Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Australia
Reload this Page >

LAFHA under threat

LAFHA under threat

Old Jan 12th 2012, 2:28 am
  #241  
Social Grenade Thrower
 
paddyo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: South Coast, NSW
Posts: 3,625
paddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Beoz
Well Paddyo, if didn't need to pay tax on foreign income, I'd be selling up that great house, buying a 4 bedroom crappy flat it South London and renting it out to a bunch of students raking in a 60 or 70% yeild. I should do it anyway despite having to pay tax.
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
paddyo is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 2:48 am
  #242  
Social Grenade Thrower
 
paddyo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: South Coast, NSW
Posts: 3,625
paddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond reputepaddyo has a reputation beyond repute
Default 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.
paddyo is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 3:18 am
  #243  
has lost The Game
 
Swerv-o's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Swerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by paddyo
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.

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
Swerv-o is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 3:22 am
  #244  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 623
markbhx has a spectacular aura aboutmarkbhx has a spectacular aura aboutmarkbhx has a spectacular aura about
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Ian Lindgren
Hi,

Yes you could if your employer was an Australian Company, who had temporarily transferred you to work for them in an overseas location for a limited period and was paying you in Australian dollars.

Regards,

Ian
If you lived in Sydney and Worked in Brisbane you can claim LAFHA too. $30k tax free happy days!!
markbhx is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 6:09 am
  #245  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Beoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by paddyo
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
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
Beoz is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 9:23 am
  #246  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 629
OzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to beholdOzSheila is a splendid one to behold
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
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.
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.
OzSheila is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 7:26 pm
  #247  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by OzSheila
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.
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.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Jan 12th 2012, 10:10 pm
  #248  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Beoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by OzSheila
Ian's company has assessed this employee and as a result we are paying him LAFHA this year.
Sounds like this company has a complete misunderstanding of LAHFA. The company doesn't pay LAHFA, nor should be using it to "top up salaries".
Beoz is offline  
Old Jan 13th 2012, 4:17 am
  #249  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 35
desperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nice
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
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.
nor is it the taxpayer that should foot the bill for all those that go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so, they pay next to nothing on their investment property(ies).
desperately is offline  
Old Jan 13th 2012, 7:06 pm
  #250  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by desperately
nor is it the taxpayer that should foot the bill for all those that go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so, they pay next to nothing on their investment property(ies).
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.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Jan 13th 2012, 11:05 pm
  #251  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 35
desperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nicedesperately is just really nice
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
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.
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'.
desperately is offline  
Old Jan 13th 2012, 11:52 pm
  #252  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Beoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond reputeBeoz has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by desperately
nor is it the taxpayer that should foot the bill for all those that go out of their way to negatively gear their tax so, they pay next to nothing on their investment property(ies).
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
Beoz is offline  
Old Jan 14th 2012, 1:12 am
  #253  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by desperately
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'.
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.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Jan 14th 2012, 1:17 am
  #254  
has lost The Game
 
Swerv-o's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Chippendale, Sydney
Posts: 8,735
Swerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond reputeSwerv-o has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
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.

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
Swerv-o is offline  
Old Jan 14th 2012, 1:37 am
  #255  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: LAFHA under threat

Originally Posted by Swerv-o
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
Mmm well I don't get it. Making losses so that you can claim a tax relief is about as dumb as turning down a payrise because it would mean paying more tax!
Bermudashorts is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.