knockoff nige

But LAFHA was a temporary tax benefit. So, staying on a temporary visa is really no issue but I guess the idea was that people would choose to either move home or move permanent and get the permanent resident benefits (none of which I get by the way).

If a person has been here 2 years, they are quite likely to qualify for a permanent resident visa. They should be looking at this, in my opinion, in order to avoid losing tax benefits.

paddyo

TO your last point, yes definatley if they can especially with LAFHA going anyway......if they have the right skill which is on the list for PR. Age is a factor as well as I have found out to my cost and there are big changes happening in that area after July 1st as well.

knockoff nige

Yeah old farts like you are in a tricky situation

Perhaps your company can submit your application. I believe Essex_Neil went down this path (or nearly did). Would cost you about 8k but would make sense if you're losing $20k by losing LAFHA. This would give you those permanent benefits.

Bermudashorts

You have no better retort than to call me a lost cause because I don't agree with you. I consider that an argument won.

I don't need to have been here on a 457 with a family to know that it is the responsibility of companies to compensate their staff appropriately not other tax payers. It is basic economics, supply demand that kind of stuff..

Bermudashorts

Do me a favour. I bet not a single 457 holder on BE is maintaining a home *UNLET* whilst here "temporarily". Some don't even have a house anywhere else, the rest are renting it out and I have seen many sell up before coming over on a temporary visa. It is one of the many reasons why LAFHA is / was a joke.

elice_in_oz

In case you think the childcare rebate is a limitless pot of money, I thought I would just point out that it is limited to $7,500/year/child. So even as a citizen/PR, if your yearly childcare costs for one child exceed $15,000, you will not get 50%. So your $12k LAFHA almost covers the childcare rebate you would get as PR for 2 children in full time childcare. The difference is not so great after all.
And before somebody jumps down my throat, as citizens, we only get the rebate, no CC benefit because according to the government we earn too much I wish... Don't even think we'll qualify for any other (even small) handout this year as my measly income will probably push us over yet another threshold

TBH -and I know you'll curse me for this... - I wouldn't say that renting a house out in the UK - or elsewhere - is really what was meant by 'maintaining' a home. I understand some people are renting out at a loss and have to cover a mortgage repayment shortfall, but the way I always understood LAFHA, it was to help keep a family - even if that is just a spouse - in a different location to where you work. I am sure someone will swiftly correct me if I am wrong

To be blunt, LAFHA was not meant to be used like negative gearing - which should be abolished -, where it would cover the gap because rents are not high enough compared to mortgages in the UK. That is determined by the size of your mortgage and the choices you made when you took out that mortgage. I do not think that the Australian government should be compensating people for their financial choices...

elice_in_oz

+1

ldticp

Back to the original issue, I think we have talked this to death and to be honest nearly everyone here agrees LAFHA was implemented poorly and was used by companies as a bargaining tool incorrectly and really LAFHA in it's current state definately needed the reforms they have brought in.

I'd like to add I 100% agree with the reforms in their entirety it 100% makes sense.

The problem is the way the reforms are being implemented with 1 set of people getting 2 years to sort out their affairs and 1 set getting 6 weeks.
Either everyone should get 2 years or no one.

knockoff nige

I don't agree with that. Companies had every right to inform people of LAFHA.

paddyo

Ok, I will do you a favour. I do let out in UK, but that is to a loss of over 400 pounds a month. I knew that when I came over and took that into consideration when I also took into consideration LAFHA, I also took into account the loss of our home business. You are being cynical to the point of ignoring personal circumstances....again!

I will certainly agree that there are SOME who have no home, rent it out for proift or even sell......but not all BS. be careful with the tar on your brush.

paddyo

I'm not sure I can cope with all this ageist abuse!! :0

paddyo

- 1

pegleg999

Exactly... well put. I'm losing the LAFHA and I get how it is a poorly thought out tax break.

I will also add the government should consider more benefits for temporary residents in line with residents. I get taxed as a resident even though I am not one... they just seem to make things up!

iamthecreaturefromuranus

0


Trying to maintain the balance here.

gadgetguy

Okay trying to get back on topic here, as a follow up to my earlier post about these changes actually being illegal, here's a further post that was recently made in the other forum:

" 'Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith, which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nationals of that other State in the same circumstances, in particular with respect to residence, are or may be subjected.'

The reforms breach all of these treaties because, for the first two years, only foreign workers under existing arrangements will be required to show that they maintain a home for their own use in Australia. Australians under existing arrangements will not be required to do this until July 2014. "

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of LAFHA or removing it, it seems fairly clear that the reforms breach this treaty.