LAFHA announcement in the budget ?

[Guest RaoulDuke66]

I am not sure what your point is. I have already stated my opinion, that even wth tweaked woding to move the discrimanation against house location, the 457 holder would still need to have a home elsewhere kept for their own personal use and I have not come across anyone that does.

 

Genuinely interested in the legal argument, so if there is something I am missing, would be useful if you could explain rather than make patronising comments asking me to think about something because you can assume I have already done that.

 

Okay. We're talking about the transitional period. And taking Article 25.1, with regard to FBT and income tax, UK nationals can't be put under other or more budensome requirements than Australians. So if we make the change you suggested they might make to the legislation, that UK nationals have to be maintaining a property in the UK (but Australian nationals are still exempt from having to maintain a property in Australia or anywhere), then it still breaches Article 25.1. In fact, anything they do to ensure that Australians get the transitional period but UK nationals get nothing, will likely breach Article 25.1. That's why I believe Swann has put himself in an impossible position. He can't subject Australians to overnight financial ruin, so he can't take away the transitional period - and the legislation in the current draft form will breach the 1953 Act and be subject to challenge by all UK nationals (the biggest proportion of people on 457s).

[AoifesMum]

Your posts have certainly given us a little hope, and thanks for posting. The query I have is whether the government can manintain that they are not discriminating as the legislation only states that individuals need to maintain a home in Austrlaia they are living away from, nowhere will it state that Australians have the discretionary period. We all know that by stating an individual needs an Australian residence that penalises, almost exclusively, 457 holders but that is not stated in the legislation. Would that be enough? It is discriminatory, we all know that, but may this be how they get out of awarding the two year transitionary period? It is certainly indirect discrimination but I am unsure (not being particularly legallly minded!) that this is enough to prevent the bill going through. Thanks for your great posts though, perhaps you could clarify things for those of us not so well versed.

[Fruitysunshine]

Would just like to add that this too will have a significant effect on us. Having young children that I look after at home and paying for an older child's schools fees along with healthcare etc was certainly made more pallatable by the LAFHA allowance. We still maintain our own mortgage in the UK and the removal of this allowance is not gong to allow us to stay here any longer. Of course we knew we were only ever here temporarily but we planned to be here for the 4 years, as it stands we have only been here a few months and now will have to move the children BACK to the UK after a difficult settling in period in the first place.

 

I have read so many things like "well you knew what you were getting into", "you are only a temporary resident what did you expect?", "Count yourself lucky you got the opportunity" but at the end of the day my husband was offered a job because there was nobody here to do it. On an earlier link on this thread some commentator mentioned about the the Irish and English knocking on the doors lining up for the work and now Australia doesn't need all these skills so they can do what they wish with the 457's. We viewed this as a working holiday, we are not rolling in money, we certainly cannot afford regular holidays etc, even in the UK but isn't that the way of the world at the moment anyway? It is certainly far more expensive to live out here than in the UK. That doesn't make me a wingeing Pom, I am just noting a fact.

 

We moved over having done our figures and since we made the contract things have changed enough for us to send me and the children back to the UK to live in our home there whilst my husband remains here to work until such times as he can get a job in the UK. Not ideal for our family but it's been forced upon us and we have to act swiftly in order to protect the little financial security that we have with a family.

 

We came, we saw and we're off home again.

 

p.s.: Aoife'smum - don't worry, I know EXACTLY how desperate you are feeling but you will get through this.

[Guest PatrickB]

See the thread in General Chat : News & Dilemmas Treasurer Swan's Proposed July 1 LAFHA reform

 

Submissions to the fbt Treasury website need to be in by May 29, so get going!

 

Traffic is likely somehat heavier than Treasury expected, it fell over on Sunday.

[Guest PatrickB]

See thread under General Chat : news Chat & Dilemmas : Australian Treasurer swan's Proposed July 1 LAFHA reform

Edited May 21, 2012 by PatrickB

[Guest RaoulDuke66]

Your posts have certainly given us a little hope, and thanks for posting. The query I have is whether the government can manintain that they are not discriminating as the legislation only states that individuals need to maintain a home in Austrlaia they are living away from, nowhere will it state that Australians have the discretionary period. We all know that by stating an individual needs an Australian residence that penalises, almost exclusively, 457 holders but that is not stated in the legislation. Would that be enough? It is discriminatory, we all know that, but may this be how they get out of awarding the two year transitionary period? It is certainly indirect discrimination but I am unsure (not being particularly legallly minded!) that this is enough to prevent the bill going through. Thanks for your great posts though, perhaps you could clarify things for those of us not so well versed.

 

Ah, but with regard to the transitional arrangements, Australians do NOT need to be maintaining a home for their use in Australia. So the point isn't that everyone needs to maintain a home in Australia which penalises UK nationals. The point is that (for the transitional arrangements) only foreigners need to maintain a home in Australia. Australians have no such condition. I would suggest you read the draft exposure legislation, notably the last page of it. In relation to transitional arrangements, you'll see a section applying to permanent residents, and a different section applying to temporary and foreign residents. The section for permanent residents carves out the requirement to maintain a property in Australia. So it isn't as if it MIGHT discriminate, the legislation is clearly drafted in a way which separates out requirements which would apply to UK 457 visa holders. That's clearly illegal in terms of Article 25.1. I'll fight Swann every step of the way as I employ myself at a bargain rate of $0 per hour.

