bit off topic - but with the first homeowners, (at least in NSW) if one party has previoulsy owned the other party IS entitled to a portion of the first homeowers - maybe it differs state to state but here its possible.
Printable View
bit off topic - but with the first homeowners, (at least in NSW) if one party has previoulsy owned the other party IS entitled to a portion of the first homeowers - maybe it differs state to state but here its possible.
Kitten,
I work for a solicitor and a law firm that specialise in Conveyancing.
In NSW if one party has owned a residential property and lived in it for a period of six months then neither party is entitled to the grant. However if a rental income can be proven and the owner has never lived in the property then they are entitled to the grant but not the exemption for stamp duty.
Also if the property owned was a commercial property then they are still entitled to the grant.
The OSR website has a great tool called OSR assist in which you plug in your information and it will tell you whether you are eligible or not. They also have good fact sheets and on the front of the application form for the grant it specifically askes you whether you or your partner have owned property before (regardless of whether they are listed on the purchase of the property or not) and there is a section of the form that the spouse has to fill out. These forms are also on the OSR website.
Sorry but I thought that I better set this straight instead of getting peoples hopes up.
New details about the changes are on the OSR website:
You are eligible if:
you are buying or building your first home as a natural person, not as a company or trust
you, or a joint applicant, is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia
you or your spouse (including de facto spouse) have not owned a home in Australia prior to 1 July 2000 (this includes investment homes)
you or your spouse (including de facto spouse) have not resided in a residential property in Australia in which you acquired an interest, on or after 1 July 2000 for a continuous period of at least six months
you occupy the home as your principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months commencing within one year of the completion of the transaction to which the application relates
you are at least 18 years of age
you have not already received a grant.
I have owned an investment home previously. Can I still be eligible for the grant? A person is not eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) has had a relevant interest in any residential property in Australia prior to 1 July 2000, whether they live in it or not.
However, a person may be eligible if they or their spouse (including de facto spouse) has only ever had a relevant interest in any residential property in Australia on or after 1 July 2000 and they have not resided in that property for a continuous period of at least six months.
If I am divorced and my previous partner owned a home in their right, am I eligible for the grant? If you are divorced, you are not required to take into account property in which you did not hold a relevant interest. Provided that you have not had a relevant interest in a previous residential property and all other eligibility criteria have been met, you will be eligible for the grant.
If I previously owned vacant land but not a home, will I be eligible for the grant on the purchase or construction of my first home? Yes. Vacant land is not regarded as residential property for the purposes of First Home Owner Grant.
Thanks Jess
Yes, thanks people for trying to clarify the First Home Owners Grant for me... but DH works in the finance industry and is fairly up with legislation on all this...and because he had a home loan prior to 2000 (only for a week) that means we are both ineligiable...and since then we have had an investment property as well.
Sush, I completely understand your frustrations. It's for similar reasons I haven't returned to the paid workforce... we would infact go "backwards" financially... especially once you add up all those little expenses of working outside the home: transport, uniforms and work clothes, extra bought lunches and coffees, staff gift contributions (I was forever giving money for colleagues birthdays, new babies, retiring etc when I was working), more frequent take-aways and convenience meals, and even makeup!!! So after doing the sums it's more economical that I stay at home until I am on a professional wage. But big :hug: to you darl... maybe the government will wake up to this one day.
... oh and :leap: it's true!!!!!!
BTW middle income earners are classified as those earning under 150,000 per year aren't they? (in the single income earner scenario).
Also, I agree Dach.... the First Home Owners grant has only served to make homes even MORE unaffordable :( Very true.
thanks for clearing that up kylie and jess - I was given differing information! (or the fact sheet was explained differently by the broker, or the broker was dodgy? didnt go through him in hte end!).
Sorry If i did get anyones hopes up!
Aw thanks Bath. Unfortunately I'm still better off financially working, even considering transport, extra food bills, petrols etc, but not by a heck of lot. Unfortunately we need that 'not a heck of a lot' to survive. :) What can you do?
For the $1000 per child, the qualifying 'criteria' is getting the FTB(A), which means a family like mine, with 2 kids at home under 18, and with a combined income exceeding $111k, and who isn't eligible for FTB at all, won't get it. So 'middle income' wrt this particular 'stimulus' payment is actually lower than $150k.
:hug: Sushee, how annoying that you fall just on the wrong side of the cut-off.
