LAFHA under threat
#241
Re: LAFHA under threat
unfortunately as good a house as it is...there is not enough equity in it to sell and buy somewhere else...plus...I am a Temp Visa holder remember, I INTEND to go back there one day! Thats why I claim LAFHA
#242
Re: LAFHA under threat
By the way people....can we please cut out the 'Not me as a taxpayer' statements, ALL 457 Visa holders also pay tax in Oz....so we are ALL taxpayers...we ALL are paying towards what ever stupid things this piss poor excuse for a government decides.
#243
Re: LAFHA under threat
To be honest, this LAFHA move comes as no real surprise to me. The Australian government [of whichever colour/flovour] have a history of pulling stuff like this, particularly when it is un-represented people that are likely to be effected. Just be thankful that they haven't decided to make it retrospective as they are planning with some of their other tax reforms.
This reminds me an awful lot of the cancellation of the $100k bond to claim an additional 5 points for immigration purposes. Though it was forced by the partaking states, the federal government were quite happy to just abandon the scheme overnight, leaving many would-be immigrants in complete limbo [and out of pocket] for many many months with no prospect of a suitable resolution. It was only after some court cases and various other legal tinkering that they were eventually forced into dealing with the situation.
S
#244
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 623
Re: LAFHA under threat
If you lived in Sydney and Worked in Brisbane you can claim LAFHA too. $30k tax free happy days!!
#245
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: LAFHA under threat
And within the current rules right you are. But most of the citizens and 457 holders I know personally who receive LAHFA are not supporting any kind of hardship by living away from their home and are using it to make a nice little side earner. Their attitude to the rule change is "oh well its nice while I could claim it". My selfish point of view is "great, lets put those tax savings back into something that benefits most of the population" and it seems like the government shares my point of view
#246
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 629
Re: LAFHA under threat
There should be deterrents against hiring in temporary workers from overseas. Companies should have to pay the incentive to attract the staff they need.
Hiring overseas workers should be a last resort and if it comes to that the employer needs to weigh up is it worth it or not. If it is profitable for the company to take an overseas worker hen that is what they should do. If it is not profitable for the company to pay for an overseas worker then they are better off without it, the profit of such an investment should not be artificially boosted because the taxpayers are sharing the bill.
Hiring overseas workers should be a last resort and if it comes to that the employer needs to weigh up is it worth it or not. If it is profitable for the company to take an overseas worker hen that is what they should do. If it is not profitable for the company to pay for an overseas worker then they are better off without it, the profit of such an investment should not be artificially boosted because the taxpayers are sharing the bill.
Whilst the industry is profitable, it is not that great at the moment, particularly in light of the recent tragedy in NZ.
The one foreign pilot we have at the moment is here from Oct-Apr, his spouse and child has remained abroad and are living in the family home.
Ian's company has assessed this employee and as a result we are paying him LAFHA this year. This will end from July 1 now with the changes. This particular pilot is already talking of not returning to us for the next season. IMHO it seems unfair that he will miss out whereas someone can be relocated in Australia and claim LAFHA.
#247
Re: LAFHA under threat
One of the companies I work for is a hot air balloon company. Worldwide there is a shortage of balloon pilots. We occasionally bring in an overseas pilot for "the season". There is simply not sufficient pilots locally to meet demand.
Whilst the industry is profitable, it is not that great at the moment, particularly in light of the recent tragedy in NZ.
The one foreign pilot we have at the moment is here from Oct-Apr, his spouse and child has remained abroad and are living in the family home.
Ian's company has assessed this employee and as a result we are paying him LAFHA this year. This will end from July 1 now with the changes. This particular pilot is already talking of not returning to us for the next season. IMHO it seems unfair that he will miss out whereas someone can be relocated in Australia and claim LAFHA.
Whilst the industry is profitable, it is not that great at the moment, particularly in light of the recent tragedy in NZ.
The one foreign pilot we have at the moment is here from Oct-Apr, his spouse and child has remained abroad and are living in the family home.
Ian's company has assessed this employee and as a result we are paying him LAFHA this year. This will end from July 1 now with the changes. This particular pilot is already talking of not returning to us for the next season. IMHO it seems unfair that he will miss out whereas someone can be relocated in Australia and claim LAFHA.
#249
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 35
Re: LAFHA under threat
And again, it is not up to tax payers to subsidise salaries in private business. If the company wants to retain his services and money is an issue then they need to make increase his offer. If it is not profitable to do so then the business is not profitable and this is a hard fact that needs to be dealt with properly not masked by subsidies from tax payers.
#250
Re: LAFHA under threat
This is a thread about LAFHA.
What do you mean though? Not the first time I have seen comments like this, but they just don't make sense to me. Are you suggesting people make massive losses, i.e. charge rent lower than interest income just so that they can claim an offset. Completely barking if so.