[Dhunt81]

101 submissions published on the treasury website. Some big hitting companies having a lot to say. 28th May closing date for further submissions.

 

http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Submissions/2012/Fringe-Benefits-Tax-FBT-Reform-living-away-from-home-benefits/Submissions

 

 

---

I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?de5jfa

[thombatt]

Swan is motivated by his need to deliver a balanced budget to meet Labor party commitments.

 

This sort of thing is low hanging fruit. He doesn't care if companies don't like it, it's nothing compared to the pressure he's got from the mining tax and the carbon tax.

 

It also panders to the Australian voters (immigrants have to pay their share blah, blah,blah). 457 visa holders cannot vote so he doesn't care what they think.

 

The only thing he has to worry about is the effect on the economy. He has a very short term view, and that's the next budget submission and the election next year and the economy wont be affected that much by then. He also knows that Australia is the country of choice for immigrants and that for every person that leaves there will be 7 in the queue to take their place.

 

If the UK government were to contact him about it he may well ask were their LAFA allowances are and bat it right back on those grounds.

 

Personally I don't care either way it goes, I'm highlighting the politics.

[Guest RaoulDuke66]

Swan is motivated by his need to deliver a balanced budget to meet Labor party commitments.

 

This sort of thing is low hanging fruit. He doesn't care if companies don't like it, it's nothing compared to the pressure he's got from the mining tax and the carbon tax.

 

It also panders to the Australian voters (immigrants have to pay their share blah, blah,blah). 457 visa holders cannot vote so he doesn't care what they think.

 

The only thing he has to worry about is the effect on the economy. He has a very short term view, and that's the next budget submission and the election next year and the economy wont be affected that much by then. He also knows that Australia is the country of choice for immigrants and that for every person that leaves there will be 7 in the queue to take their place.

 

If the UK government were to contact him about it he may well ask were their LAFA allowances are and bat it right back on those grounds.

 

Personally I don't care either way it goes, I'm highlighting the politics.

 

Exactly. He's like all politicians. He isn't capable of seeing the light but he is capable of feeling the heat. So when the whole World points out him that the ATO will lose all of the subsequent challenges, he can only change his mind or look like a moron.

[pomade11]

I've been reading posts from comentators on various sites (LinkedIn, mUmBRELLA...) very closely over the last few weeks as yes, the proposed changes will have a significant impact on my life here in Australia. But I will cope, and the majority of commentators will cope as well - as to quote the SMH, are highly paid execs. "Attorneys of law, SDMs, Enterprise Architects" are amongst the commentators in the LAFHA group on LinkedIn alone - and all very well paid jobs from 90-150k at least)- it's because of fat cats in these positions that have caused the Aussie govt. to act. If it goes or not, Im staying put, I love it here.

[Katkat]

I've been reading posts from comentators on various sites (LinkedIn, mUmBRELLA...) very closely over the last few weeks as yes, the proposed changes will have a significant impact on my life here in Australia. But I will cope, and the majority of commentators will cope as well - as to quote the SMH, are highly paid execs. "Attorneys of law, SDMs, Enterprise Architects" are amongst the commentators in the LAFHA group on LinkedIn alone - and all very well paid jobs from 90-150k at least)- it's because of fat cats in these positions that have caused the Aussie govt. to act. If it goes or not, Im staying put, I love it here.

 

I think you'd have to be earning an awful lot more than 90- 150 k to be classed as a "fat cat"! Doesn't exactly put you in the rich banker category, especially if you have to pay rent in Sydney.

[Guest RaoulDuke66]

I've been reading posts from comentators on various sites (LinkedIn, mUmBRELLA...) very closely over the last few weeks as yes, the proposed changes will have a significant impact on my life here in Australia. But I will cope, and the majority of commentators will cope as well - as to quote the SMH, are highly paid execs. "Attorneys of law, SDMs, Enterprise Architects" are amongst the commentators in the LAFHA group on LinkedIn alone - and all very well paid jobs from 90-150k at least)- it's because of fat cats in these positions that have caused the Aussie govt. to act. If it goes or not, Im staying put, I love it here.

 

I can tell you with 100% certainty that people in the categories you mention are earning less than 90k. So when the government wants to cut their take home by up to 40% overnight, they face financial ruin. So what they're asking for is a period to sort out their financial affairs, run down their leases, find jobs back home etc - i.e. the same transitional period as Australians are getting. Nothing controversial about it.

[pomade11]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that people in the categories you mention are earning less than 90k. So when the government wants to cut their take home by up to 40% overnight, they face financial ruin. So what they're asking for is a period to sort out their financial affairs, run down their leases, find jobs back home etc - i.e. the same transitional period as Australians are getting. Nothing controversial about it.

 

Well there is so much crap flying about - submissions, transitional period, but the truth of the matter is, and this is as black and white as it gets, no one in their right mind can advise anyone on what to do given there is NO OFFICIAL LEGISLATION released to paraphrase payme.com.au. You can't make a call when you are in limbo.

 

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/PayMe-LAFHA-Newsletter.html?soid=1109594220030&aid=UlBnGZfKMLI