Budget 2015-16

Legend100 wrote: »

No tax free threshold for anyone on a WHV from 1 July 2016

Zambia wrote: »

32.5 cent of every dollar earned on a whv will go to revenue.

Am I reading these posts correct, that there has been two changes to the WHV tax brackets.
The $18k tax free allowance is removed for WHVs, and also the $18-37k tax bracket at 19% is gone. :eek::eek:

That's huge, equates to an extra $8,453 per year in tax for somebody on a WHV. They are really just massively increasing the risk/benefit of non-declared income on and ABN.
Bye, bye tax refunds on WHV.

Legend100 wrote: »

No tax free threshold for anyone on a WHV from 1 July 2016......that could really put people off coming out on a 417 given that a large proportion of jobs people do on a WHV are low paid.

As a voter I have no problem with this and think it's well over due, a WHV is a primarily a holiday visa for young people to travel for a year and supplement their travel money with occasional work. I doubt it will put off genuine adventure seekers.

I would say a lot of WHVers select non-resident by mistake on the Tax File deceleration pay full whack anyway and don't bother putting in a tax return because they are unaware so it made no difference to those type of people anyway.

mandrake04 wrote: »

As a voter I have no problem with this and think it's well over due, a WHV is a primarily a holiday visa for young people to travel for a year and supplement their travel money with occasional work. I doubt it will put off genuine adventure seekers.

And extra $8.5k is a huge hike for an $37-40k income.
It wasn't long ago that they were talking about cracking down on WHV's being exploited.

I disagree that it's only for "occasional" work. It's for temporary work, the amount needed varies from person to person.
It's all well and good if daddy is funding somebody's gap year. But not everybody has that option. Lots of world travelers genuinely need to work as they go.
Even on the likes of a J1 most students wouldn't be in a position to go without for too long.

Where you ever on a WHV? Or what was your path to citizenship?

Mellor wrote: »

And extra $8.5k is a huge hike for an $37-40k income.
It wasn't long ago that they were talking about cracking down on WHV's being exploited.

I disagree that it's only for "occasional" work. It's for temporary work, the amount needed varies from person to person.
It's all well and good if daddy is funding somebody's gap year. But not everybody has that option. Lots of world travelers genuinely need to work as they go.
Even on the likes of a J1 most students wouldn't be in a position to go without for too long.

Where you ever on a WHV? Or what was your path to citizenship?

Well we may disagree but in the spirit of what a WHV actually is from immigration a website.

Australia's Working Holiday visa programme establishes arrangements to encourage cultural exchange and closer ties between countries, by allowing young people to have an extended holiday, and supplement their funds with short-term employment. The programme has a special focus on helping employers in regional Australia to meet short-term employment needs.

The programme helps Australian regional employers by encouraging working holiday visa holders to seek short-term and casual work in specified industries in regional Australia.


https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/49whm.htm

Yes I was on a WHV myself over 10 years ago when the tax free threshold was $6000 and maximum employment time with an employer was 3 months. If the threshold was 0 then I doubt I would have been concerned.

I currently pay $35-40K a year in tax which I am hardly over joyed with but its one of those necessary evils of life.

mandrake04 wrote: »

Well we may disagree but in the spirit of what a WHV actually is from immigration a website.

The immi website currently phrases it differently, but I don't disagree with any of that. See my post above. I agree with that spirit of the WHV.

However it doesn't mention occasional anywhere. "Short-term" in this case is up to 6 months.
And the fact remains that these changes will mean a WHV will have to work more to achieve the same supplementation, which goes completely against the spirit of a WHV that you refer to above. That alone pretty much undermines that whole arguement.

Yes I was on a WHV myself over 10 years ago when the tax free threshold was $6000 and maximum employment time with an employer was 3 months. If the threshold was 0 then I doubt I would have been concerned.

The threshold was 6k when I came too. And IIRC, the tax rate was a paltry 15% at that time. So removing the threshold would have cost us $900. That's nothing really. It wouldn't have had any impact on my WHV.

But they haven't just removed the threshold here. They've also bumped them up into the higher tax bracket. Not sure if you missed that.
So the tax costs now almost 10 times what in would have cost you or I without a threshold. The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

To supplement their funds by an equivalent amount, a WHV will need to earn an additional $12.5k. How many weeks do you think that is on a typical WHV wage. 3 months? 4 months?
As I said, for that reason, these changes are completely contrary to the spirit of a WHV.

I currently pay $35-40K a year in tax which is I am hardly over joyed with but its one of those necessary evils of life.

Yes of course, we all have to live with it. I'm hardly overjoyed when I see my total tax in black and white every July. I'm certainly paying a lot more than people on a WHV.

Mellor wrote: »

The immi website currently phrases it differently, but I don't disagree with any of that. See my post above. I agree with that spirit of the WHV.