So we receive FTB parts A and B... we have 3 kids which pushes up our earnings allowance... DH earns just over $100,000... so I figure we are eligible? Schools fees are $16,000 (not including other expenses like uniforms and stationery) and our rent is $440 per week, we also pay a huge amount in insurances (health cover, income protection, home contents, car etc). So even though 100K sounds alot we are by no means rich. Living frugally we just break even each year.
i by no means consider a family on FTBA a high income family - to be honest, i don't believe the assistance is offered to appropriate income brackets at all! i understand that FTB is a tax reduction for families with children - but that it's paid fortnightly - but why is that tax reduction eligible for such low "middle income" families??
the cut off of $150k is much more reasonable than a cut off level of 100 for a single child family!
sushee, when the gremlin arrives, we're going to be in much the same position as yourself. if i stay home, we'll get full ftbb, but probably minimal, if any, ftba. if i go to work, i keep my job (which i want for "me" when Gremlin goes to school), lose ftba, pay out for child care, travel (which is expensive living out here and travelling), and will ultimately have less coming in each week than if i stay at home - but i have no way of taking a leave of absence til the Gremlin is at school! we'll be just under these cut off thresholds while i'm at home, but when i go back, we'll be over, and we'll lose out. SUCKS
there are far too many families that struggle on the thresholds laid out - middle income families really do get screwed over all the time with things like this - i see it all the time at work - mum goes back to work to try and help out, and ends up worse off not only financially, but emotionally, by having to leave their kidlet in child care.... i wish the "middle income" family was helped more than what they currently are
:
How does that work though? How can it be 150k....but sort of not? grrrrr
It cost me a fortune to go to work, I thought I could take a bit of pressure off in the long run but it just didn't work out that way. It was pretty demoralizing to crunch numbers and realize that I was just breaking even, with reduced CC fees and all. The stress was horrible so I'm back to just covering expenses, and slightly less stress!
I do wonder if this FTB money really will do much for the economy, the age pensioners do not seem likely to blow it all on stuff and everyone I know will use it to either help clear some heavy bills or spend it on living expenses - not stuff.
However I WILL definitely be treating myself to a bottle of nice vodka.....but the rest of mine will be going to DDs $6000 orthodontic bill!
lulu - it's based on FTBA - the $150k ONLY applies to baby bonus cut off, and to FTBB "higher income earner" criteria. so a family where only one person works will continue to get FTBB until their partner earns over $150k, BUT they won't receive FTBA
it really SUCKS that it works like that. a two income family are essentially discriminated against simply because their income comes from two sources, not just one.
FTBA cut off points are significantly lower than the $150k cut off point
Dan Murphy's sells a drinkable Chardonnay for $1.95 per bottle. That's about all we can afford... I might buy a case if and when we get this bonus! :rofl: Actually.... I sometimes "splurge" on a bottle of French Cassis (blackcurrent liqueur) to mix with the $1.95 Chardonnay ;) That's my indulgence.... it's known in France as Kir, a common apertif. Occasionally DH gets given a bottle of $100 wine from work/clients. But they are for when guests come around. I'll have to invite someone over to celebrate this government bonus!!! Or maybe we can organise a BB girls night out to "help" the economy!!!
I completely agree with you there BG. 6 months ago I really felt that DH and I were doing okay, and surviving on our wages. In fact, I was happy to not have any govt handouts (I still am). But with childcare fees going up, losing the CCB and now losing FTB, it's depressing realising we're trying to move forward but seem to be going nowhere, or even backwards.
I realised last night too that with the new Public Service general agreement, going back to my lower paid position wouldn't help because we'd still be over the threshold by a couple of hundred bucks. So there is nothing for it, I will just have to work my butt off even more than I have been to try to earn more. So even less time for my family. Great news, huh? :(
LOL great idea. The BB help the economy ****tail party.:
yup - load of rubbish - middle income isn't really "middle income" - theres no way 111k is a high income!!
maybe the only thing working in our favour is that, because DH works away, he has a portion of his income that isn't taxable - but i'm not sure how that will show up for FTB purposes. i really can't put in an accurate estimate until i can see how it shows up... thankfully we'll do tax early so gremlin won't be very old, and i'll be able to work it out from there i guess
someone asked earlier about turning payments off and on - think it might have been divvy - hun, dont leave it til december - it takes at least a couple of weeks to process an application. for those that are interested in how it works, you can have ftb listed as current, but paid at a zero rate - so you're current on the system but don't actually get anything in the bank. stops you getting overpaid, if you're close to the thresholds. and it also allows you to do your claim at tax time without extra paperwork as the FAO just link with ATO and collect your details. you do need to put in a reasonable estimate which would say if you're eligible for ftba or not - but you can just set it up to not pay you. it's my intention to set up our FTB like this. i've seen the mess when people have had to do lump sum claims at tax time. i've seen the DELAY in getting lump sum claims processed. if you're ftb current at nil rate - everything is processed automatically so it's a lot easier...
The extra $1000 will be a big help, although a bit late for me as i am in the process of moving to mum and dads with the kids and selling the house as i cant afford it.:cry:
thanks so much for that tip re the zero FTB, BG. I overestimated deliberately this year and they told me I was ineligible so I was hoping to get a lump sum at end of year. I will definitely check that they have me at zero, instead of turned off. You are a wealth of great information
BG - we lodge our estimate but get benefit at tax time in a lump sum - does this mean we wouldn't get this "bonus" until tax time instead of december? (sorry to hijack!)
glad i can help hunny
ETA - Arimeh - my understanding is that it's a stand alone payment that will be administered by FAO but not part of FTB. i've not been to work since it was announced (am on leave this week) so i'm really not sure. i assume if you're current but at zero rate, it will be automatically generated. it would be the individuals who do a lump sum claim at the end of the year (so aren't current at zero rate) that would have issues - and i'm not sure how the $1000 would apply for them
Thanks BG.. you're a bloomin star!!
