Lets give our farmers grants not Holden

[Nigel Kibel]

Holden is now asking for an extra $100 million a year

Now instead of wasting more money lets give the $100 million a year to farmers and

1 Help them stay on the land
2 Develop new crops

The way the next boom in Australia will be Food. We could provide food to many countries across Asia and beyond. Lets get smart and support our next growth industry and make sure it is owned by Australians.

As an investor I believe that for our economy to remain strong we have to be far smarter than we are now

 

[lizzie]

Yes please ... ooooo ... I'd buy more land to expand onto, a quad with a trailer, a carrot picker (but not for picking carrots), a decent ripper for the tractor, several truck loads of stable manure, a couple of dozen rounds of rotting hay ... then I'd be away for next season ...

 

[Prop_Perspectiv]

I'm really interested in the Food boom. But in my opinion there is, and will continue to be, a huge movement away from big commercial productions towards locally produced, grass roots farming. Maybe it's just the circles I move in. Maybe it is only middle-upper class Australians because it is suddenly trendy to know where your food comes from? Just thinking out loud.

FWIW, I think farmers would be better off getting the grants as well - the money could be put into more sustainable farming practice. We are already market leaders, we just need to hang onto that.

 

[BayView]

I have no problem with the Gubbmint subsidising the car industry....just as long as not one of the upper management and execs get paid one single cent out of that money - it all goes into the running of the Company.

Let the execs earn their wages through the profits of the company, or take a pay cut if it is going bad just like I have to, and every other small business owner in the Country.

It's wasted money though; the Hyundais, and the Kias etc, can pay their workers a bowl of rice a day or whatever...the Aus worker wants average wage, plus overtime rates, plus super, plus holiday pay with loading, plus long service leave, plus unfair dismissal rights, plus workcare, plus payroll tax, plus redundancy contingencies, plus paid sick leave, paid parental leave, personal leave, bereavement leave, uniforms supplied, counselling, training, danger money and god knows what else.

Oh; and we want to pay nothing for our top-of-the-line Aus produced cars.....

Good luck.

 

[Ausprop]

i am more interested in subsidies for property developers

 

[catsteve]

I'm really interested in the Food boom. But in my opinion there is, and will continue to be, a huge movement away from big commercial productions towards locally produced, grass roots farming. Maybe it's just the circles I move in. Maybe it is only middle-upper class Australians because it is suddenly trendy to know where your food comes from? Just thinking out loud.

Yep. definitely a hipster inner-city thing.
The food 'boom' referred to will be massive corporate commercial operations, read; $10m - $500m that will supply the exploding middle classes in asia and the sub-continent.

I dont have too much time for giving grants to farmers either. especially those on marginally productive land. Why support any inefficient, non-profitable industry? regardless of what it is.
That wont suit MP's in marginal seats though.

 

[MarkB]

Makes no sense to me to pour government money into (what I consider to be) a sunset industry (car manufacturing).

And I agree that food production has a big future. Global calorie intake is expected to double by 2050 and (with some good management and investment I would think that) we're in a good position for a serious piece of that action.

Got some big challenges though.... management of the murray-darling catchment, salinity, the great artesian basin, fracking (coal seam gas), etc.

 

[DaveM]

My belief is that if the govt is going to fund corporates like Holden, then

a) The corporate needs to show they have used it responsibility
b) For every dollar the govtm puts in the corporate should have to show a $ or % increase in efficiency
c) Money should be paid back when corporate makes a profit again, or swapped for shares in company
d) Not a cent should be funneled back into US parent companies

 

[datto]

What? Don't give them anything. Farmers get fantastic tax benefits as is.

They can average their income. Plus they get heaps of grants, depreciation benefits unlike anyone else. Plus incentives to connect power, phone, build a dam etc.

Heck, lets give the money to ordinary S & W earners. They have the numbers and could force the govt to bend over if they wanted to.

 

[catsteve]

i propose grants for property investors. we take risks too. create employment, are innovative and all the profits (mostly) stay in Australia.

And in a couple of years all levels of govt could increase/invent new taxes to take the monies back.

Think of the churn people. think of the churn.

suzuki driver of perth.

 

[luce.rocks]

No idea what I'm talking about, so I'm happy to be schooled, but how about subsidies so farmers can move their farms to areas that are better suited to their crop or livestock? E.g. govt takes the drought-stricken farm and gives the farmer some crown land somewhere up north that gets good rain. I mean, not rainforests or anything, just better land. Or am I imagining that the gov has unused arable land hanging around when in fact it doesn't?

 

[one world]

No idea what I'm talking about, so I'm happy to be schooled, but how about subsidies so farmers can move their farms to areas that are better suited to their crop or livestock? E.g. govt takes the drought-stricken farm and gives the farmer some crown land somewhere up north that gets good rain. I mean, not rainforests or anything, just better land. Or am I imagining that the gov has unused arable land hanging around when in fact it doesn't?

Smart idea.

