Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 23:28:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
Perhaps you should look at the rules set by the government.
There is nothing here that suggests he has broken them.
If after the end of the offer he has not met those rules then, and only then,
will he be expected to repay anything.
I have not said that he has broken any law - but he is saying that he
intends to if he feels he needs to. And there I thought you believed
everyone should respect the law. Tony . .
There is no connection between this case and the 'rule of law'. The
article you cited has no content that the builder in question has
acted illegally. The journalist who wrote the article has simply
reporting exactly what the builder has said.
As I said in my earlier post the wage subsidy is a crude
business-support tool with the only criteria being an actual or
anticipated drop in monthly revenues. There is simply no reference to
this at all in the article - merely that the builder intends to profit
from the subsidy. It should be noted that the subsidy is intended as
a business support payment based on employees. As long as the builder
actually employed those he has claimed for, and had the requisite drop
in revenue, all else is irrelevant.