The Meeting Place

Trickle up economics

"While Qantas workers have seen pay rises of less than 3 per cent on average over the past decade, we've seen the CEO's salary balloon to almost $100,000 a day — much more than most workers earn in a year. It doesn't trickle down — it trickles up, and the rules need to change to give workers a better deal in this country."

No wonder the CEO of QANTAS looks happy. His annual salary is almost $25 million, plus fringe benefits!

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)


Qantas has reported a record $976 million profit for the December half, beating its own forecasts, and announced a $500 million return for its shareholders. Its shares soared more than 9 per cent in early trading.

Strong demand for domestic flights helped lift the airline's underlying pre-tax profit by 14.6 per cent during the period, from $852 million in the first half last year - above the company's earnings guidance of $900 million to $950 million.

Handing down the record result, Qantas announced $500 million in shareholder returns through an on-market share buyback  of up to $378 million and a 7¢ a share interim dividend.


Well done Joyce - shareholders are happy to pay you $25M if you keep coming up with such results

Joyce is an Ambassador of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation

Joyce named a Companion of the Order of Australia, Australia's highest civil honour, in the 2017 Queen's birthday honours list 

This honour awarded for "eminent service to the aviation transport industry, to the development of the national and international tourism sectors, to gender equity, inclusion and diversity, and to the community, particularly as a supporter of Indigenous education"

As a Qantas shareholder, I'm laughing. However Joyce indicates they'll be  paying  corporate tax by the next financial year.

You will still be laughing with your franking credits.

Qantas will pay investors an unfranked dividend of 7 cents per share.

The unfranked dividend means shareholders will have to foot the tax bill on their Qantas earnings.

Last year, Qantas' interim dividend was slightly more generous at 7 cents per share, 50 per cent franked — meaning the company paid half the tax.


Either way the shareholder pays the tax in the end 

that’s what the lefties don’t get 

Lete me be frank RNR. You are not talking about the next fianncial year. Pushing up their share price with buy back. Ray if you've got them, hang on, but I wont be buying at this price now.

"Lete me be frank RNR. You are not talking about the next fianncial year."

Indeed not Frank, correct. Amazing observation and equally amazing spelling.


Hey Frank, did I say I was about to sell or buy any shares? You appointing yourself  my "fianncial" adviser?

Only stupid shallow people think it’s all about you 



There must be an open forum sight where mature people can exchange ideas?

When you "sight" such a site, please share but don't tell the fish, hahaha

Raphael, is it really necessary to continually insult people for disagreeing with you? One doesn't have to be a ''leftie'' to have a different opinion, and if you paid attention to their comments instead of looking for ways to insult, maybe you'd learn a thing or two?

Yes, Qantas is making healthy profits now, and that benefits shareholders. It also means tax should be paid - and yes, shareholders ultimately pay it, as they should since they benefit from the profit. But the issue here is wages. The workers make Qantas profitable. No CEO can acheive anything without the co-operation of the employees. Stagnating wages ARE a problem. Economists worldwide have pointed out the associated problems. Massive inequality is a recognized problem. The gap between rich and poor is just too wide for social health. 

I agree that the capitalist economy has been very good for society overall, but to suggest that poverty is a result of not saving is far too simplistic. To save, people need income in excess of expenses (that is, expenses for necessities - not counting the ''wants''). Sadly, many have never had that. Others have, but have not had the opportunity to learn how to manage money and the benefit of saving. Disadvantage comes in many forms, and it's hard for the privileged to understand it if they have never experienced genuine disadvantage (as opposed to hardship, which is very different and can often be endured without learning much about disadvantage). 

The problem we face today in capitalist societies is that incomes are rapidly falling and expenses are sky-rocketing - to levels where saving is extraordinarily difficult if not impossible for much of the population. Fortunately, levels of entrenched disadvantage are falling and more help is available to those who have never learned how to make good life choices than it has been in the past, but we ARE over-feeding the rich and taking too much from the battlers. And when a company enjoys high profits, the benefit SHOULD extend to the workers who made that profit possible. Joyce deserves reward for his contribution, but only in proportion to the reward extended to others for theirs. And that is the problem here. The reward is disproportional. It extends to the chiefs, and to those lucky enough to be able to provide capital to the company, but not to the Indians without whose hard work and diligence neither chiefs not capital providers would be able to profit.

