Lafha to be abolished 2012

[Peach]

Apologies if my opinion has angered you, that was not my intention. I stand by my POV though. Governments use tax payers money to stimulate some incentives and discourage others. If a less competitive country wants to be more competitive in the global economy, it will have to attract high-skilled workers from some of the more competitive countries.

 

Perhaps Australia has reaped enough benefits from such high-skilled foreign workers, for now? I mean, Australia is relatively stronger due to the recessions in Europe and the US.

 

Sorry to have been such a drama queen - have slept on it now. ) Your interpretation of Australia's policy on imigration (apologies if I'm misquoting) is that the Skilled Occupation Lists are being tuned to help Australia compete better in the global market. My interpretation is that Australia is using policy like a tap to shut off entry before the local market gets flooded (hence the door has been all but closed to hairdressers and students).

[Guest DutchRooster]

Sorry to have been such a drama queen - have slept on it now. ) Your interpretation of Australia's policy on imigration (apologies if I'm misquoting) is that the Skilled Occupation Lists are being tuned to help Australia compete better in the global market. My interpretation is that Australia is using policy like a tap to shut off entry before the local market gets flooded (hence the door has been all but closed to hairdressers and students).

 

Morning! Yes to both interpretations. I think the Australian government turns the tap on and off when it suits it's economy (as it should).

[Rupert]

My company will be paying me twice the salary I was earning in the UK to do the same job somewhere else - is that not an investment by the company? If Australia has a scarcity of certain skills that the country needs, why shouldn't the tax payers contribute?

 

Why shouldn't the company pay the salary that it needs to pay to attract the people they need. If it is not profitable for them to pay the salary that the individual requires without propping up by tax payers money then it makes no economic sense for the role to be there.

 

As for taxpayers paying for scarce skills, do me a favour. Many of us are all in Australia because apparently there are shortages of certain skills, anyone on a skilled migrant visa or anyone now a citizen but who originally came on a skilled migrant visa. If your argument is valid then all our employers should pay us less than market rate and expect tax payers to make up the difference. Would that cause a vicious economic cycle do you think? We all have to pay more tax on our regular pay to to make up for LAFHA benefits. Complete economic illiteracy.

[Guest DutchRooster]

Why shouldn't the company pay the salary that it needs to pay to attract the people they need. If it is not profitable for them to pay the salary that the individual requires without propping up by tax payers money then it makes no economic sense for the role to be there.

 

As for taxpayers paying for scarce skills, do me a favour. Many of us are all in Australia because apparently there are shortages of certain skills, anyone on a skilled migrant visa or anyone now a citizen but who originally came on a skilled migrant visa. If your argument is valid then all our employers should pay us less than market rate and expect tax payers to make up the difference. Would that cause a vicious economic cycle do you think? We all have to pay more tax on our regular pay to to make up for LAFHA benefits. Complete economic illiteracy.

Do yourself a favour and review your own logic, Rupert. You've created your own little hypothetical scenario -not mine, not Australia's, or the real world etc- and concluded complete economic illiteracy (namely yours; I presume?).

 

In essence, there are 2 factors that constitute the price of a skill: its scarcity and the urgency of its demand. What constitutes a scarce skill is ever-changing: what was a scarce skill once may not be now, and what is a scarce skill now may not be so in the near future.

With regards to the economic consequences of scarcity of skills in a competitive global environment; the price of skill shortages will be reduced competitiveness, for which there is a price to pay. It's up to governments (elected by the tax payers, ironically) to make the best decisions for the country and its economy. Hence your argument is with the government, not me.

 

Although I very much doubt that the government followed your logic, it seems they will be making changes to LAFHA in the near future. My logic tells me that with global recessions and increasing unemployment in competitive economies such as UK and the US, its becoming much easier for Australia to attract skilled workers and so the stimulative is no longer required. And there's probably a political aspect to it as well. People on a 457 cant vote - easy target.