 

[Decimator4000]

So you want to give subsides to Farmers who employ limited personnel and not to car manufacturers who employ thousands of people. Makes total sense.

I also hate giving grants to International businesses but at least they are employing whole sectors of geographical locations plus more.

 

[sanj]

I have no problem with the Gubbmint subsidising the car industry....just as long as not one of the upper management and execs get paid one single cent out of that money - it all goes into the running of the Company.

Let the execs earn their wages through the profits of the company, or take a pay cut if it is going bad just like I have to, and every other small business owner in the Country.

It's wasted money though; the Hyundais, and the Kias etc, can pay their workers a bowl of rice a day or whatever...the Aus worker wants average wage, plus overtime rates, plus super, plus holiday pay with loading, plus long service leave, plus unfair dismissal rights, plus workcare, plus payroll tax, plus redundancy contingencies, plus paid sick leave, paid parental leave, personal leave, bereavement leave, uniforms supplied, counselling, training, danger money and god knows what else.

Oh; and we want to pay nothing for our top-of-the-line Aus produced cars.....

Good luck.

So how would this work from a practical POV? at what stage does it become upper management? Is upper management not part of expenses of how to run a company?

So say a regular lowly holden accountant would be paid in full but say his boss wouldnt? or his boss would but his boss' boss wouldnt? who would monitor this?


Also congrats on the ignorant comment about south korean workers, you do realise that theyre one of the most advanced countries in the whole world and not some backwater dont you?

 

[BayView]

So how would this work from a practical POV? at what stage does it become upper management? Is upper management not part of expenses of how to run a company?

So say a regular lowly holden accountant would be paid in full but say his boss wouldnt? or his boss would but his boss' boss wouldnt? who would monitor this?


Also congrats on the ignorant comment about south korean workers, you do realise that theyre one of the most advanced countries in the whole world and not some backwater dont you?

upper management often take a large chunk of cashflow via their remuneration. No cashflow is the death nell of any business.

In a highly successful company, then yeah; pay yourself what you reckon you are worth - and be totally honest about your worth.

But when the business is tanking; no.

These blokes need to get a conscience and some integrity and say; "Hey; this business is really struggling; I'm not deserving of $2mill per year (or whatever)...I will pay myself $100k per year. That's reasonable, given the circumstances".

But, they never do it.

It is not unrealistic for a CEO in a struggling company - such as Holden - to put everyone on the same wage as the factory floor worker....if they are fair dinkum about saving the joint.

As Aaron said; they are are privately owned company.

I employ staff, I am privately owned - will the Gubb subsidise me because I'm taking losses?

 

[BayView]

So how would this work from a practical POV? at what stage does it become upper management? Is upper management not part of expenses of how to run a company?

So say a regular lowly holden accountant would be paid in full but say his boss wouldnt? or his boss would but his boss' boss wouldnt? who would monitor this?


Also congrats on the ignorant comment about south korean workers, you do realise that theyre one of the most advanced countries in the whole world and not some backwater dont you?

Ok, maybe the bowl of rice comment was extreme, but you get what I mean about production costs here versus everywhere else.

I did say; "or whatever" in relation to the bowl of rice...don't get so touchy, dude.

Otherwise, why has almost all serious industry vacated the building?

Why is most of the world producing in places like Korea, Indonesia, China, India (almost all our tyres, for example)?

Because they are paying the workers way less, and the business operation costs are way less than where they originally began the business.

The last golf club manufacturing company in Aus closed it's doors back in the late 90's when I was still very active in the industry.

 

[Ideo]

So, we want better wages, better profits, more buying power, but when an ordinary wage earner in a low paying industry wants it they are being selfish?

 

[BayView]

So, we want better wages, better profits, more buying power, but when an ordinary wage earner in a low paying industry wants it they are being selfish?

No; I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth.

I just said how it is.

Holden (and all manufacturing on an international level) can't compete with overseas manufacturers because of our current economic and employment status.

What is the answer?

To me, it is easy - stop wasting everyone's time and move offshore.

But, a lot of jobs will disappear.

I can't help that; I didn't set it all up this way.

We have to start being realistic and accept that, and stop trying to prop up these guys with wasted cash until it all disappears again and they need more.

Or, keep propping them up, and everyone stop whinging about it.

I really don't care either way - I prefer it if the Gubb keeps propping them up to preserve much needed jobs, but we are all paying for it.

I'm fine with that, but we have to support it by buying Holdens.

If that's the case, then all you blokes on this forum driving around in VW's, Saabs, etc, who are against the subsidies should be ashamed of yourselves.

Or; if you have no shame; at least refrain from bagging the subsidies.

For the record; we own a second hand Kluger, but I support the subsidies and am happy to pay...we are anyway.

I think ultimately it will all fold..how long can the Gubb keep on shovelling cash in?

 

[Aaron_C]

The issue with giving money to private companies is it creates moral hazard. This is why Holden keeps asking for money. Just pull the plug and get it over with, please.

 

[datto]

here here.....