Bermudashorts

In many people's opinion it is. Including the governments so the rules are being changed. The rules haven't changed yet, the thread is mainly a discussion about why the changes make sense.

Anyway you really don't see the issue with somebody making a profit / breaking even by renting one house out whilst the the taxpayer is paying for their accommodation elsewhere? If you don't see that issue then you are being irrational.

desperately

I dont have an issue with it at all - do you think families should struggle, be uprooted, kids change schools and lose friends because their parent(s) have had to move with their work or face the propect of no job?

When you are in receipt of LAFHA it is set by your company, depending on family size and the average rental price for the equivalently sized property. This could be as little as $650 p/w covering the whole of the sydney metropolitan area. Now i know there arent many decent places in decent suburbs that you can get for that, but LAFHA helps you afford more.
So why should a family that has been moved by their work from somewhere they lived and enjoyed, have to be stuck living somewhere not as nice? They will still be out of pocket.

All it means is their taxable income is reduced by $33800 and their salary re baselined for taxable purposes, and they save a bit on the other.

To deny people this just smacks of sour grapes in my opinion.

Beoz

I still think companies should cover all costs point blank, but one situation which could be reasonable is where husband needs to relocate for work, rents flat, wife and kids stay in the family home, therefore family needs to maintain 2 properties without the assistance of a tenant income. Still if a company can't find skills for their needs locally then they should cover the costs.

Beoz

The scenario you use is not for everyone. There are many receiving LAHFA who haven't been uprooted, who don't have families, who earn a very good income, who actually really enjoy their new location and wouldn't go back to the old location ever. There are just too many people abusing the system for the government not to act for the good of the majority of the population

desperately

So not only are you against LAFHA, you also want to split families up and make them live away from each other as an entitlement!

What next after July when the LAFHA rules have changed - are you going on a crusade to get those thst defraud the benefit system?

Beoz

I suggest you re-read my comments 4 or 5 times as its not sinking in. You are out of control

desperately

Thanks

Read them. No change.

paddyo

lol...well I am as Pro LAFHA as they come and this change will affect me greatly, but I must admit those comments do seem a bit severe.
We all have different opinions and for those affected negatively by the probable change it has fiscal and emotive concerns hence this great and robust debate. To those not in receipt of LAFHA its 'black and white' but to those in receipt it is a grey area as not everyone is rorting the system yet everyone is going to suffer.
It WILL have an impact on business, it WILL change peoples lives and it MAY affect whole companies workforce. It is easy to say 'if they need them then they will pay extra' but some companies may not be able to afford that 'extra'. It MAY be that those who can not will change their workforce dramatically, the quality of their product or their actual product altogether, or even go out of business.
Those that can pay extra will be loathe to do so and will probably offer PR, if its within the rules to do so, as an 'incentive' or just accept that they may lose those skills. I really can't see a lot of massive pay rises to supplement the loss of LAFHA. At the end of the day, it is all out of the current LAFHA recipients hands.

bingobob777

I emailed my HR dept on Friday and got a response pretty quickly. The changes are not set in stone, the Govt have sought advice from industries affected and will make a final announcement in April/May.

Expect changes fellow LAFHA recipients

desperately

Fingers crosses for all those that get it

Happiya

Personally i can understand why the government wants to remove LAFHA for most purposes.

However they are wrong in only giving a few months notice. Once it is comfirmed in April / May then they should then give at least 6 if not 12 months for e457's (and if relevant their families) to then budget accordingly.

People moved to Australia on packages that the government legally allowed and most people are on rent contracts (which part of LAFHA is supposed to subsidise) that are a minimum of 6 if not 12 months.

paddyo

There speaks the voice of a HR person!!!

Beoz

Sounds like you've taken it up with your employers. Any success?

paddyo

No it's ok, I was responding in mock fashion to Happiyas post! I know the chap!

rld1177

I am due to have final permit approval this week and out to Oz in March, had my LAFHA discussion with PWC for about an hour with 3 tax experts. Supposedly they are involved in the LAFHA industry comments, efforts (which I think they said closed up for final comments this past Friday)

Their take was expect changes but they are still running things under current rules, so if you get out to Oz in March (as in my case) you can still get it till end of the Aus tax year. Better than nothing and since Ill be paying about double for temp housing the first couple months I am pleased to hear this.

Their view based on discussions and government contacts is some for of transitional arrangement might be put in place - something like for people on LAFHA now making under X amount (say 200K) conditions remain for one or two years and or gradually reduce. The thinking is this way the government captures more tax revenue right away from people moving in the next tax year, from people above the salary level (say 200K or whatever), and gradually from everyone over say a one or two year period.

I am single so it is not the end of the world if this goes, I'll just exit Oz faster for an Asia secondment that is all, but I can see how a family that decided say last September to move, and where LAFHA 'tipped them' to making the decision would be pretty upset to have the rug pullled out without an transitional arrangements in place. I am shocked to see people here not at least agreeing that in cases like that transitional arrangements make sense. Otherwise I think you could argue legally this is a real case of retroactive legal changes happening too fast for people to adjust - A family on 200K probably has 50K sheltered, that is a bgi instant change for them to address for their budgets. (Yes, a lot of money some will say here, but some of these expats came over on similar salaries and uprooted familes etc and then essentially are now suffering from a bait and switch)