As for tax, it SHOULD be paid by those who can best afford to pay. The health of the capitalist system relies on balancing inequities inherent in the system by a proportional tax and welfare system that enables those who are unfairly used by the system, and those who - through no fault of their own, but due to sickness, disability, crisis, etc -  lack the capacity to engage to enjoy a decent lifestyle in a capitalist economy.

To object to fair wages, tax and welfare is GREED. It's unconscionable. To suggest that the less advantaged are always at fault for their circumstances is blatantly DISHONEST and appallingly CRUEL. (That's not to say that some are at fault, but many are not, and the level of fault varies according to circumstance.)

Inequality and imbalance of wealth is threatening the destruction of the capitalist model. It may well be the death of it. Trickle DOWN does not work - never has and never will, due to greed and selfishness. When the rich are given more, they want more. That's been evidenced again and again.

Joyce's salary is excessive - no matter what his achievements - for the simple reason that those who supported and facilitated the profits for which he is credited are not receiving a proportional reward. As for the shareholders - they should have no entitlement to higher dividends until AFTER those who facilitated profit are adequately rewarded. If we only extend reward to the chiefs and the capital providers, we are supporting a feudal system in which an entire lower class is abused and enslaved, and that is NOT what capitalism was intended to achieve. 

I support that capitalist model, but it's broken. We now have a system that is punishing people for saving (via the pension assets test), disadvantaging the responsible in favour of dishonest manipulators and spendthrifts, paying lower wage earners far too little, and allowing capital to facilitate huge profits by displacing or underpaying workers and driving higher levels of poverty. The capitalist model may be obsolete, or it may be simply that greed has driven distortion. Whichever is the case, it isn't now working as it should, and it needs modification if it is to survive. I don't agree with Labor's approach to remedy. I think the left's socialist model is imbalanced against the profit motive that we need to drive economic health, but a degree of socialism is essential for the capitalist model to work as it should. Sadly, though we have a degree of socialism now, it's socialism in the wrong form. And capitalism will not produce the laudable results it has in the past until the model is fixed. 


what a load of waffle 

you accuse Qantas of underpaying it’s staff and overpaying it’s CEO - where is your evidence that the staff are underpaid 

yiu waffle on about inequality and taxing the rich when our middle class has never been better off . Are you just hljealius that the rich are getting richer because they obviously wil lways have more disposable income to invest 

So much waffle and no substance - looks like all you want is to take from the wealthy and chuck money at the middle class 

youre naive economics and politics of envy is a recipe for economic disaster 

Rainey is right, if you shut up that leaky orifice you call a mouth Raphael, you may learn a thing or two. Qantas has been underpaying its staff. It owes some of its staff pay for the past  6 years.

Kudos for that excellant post Rainey, well written, balanced, informative and an absolute pleasure to read.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of hearing about how the "rich" are taking advantage of the masses with their greed. This is very inaccurate. We dont lump all Muslims together and claim the Muslims are killing us at the rate of 10,000 pa. Of course not, we refer to a small section and call them radicals. The wealthy are not all the same in fact most are very generous. Recently a news item highlighted the fact that co-founder of Microsoft Paul Allen has already donated $2b to various charities and intends to give away the remainder of his estimated $21b fortune. His ex partner Bill Gates is one of the worlds biggest donors.

Actually, Raphael, it's your politics of greed and selfishness that is a recipe for economic disaster that economists agree is already happening. There is no ''envy'' involved in my comment, though there is a measure of disgust at the unmitigated greed and selfishness of the privileged, demanding lower taxes despite knowing that lower taxes only benefit those with sufficient income to pay tax and do nothing for the vast majority of low-paid workers, the sick and disabled, the retired, or those unable to secure employment. 

Economists and global leaders have acknowledged that wages MUST rise in order for capitalist economies to stay healthy, and that increased inequality and falling living standards for middle-income earners (who power innovation that drives improved living standards for all) are a recipe for for disastrous falls in levels of social and economic health. 

Go do some study, Raphael, and make intelligent comment instead of commenting purely out of self-interest.

I own shares. I pay taxes. If I was selfish, I would agree with your comments, but I've seen the other side of life and I've studied the causes of social and economic decline, and I care enough about the nation and its people to want reform that boosts living standards for the majority and improves social health, rather than more of the same ''feed the well off and bugger the rest'' mentality that we have seen over the past few decades.