#251
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 35
Re: LAFHA under threat
Why are you telling me?
This is a thread about LAFHA.
What do you mean though? Not the first time I have seen comments like this, but they just don't make sense to me. Are you suggesting people make massive losses, i.e. charge rent lower than interest income just so that they can claim an offset. Completely barking if so.
This is a thread about LAFHA.
What do you mean though? Not the first time I have seen comments like this, but they just don't make sense to me. Are you suggesting people make massive losses, i.e. charge rent lower than interest income just so that they can claim an offset. Completely barking if so.
the fact that many ossies go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so they end up paying next to nothing on each investment property, therefore keeping god knows how many millions of tax $s away from the government. but because ossies/ those with PR cant get the LAFHA tax break that those on a 457 can, it is deemed unacceptable and underhand, amidst the comments of 'why should we fund their extravagant lifestyles' ad nauseum and treat them like some sort of modern al capone masterminding the downfall of australia due to tax evasion.
yet in a case of blindingly obvious double standards they deliberately negatively gear their tax keeping more money from the government; but that is ok as they can do it.
i was told to be able to take advantage of the LAFHA tax break, that i had to provide evidence of my mortgage back at home - maybe the ATO should stipulate this to close this 'loophole'.
#252
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: LAFHA under threat
I've never really understood the benefits of negative gearing though I haven't really looked into it too much. I just don't understand why someone would want to receive less rent than their mortgage repayments and offset the loss with tax. To me buying a property where you make a profit after outgoings make much more sense. Perhaps I'm missing a trick somewhere
#253
Re: LAFHA under threat
im not telling anyone in particular. the thread is about LAFHA, and how some perceive it as 'unfair' as it is a tax break for those on a 457 visa. the link is the tax break.
the fact that many ossies go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so they end up paying next to nothing on each investment property, therefore keeping god knows how many millions of tax $s away from the government. but because ossies/ those with PR cant get the LAFHA tax break that those on a 457 can, it is deemed unacceptable and underhand, amidst the comments of 'why should we fund their extravagant lifestyles' ad nauseum and treat them like some sort of modern al capone masterminding the downfall of australia due to tax evasion.
yet in a case of blindingly obvious double standards they deliberately negatively gear their tax keeping more money from the government; but that is ok as they can do it.
i was told to be able to take advantage of the LAFHA tax break, that i had to provide evidence of my mortgage back at home - maybe the ATO should stipulate this to close this 'loophole'.
the fact that many ossies go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so they end up paying next to nothing on each investment property, therefore keeping god knows how many millions of tax $s away from the government. but because ossies/ those with PR cant get the LAFHA tax break that those on a 457 can, it is deemed unacceptable and underhand, amidst the comments of 'why should we fund their extravagant lifestyles' ad nauseum and treat them like some sort of modern al capone masterminding the downfall of australia due to tax evasion.
yet in a case of blindingly obvious double standards they deliberately negatively gear their tax keeping more money from the government; but that is ok as they can do it.
i was told to be able to take advantage of the LAFHA tax break, that i had to provide evidence of my mortgage back at home - maybe the ATO should stipulate this to close this 'loophole'.
And I still don't think what you say makes any sense. Are you suggesting that people charge deliberately low rents, less than the interst payments just so they can make a loss and charge it against employment income? You know this is still a loss right?
Unless you can show me a spreadsheet to indicate how anyone could be better off for doing this, I would have to conclude that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
#254
Re: LAFHA under threat
Well if you are not telling me, then don't quote me.
And I still don't think what you say makes any sense. Are you suggesting that people charge deliberately low rents, less than the interst payments just so they can make a loss and charge it against employment income? You know this is still a loss right?
Unless you can show me a spreadsheet to indicate how anyone could be better off for doing this, I would have to conclude that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
And I still don't think what you say makes any sense. Are you suggesting that people charge deliberately low rents, less than the interst payments just so they can make a loss and charge it against employment income? You know this is still a loss right?
Unless you can show me a spreadsheet to indicate how anyone could be better off for doing this, I would have to conclude that you haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
I think that's the crux of it, yes. The idea behind it is that rents remain low and affordable, so the government has to invest less in social housing.
As for the personal economics of it, I don't understand it either. As you say, a loss is a loss, but it seems that there is something of a national obsession with this tax break.
S
#255
Re: LAFHA under threat
I think that's the crux of it, yes. The idea behind it is that rents remain low and affordable, so the government has to invest less in social housing.
As for the personal economics of it, I don't understand it either. As you say, a loss is a loss, but it seems that there is something of a national obsession with this tax break.
S
As for the personal economics of it, I don't understand it either. As you say, a loss is a loss, but it seems that there is something of a national obsession with this tax break.
S