However it doesn't mention occasional anywhere. "Short-term" in this case is up to 6 months.
And the fact remains that these changes will mean a WHV will have to work more to achieve the same supplementation, which goes completely against the spirit of a WHV that you refer to above. That alone pretty much undermines that whole arguement.


The threshold was 6k when I came too. And IIRC, the tax rate was a paltry 15% at that time. So removing the threshold would have cost us $900. That's nothing really. It wouldn't have had any impact on my WHV.

But they haven't just removed the threshold here. They've also bumped them up into the higher tax bracket. Not sure if you missed that.
So the tax costs now almost 10 times what in would have cost you or I without a threshold. The two situations aren't remotely comparable.

To supplement their funds by an equivalent amount, a WHV will need to earn an additional $12.5k. How many weeks do you think that is on a typical WHV wage. 3 months? 4 months?
As I said, for that reason, these changes are completely contrary to the spirit of a WHV.


Yes of course, we all have to live with it. I'm hardly overjoyed when I see my total tax in black and white every July. I'm certainly paying a lot more than people on a WHV.

I can see what are saying, but so what?

I still think plenty of WHVers will come. Even if the numbers did fall away they will just open the 462 visa to more Asian countries as they already have added Indonesia, Maylasia and Bangladesh.

Mellor wrote: »

Yes of course, we all have to live with it. I'm hardly overjoyed when I see my total tax in black and white every July. I'm certainly paying a lot more than people on a WHV.

You pay more then because you earn more. Last I checked income tax regulations are the exact same whether citizen, PR, 457 or WHV.

What a nonsense statement.

mandrake04 wrote: »

I can see what are saying, but so what?

From a personal POV, I just don't like to see anyone get excessively screwed by the system. I also have a very low tolerance for politicians spouting bullshit. The treasurer, Joe Hockey said it was "levelling the playing field". Sure it is Joe. Instead of treating everyone exactly the same, lets take a person, doing a income job and tax him significantly more than his colleagues. Playing field leveled

And from an economically POV (which is the Governments POV I suppose), there comes a point when the fall off in WHVs coming, or shorter stays, lower tourism activity, means that the total revenue generated is less than before. Which means the changes are an economical failure.

I'm no by means an expert in economics, but its fairly obviously that taxing every body to the hilt isn't necessarily going to generate the most revenue, its a balancing act.

I assume that the changes apply equally to 462 visas, but I don't know for sure.

mighty magpie wrote: »

You pay more then because you earn more. Last I checked income tax regulations are the exact same whether citizen, PR, 457 or WHV.

What a nonsense statement.

lol, did you even read any part of this thread.
What a ridiculous post.

Zambia wrote: »

Really?

Yep, Vietnam, Greece and Vietnam have been cleared to be added to the WHV 462 and they were talking about adding capped WHV for China & India.

Even at 32% tax there would be plenty willing to get their feet here.

mighty magpie wrote: »

Last I checked income tax regulations are the exact same whether citizen, PR, 457 or WHV.

Nope.

Mellor wrote: »

From a personal POV, I just don't like to see anyone get excessively screwed by the system. I also have a very low tolerance for politicians spouting bullshit. The treasurer, Joe Hockey said it was "levelling the playing field". Sure it is Joe. Instead of treating everyone exactly the same, lets take a person, doing a income job and tax him significantly more than his colleagues. Playing field leveled

And from an economically POV (which is the Governments POV I suppose), there comes a point when the fall off in WHVs coming, or shorter stays, lower tourism activity, means that the total revenue generated is less than before. Which means the changes are an economical failure.

I'm no by means an expert in economics, but its fairly obviously that taxing every body to the hilt isn't necessarily going to generate the most revenue, its a balancing act.

I assume that the changes apply equally to 462 visas, but I don't know for sure.

No one needs to get excessively screwed, there's no one holding a gun to anyone's head making them work and pay extortionate tax.

Nor do they have to stay 365 days on a WHV, if the funds run low they can always go back to their home countries. As above Tax is an unfortunate fact of life it is what it is.

Plenty of other nationalities only come on a WHV work a month here or month there and go home after 6 or so months happy enough from their 'experience'.

I hardly think the whole country will fall apart if some 417 WHVers decide they are going to be taxed more and dont come, like I already said plenty of 462 WHVers which are opening up to more countries.

you might see 15,000 less Irish but im sure out the worlds fastest growing economy and 1.2Bn people they might be able to scrape up 15,000 Indians wanting to get their chance.

On a side note, always people on here posting on here that they are scratching for work or cant get farm work maybe this might solve that.

ArseBurger wrote: »

Nope.

Aw well, I'm sitting in the office on my 417 beside a citizen, 457 holder and someone on PR. Everyone here adheres to the 18.2k allowance and same tax % brackets. But yeah, you said nope so ok.