Almo

It is genuinely unfortunate for those individuals/families who are going to be drastically affected and the short lead time on the change is harsh. I take no pleasure in anyone else's misfortune.

However, it is time for the tax break to go. It was not being used in the way it was intended and we can see from some of the stories on this thread how companies were misusing the break.

rld1177

To anyone impacted by this, might be worth floating to your employer if they are not moving on salary to consider sponsoring you for a perm visa. This is one idea a friend of mine was offered Friday by his Aus bank that he works for assuming no transitional arrangements. I think other companies may do this for legal reasons - it costs them some cash and you could then change firms but when a lot of 457's were brought over (in many cases on lower salaries vs their Aussie coworkers, as appears to occur regularly at my bank) they were told the 'advantage' of the 457 and being a temp that can be forced to leave Aus in 28 days if you are fired was LAFHA. LAFHA will be gone, so I see no advantage of a 457 and as people with familes have noted there are other downsides like school fees, forced to buy health insurance if you are from certain countries, etc etc.

I'd suggest anyone impacted try to think of anything the company can do that would help you - for me I am going to ask for perm sponsorship as of July with them paying the fees - if they refused (I doubt it) I'd then ask for them to sponsor if I paid the perm fees.

Beoz

I am an avid hater of the labor government and the values it stands for. But this one they got right and the conservatives would have done the same thing. I haven't seen the conservatives oppose this decision.

By removing this tax the government are supporting those who help themselves.

Beoz

I don't think there's any dispute that the loss of this benefit will upset a few. But you are in a small minority of the entire tax paying population. You can't just have a benefit for a small few who may have naively made a poor decision, based on incorrect advice from employers, a few years back.

ginstwin

As I've said previously in the thread i don't have a problem with the removal of LAFHA particularly if its been abused BUT the short notice period is unfair and is going to cause people who came here with good intentions terrible hardship.

Implementing in July 2014 was fair all round, this bulldozer approach is actually quite disgraceful.

Beoz

Depends what you call short notice. This article was published last November and the idea of cutting this tax break was around long before that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-2...asures/3697728

I think 1 year is sufficient.

Bermudashorts

It isn't up to anyone to provide tax breaks to select employees to provide even more profit for booming industries or even to prop up failing industries. It is up to the employers to pay the required salaries. Not sure why this point is still not clear, it has been said enough times.

What? Not being a grammar freak here, but I really cannot even guess what you were trying to say there.

ginstwin

My sons lease was renewed in late september . So he will be massively underwater for 3 months.

If a years notice was given thats fair enough but it really wasn't.

rld1177

Was it naive to make a decision based on the facts at the time? Until late last year were there indiciations LAFHA could be pulled? Be careful with this argument - it could apply to any tax breaks / credits / government perk - I understand there are people in Aus happy to take losses on mortgages, and things like child care appear to be pre-tax dollars (I am single and on a 457 but the 'hand-outs' to families and the middle class here would make a South American government blush) - people plan their lives around government policies like this and when they are changed without transitional options anyone interested in fairness should pause.

To me it is pretty clear: it is not a significant tax grab but plays well politically, and the people involved don't vote. I was fortunate to move here in March so I have not planned on LAFHA post July 1st, but I would have thought a transitional arragement for at least familes on up to say 100K total to keep that percentage of LAFHA even for 12 months only would not have broken the Aussie budget and they could have still managed to pork up the budget with all the other handouts like the carbon offset (what is the point of a carbon tax if you then offset it for a large percentage of the population, who will continue to use eletricity etc at the same rates since there is not cost impact to them)

*Note: Single, one of the evil guys over 150K and I dont care I am losing it but again doing this with no transitions for at least families on up to 100K is pathetic.

Tramps_mate

If people were so heavily reliant on LAFHA, where the jobs they took not that well paid to start with? Because I thought the 457 visa tended to be for people with special 'skills' and tended to be on higher than average salaries? Im only asking as I don't know..

So for them to go to paying normal PAYE taxes on their wages, then it is insufficient to live on so why take the basic salary that was offered originally?

ginstwin

i know quite a few 457 people whose salaries are between 55k and 65k , lafha was the persuading factor.

Bermudashorts

It has been known since late last year and takes effect in July, so there has been notice, just that some have refused to believe it. At the end of the day it is a significant drop in income and whether there is 12 months notice or 8 months notice isn't going to make it that much more palatable.

I was shocked by the appalling communication of it last week; in that for 24 hours everyone though there was to be a reprieve by way of transitional arrangements and then it turned out there would not be. I read the materials, and I am very used to reading blurb, rules, contracts etc, and I certainly read that there was a transitional period. That the department responsible for producing these documents could not see how it would be interpreted smacks of incompetence. But that is by the by.

Tramps_mate

Ah right. Are they in trouble then with losing it?

Beoz

I came here in the hope of persuading my employers to provide me with LAHFA. I had one minor htich - an Aussie passport - which does not demonstrate anything of a temporary nature despite the fact I will be returning to the UK in a few years. Point being I had to make my decision on what "if's". Things change, governments change, policies change, employers go broke, etc, etc

We've been round this before and the employers should have made their sponsers fully aware of the risks and if they are using it as part of the salary, and if their non LAHFA co-workers are earning considerably more, then do something about it.

No transition, no rules for one not for the other. It's gotta go.The goverment should ensure that all taxpayers, regardless of perm or temp should have equal benefits.

kmthor - mackay

ummm but LAFHA was brought in by the government so why wouldn't employers use it ?? They would be absolutely nuts not to, they would be putting themselves at a distinct disadvantage in the market if they didnt.

The point is not clear because what you are wanting is not reality. In reality we do get tax breaks whether you personally like it or not is irrelevant.

The fact is what they have done and in the time frame done it will cause people to suffer and that is wrong.

if MR swan wanted an extra 15% out of your pay packet in july how would you feel?