Adrianus, you are right that some of the rich are charitable and have a social conscience (though some of the donations are merely for tax benefit!). I think the terms ''rich'' and ''privileged'' are being used here in a very broad general sense - referring primarily to those that drive government policy, which is clearly delivering unfair handouts to the wealthy and trampling on the less advantaged. There is no intent to slander individuals. The well off generalize about the poor, claiming they drink, gamble, can't save, are never satisfied with what they have, etc...  Hopefully that also is intended as broad, general comment and it's well recognized that many poor are extremely hard-working, clean-living and responsible? But it's a fact that many rich and privileged are greedy and have no social conscience at all, and sadly they seem to have more influence on policy than the likes of Gates and Paul Allen.


Your arrogance anover inflated ego are your problem

Why dont you go read up on why and how wages rise in a market economy

Youre just a smart arse whinger who sees problems where there are none

You complain about Qantas not paying their workers enough and make sweeping statements that wages must rise and then blame that on the wealthy 

Wont bother responding to your waffle anymore 

Correction: you're the one spouting BS and waffle, Raphael

Carry on Rainey. I may disagree with you at times, but at least you have something worth saying.

Reagan Pal, I agree with your first sentence absolument!!!

But, I think Rainey loses her way a little when she speaks of capitalism.

I would like to know which type of "capitalism" she is speaking of since there are five styles to choose from.

Care to answer that Rainey?

"(though some of the donations are merely for tax benefit!)."

Unless the deductibility is more than 100% or a tax rebate is applied at a rate above 100% there is NO TAX BENEFIT. 

Rainey, you havent changed, still bad at math. :)

Some claim there are only two types, Micha. Others say 4. Opinion varies. Regardless, all models have common features. All are based on private ownership of assets, private enterprise, and free markets. 

My preference is Advanced and Responsible Capitalism. Obviously Crony Capitalism is undesirable in any civilization, and unfortunately, unregulated capitalism has been proven to fail due to the human tendency to engage in Crony behaviour if given the chance. Most in the developed world seem to resist the notion that there should be extensive political control.

Responsible capitalism is the model Australia adopted a long time ago and I believe most Australians support. It's a healthy model if correctly implemented, because it means free enterprise and free markets are supported and private asset ownership is encouraged, but progressive taxation, reasonable regulation and a welfare system protects those who are disenfranchised by the capitalist system through no fault of their own and attempts to reduce abuse of the system by those who would prefer a Crony system. Sadly, we are drifting away from responsible capitalism, and that, in my view, is the major problem our society currently faces. It threatens both social and economic health. The reason for the drift is GREED AND SELFISHNESS, most notably among a signficant and influential sector of haves, who, it seems, are never satisfied with their lot but always want more. And who resent the fact that the system recognizes that a healthy society supports those who are disenfranchised by the system, but would prefer a feudal model in which they are free to exploit and abuse the less fortunate. 

And thank you, Reagan.

Raphael, in discussion on another topic, where you made a vile personal attack, you proved conclusively that your comments are bigoted and invalid. Elsewhere, I called you on disputing my comment based purely on wild assumption - which you actually admitted you made no attempt to validate - and on the nonsensical claim that society could benefit from finding some $46 billion somewhere to pay private enterprise to replace volunteers.

But you really outdid yourself accusing a self-funded person who is still working and paying taxes, long after reaching retirement age, of ''stealing from the wealthy'' and being ''greedy'' for wanting comforts that person pays for independently from private earnings. 


What I can't make out is a member called "Somebody" seems to have been banned today. I must have missed something since I don't read every post, BUT how come a person with vile behaviour like raphael is still allowed to post????

Adrianus, your naivety is showing. You obviously don't understand how clever accountants manipulate books to reduce their client's tax obligations. Setting up ''not for profit'' companies is very profitable if the right accountant is managing the structure and recording. I know, because I have a close friend who did the accounts for some very rich and high profile figures, and he ADVISED them to set up ''charities'' in order to reduce their tax burden, and showed them impressive figures on how their net income could increase from making seemingly generous donations. Happily, some of those donations yield great benefit for recipients, but they are not motivated primarily by a social conscience, and they do impose on the taxpayer and benefit the donor.

FirstPrev123(page 3/3)

To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment