsidy is paid to the employee over the 12 week period to assist the employer to keep their staff on the books during the lockdown period It is for the employees benefit not to help the employer pay his bills while in lockdown. Thats why there are so many now being required to pay the money back because they have used it to cover other expenses and not for the employees. It was a badly thought out decision made in haste to pay the subsidy to the employers for the benefit of the employees rather than paying it direct to the employees account but with all the other payouts being made the govt agencies that normally handle these sorts of things (ie IRD and MSD) were already going to be overworked. You are an idiot. Related to Ardern by any chance? puha 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilcoyne 191 Report post Posted April 28, 2020 16 hours ago, Phillipe said: You are an idiot. Related to Ardern by any chance? No to both. Just happen to know what I'm talking about with over 20 years experience ensuring that the rules are complied with Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted April 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, kilcoyne said: No to both. Just happen to know what I'm talking about with over 20 years experience ensuring that the rules are complied with While you are there Kilcoyne and thanks for your claification, if you go back to the original question, I'm talking for example where let's say the employee is paid exactly the $585 per week for 6 weeks then returns to full time work. I thought the remaing 6 weeks subsidy had to be passed on to the employee at that point, not pocketed by the employer? If the employee is back working normal hours and being paid the $585 per week as their regular wage. Does that satisfy the requirement, or should the balance of the wage subsidy be passed on to them as well? Thanks. Whyisit 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilcoyne 191 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 17 minutes ago, Leggy said: While you are there Kilcoyne and thanks for your claification, if you go back to the original question, I'm talking for example where let's say the employee is paid exactly the $585 per week for 6 weeks then returns to full time work. I thought the remaing 6 weeks subsidy had to be passed on to the employee at that point, not pocketed by the employer? If the employee is back working normal hours and being paid the $585 per week as their regular wage. Does that satisfy the requirement, or should the balance of the wage subsidy be passed on to them as well? Thanks. They get paid their full wages made up of $585 plus the employer tops that up to their normal hourly rate so for example if they do 40 hours on a building site per week they get their full rate as normal but $585 of that comes from the subsidy puha 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 8 minutes ago, kilcoyne said: They get paid their full wages made up of $585 plus the employer tops that up to their normal hourly rate so for example if they do 40 hours on a building site per week they get their full rate as normal but $585 of that comes from the subsidy Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stables 577 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 If the employee leaves before the 12 weeks is up the employer keeps what's left Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, Stables said: If the employee leaves before the 12 weeks is up the employer keeps what's left No. I think they then have to repay it. 47South 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclipsed 245 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, Leggy said: No. I think they then have to repay it. Clarification Leggy - from MSD from a site audited Subject: Wage Subsidy Hi xxx Thanks for your time today. You advised me during our conversation that one of your employees named xxxxx has handed in their resignation and sought some advice in relation to that. As xxx was as employee at the time you made your application and has left on their on accord and was not made redundant, the subsidy for them can be retained and kept to support your other staff and your business. You will not be required to refund this. Kind regards xxxx Investigator Fraud Intervention Services Ministry of Social Development Tauhei Notts 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 OK. So, repayment if made redundant, not if they leave of their own accord? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stables 577 Report post Posted April 29, 2020 Yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted May 2, 2020 On 4/29/2020 at 12:25 PM, kilcoyne said: They get paid their full wages made up of $585 plus the employer tops that up to their normal hourly rate so for example if they do 40 hours on a building site per week they get their full rate as normal but $585 of that comes from the subsidy This is still obviously confusing. Read this from Baygold who seem to think they should repay the balance once workers return to work. “However, we believe that the full Baygold team will be back to work within the 12-week period. Therefore, a repayment of unused subsidy funds is anticipated and we are in discussions with MSD on how that should be processed,” he said. He said they had engaged Deloitte to undertake an audit of their use of the subsidy and “will be inviting MSD to review how we are using the subsidy to ensure we are doing the right thing”. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter R S 408 Report post Posted May 3, 2020 They’re barking up the wrong tree. If they meet the criteria re turnover loss and keeping the employee paid (best endeavours to be to 80%) through the 12 weeks, the money in respect of that employee is theirs to keep. Pam Robson and Stables 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter R S 408 Report post Posted May 3, 2020 A couple more comments though. The turnover reduction has to be caused by Covid19. Great gesture if they pay some back, all we taxpayers benefit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leggy 4,010 Report post Posted May 3, 2020 6 minutes ago, Peter R S said: A couple more comments though. The turnover reduction has to be caused by Covid19. Great gesture if they pay some back, all we taxpayers benefit! How? And what would they be paying back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...