Alaska Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 We don't get LAFHA anyway but are on a 457. It definitely is more expensive to be on a 457. I need to do Australian qualifications to be able to work here (as my job doesn't exist here in the same way so need a new set of qualifications) but I can't afford to do the qualifications due to having to pay International Fees. I can't afford to do an unskilled job due to no childcare rebate. So I can't work or study right now, which seems counter-productive to the Australian economy. I came with my eyes open as did the research beforehand, but people who came with LAFHA as part of their contract - it does seem really unfair to change the goalposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AoifesMum Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 But the employer can't pay an additional amount to compensate for the higher costs for 457-ers as they have to be seen to be paying equivalent wages to Australian and non-Australian employees. At the end of the day, the government can pretty much do what they want and have whatever policies they feel will benefit the country, I just dislike the way this has been handled and the time scale we've had to deal with it. If Australian employers offer work to non-residents then, if everything is made clear (with the LAFHA gone) then the employee has the option of accepting or not. If it works out to be a bum deal, they don't come here. However, in the case of current 457 holders (especially those with children under school age) the LAFHA was offered as part of the salary package and has been taken away with pretty much no notice - those people aren't in a position to make up this loss of income and were often not told of any of this before they came over (and signed rental agreements, etc which they now can't get out of). This whole mess could have been better dealt with if the Treasury had simply allowed all claimants 12 months to decide whether they could afford to stay in Australia or had to move back home. New claimants are now fully aware of their net pay and can budget accordingly and make an informed decision based upon whether they can afford to live here or not. In our experience, if you're on less than 100K (either jointly or sole income) then I would think again about making the move. If you have children requiring day care then you need to be earning big money to afford the $2,000 per month per child and not be paying to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surflen22 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 While I completely agree with most of your points, particularly about the timing and also the short notice of the implementation of the changes, I vehemently disagree that you need to earn $100k to be able to afford to live here. I came over on a 457 earning the minimum - which at the time was in the region of $48,000. I didn't receive LAFHA for the first 6 months and managed fine. I'm now only earning $60,000, don't get LAFHA and am doing just great. I live in Perth and until recently was renting a 2-bed apartment in the inner city suburbs. If anything, my standard of living is considerably higher than it was before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 how many dependents do you have surflen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AoifesMum Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 Don't get me wrong - if you are single or in a couple then yes, I completely agree - this is a fantastic country with huge opportunities and is great in that it doesn't have such a strict class system as can still be evident in the UK. However, NOT with children on a 457 visa is my point. You cannot get child care for less than $100 per day where I live, I know I've contacted pretty much all the providers (actually, the cheapet was $95) That's for ONE CHILD. If you have three, that's $6,000 per month. Now, honestly, who could afford that? $72,000 per year for child care (possibly they might offer a discount for all three, I'm not sure) - any jobs offering that after tax? Not many (even after schools clubs cost around $75 from 3pm to 6pm. This country is not feasable to live in with very young children unless you earn a big salary. Australian's manage because they get child care for half price. Even with one child your annual bill would be $24,000. For single people, granted, it's a great opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surflen22 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Don't get me wrong - if you are single or in a couple then yes, I completely agree - this is a fantastic country with huge opportunities and is great in that it doesn't have such a strict class system as can still be evident in the UK. However, NOT with children on a 457 visa is my point. You cannot get child care for less than $100 per day where I live, I know I've contacted pretty much all the providers (actually, the cheapet was $95) That's for ONE CHILD. If you have three, that's $6,000 per month. Now, honestly, who could afford that? $72,000 per year for child care (possibly they might offer a discount for all three, I'm not sure) - any jobs offering that after tax? Not many (even after schools clubs cost around $75 from 3pm to 6pm. This country is not feasable to live in with very young children unless you earn a big salary. Australian's manage because they get child care for half price. Even with one child your annual bill would be $24,000. For single people, granted, it's a great opportunity. I completely take your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 457 holders are Australian residents, obviously. They are nothing of the sort, they are guest workers. An Australian resident is a permanent resident, being classed as a resident for tax purposes doesn't give you Permanent Residence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockDr Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 They are nothing of the sort, they are guest workers. An Australian resident is a permanent resident, being classed as a resident for tax purposes doesn't give you Permanent Residence. You can be resident without being a permanent resident, it's called temporary residence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 You can be resident without being a permanent resident, it's called temporary residence... I did mention Australian Resident. 1.1.A.130 Australian resident Definition The term 'Australian resident' has the same meaning as in section 7 of the Social Security Act 1991.An Australian resident is a person who: resides in Australia (1.1.A.120), and is one of the following: an Australian citizen, or the holder of a permanent visa (1.1.v.10), or a SCV holder who is a protected SCV holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockDr Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I did mention Australian Resident. bureaucracy at it's best eh? note to self, "resident in Australia" is not the same as "Australian Resident"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 bureaucracy at it's best eh? note to self, "resident in Australia" is not the same as "Australian Resident"... Temporary Entrants is the term you were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.