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

just read this might be of interest.

Just seen that myself. Reading between the lines suggests that LAFHA is a gonner.

Makes the decision to apply for PR easy, they'll just need to pay half my childcare costs instead.

Am I correct that you can get PR but give it up and then get your superannuation back?

not exactly it seems you have two things mixed up.

You lose LAFHA entitlement the moment you apply for PR, e.g. declare an intent to make Australia your home. I would have thought you'd have to give it up once you *get* the PR (because there is a chance your PR app might be rejected), but apparently this is how it works. I have never been on LAFHA myself, so it is a second-hand knowledge.

Regarding super reclaim - you can apply for partial refund (less tax) after you leave Australia for good. This I thought only covered temporary residents who came in and went never to return, but there is a first time for everything, we just had a new poster who cancelled his PR and reported getting his claim acknowledged by the ATO.

If employers want to bring in overseas workers they should be compensating them accordingly. Not expecting other tax payers to plug the gap in their earnings.

But LAFHA is not just for foreigners? Say you have to work at a remote site for some time, away from your usual place of business, I thought you'd have a claim. Anyway, non-resident workers are an easy target, so I guess noone really is going to make a fuss about it.

Ok. If employers want people to work away from home they should be compensating them fir it, not other taxpayers. I expect it is mainly overseas workers though.

Doesn't mean that it was done correctly. There is no legal basis for this to happen and even if they make a mistake in once case, others should not rely on the same mistake happening twice.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co....htm&page=2&H2

i thought it might not be easy as. thanks

Excellent it used to annoy me to have to pay tax out to high earning migrants as for the poor ones, screw them.

Absolutely. If the government get this ball rolling then I can't see why it would stop and LAHFA will become a thing of the past. In fact, if a company was to send someone away from their home then they should be covering accomodation, not the tax payer.

Except the non residents?

The ones who pay tax but get nothing for it. Everyone on a 457 is obviously needed by Ausyralia, imagine they all left, $350 million would be the least of their worries.

I was 457 in NSW. LAFHA didn't even make up for the compulsory school fees that NSW apply to those on 457. If LAFHA goes and those fees remain in place, then anybody coming to NSW, with kids, on a 457, is going to find it really tough going.

This really should be thrown back on the employer, and I suspect most employers are not familar with the school fee bit, therefore catching a some out. Still, LAHFA is not designed to cover school fees anyway.

Looks like NSW is not sticking to the UN agreement

http://www.irishecho.com.au/2011/08/...ool-fees/11883