Well I am absolutley over the moon about this extra $2000 we get!! We are TTC #3 and KEnzie is ready to have her own little girls room. I thought she would have to have hand me down stuff from my eldest .. but I am going to do y part for the economy and spend it on a new bedroom fit for a princess!!! Usually I do the right thing and get something "practical" but this time it was a complete surprise and I am going to spend it! Just doing my bit for the economy hehe!
Kind of OT...but the FHOG being doubled, is that only applicable until July next year? I think that's what I read/heard somewhere. If so then BOO :( We are planning to buy in 2010 :( Oh well! All these gov payments/bonuses and thresholds confuse the crap out of me. We've never received anything from the gov, so when this lil one comes along I'll be happy with whatever I'm eligible for :)
I think the $1000 per child bonus will be of great help to many families. I know my Mum will really appreciate it and it will most likely go towards credit card debt, mortgage or at least ease xmas pressure.
hmm ok... so I will log in later and update our income estimates but say I don't want any payments until the end of the year! Hopefully we'll be right for the $2000 :) But then, if it goes off last years (which we haven't done yet) then we probably won't qualify.
Surely they won't do it off people's estimates for this current year? We could all fudge it and say we're only earning $80k or something so we qualify.
i would assume if people don't qualify and are paid the payment, it will be raised as a debt the same as any other family assistance debt....
Cor.. that's a bit rough.. handing it out and then taking it back LOL.
yeah it is - but if someone deliberately tells a porky pie, just to get money they're not legally entitled to, it's better to get a debt than a fraud conviction kwim?
I wasnt sure if my family would recieve it either but just heard on the news its $1000 per child and will start being paid in the cycle of 8 december.
Hmm Im assuming I'll get it and although it will be a relief to get $2000 I think its ridiculous really (well not in the case of single parents/pensioners/carers). We'll be banking whats left after we buy Ds2 a big boy bed and maybe get in front on our utility bills. I can see it being completely abused by some people though.
Personally I think this has nothing to do with the economy (cause this money aint gonna fix it that easily) and more to do with K-Rudd realising he's not doing a good job and that people arent so in awe of him anymore, so give $$$ = make friends :rolleyes: In 6mths time everyone will still be struggling and complaining about it, whats he going to do, make it a regular thing?
Btw we should be thanking Johnny Howard for the money not Rudd, its because of him leaving our economy + money not - money that Rudd had the 10.1 billion to do this.
(OT... not to get into political debate but Kevin Rudd didn't cause the global financial crisis... nor could he have stopped it... and to be honest I think this is going to do exactly what he planned, I mean I'm sure a good proportion of parents -not all- are going to splurge on Christmas, and increasing spending in theory is going to help the economy)
I didnt mean to imply that he did, just that he's getting the glory from money saved by the previous government. Its because they left the govnment in such a good financial position when Rudd took over that we arent all up crud creek without a paddle so to speak. Probably the only thing anyone could pat them on the back for lol
HollyM,
The increase in the grant with apply for contracts exchanged after 17 October 2008 to 30 October 2009. Seeing as though the have put a time frame on it I would assume that it will only last for this period.
The point is to spend the money not to save it. its a relief effort, the more money we spend the better our economy does. if everyone spends an extra $1000 on food, furniture, fuel, the hairdresser etc it gives our bacic economy a boost. helps buisness make more money, even if it is for just a short time.:
as long as he doesn't keep doing it i think its a good idea,
Just don't go and blow our (country's) savings kevin....but i will still vote liberal next time, not that anyone needs to know that.
:lol: now that i agree with!!:
I hardly think this one off is going to magically fix it all up. It'll help buts its still a long way off complete normality again. Explains the First home buyers increase though, if spending $$$ helps fix the economy then he's encouraging people to think that nows the time to buy a house because they get extra govn help, not allowing for the fact that a) houses are worth less than the mortgage owed on them and b) how on earth will any of us pay mortgage payments when life (and interests rates) go back to normal? $1000 per kid is really a drop in a bucket in the grand scheme of things.:
This has made me wonder is there is an independent financial body to offer the country unbiased advice on all this govt spending etc?
$1000 for each child on 8th dec, FTB part A, and it usually is tax free, hope this helps, we've got 5 so woohoo!!!
I just wanted to say that I had to ring c'link this morning & the message on there says the payment will be UP TOO $1000.
So it still might be income tested.
I am very glad that Ruddie has given some extra benefits to pensioners and low/middle income earner.
I am however, bummed out that I just missed out. Reason? Because I saved up annual leave to take off as maternity leave (which we had to stretch out to make ends meet for the additional months I wanted to take off)
My company does not pay maternity leave so my annual leave was taken so I can stay at home with DD. This of course is counted as INCOME! and of course makes me fall short of any tax benefits.
I rang up Centrelink a few months ago and they said FTB A or B (forgot which one) is based on the past financial year.
So because i took an additional 5 months UNPAID LEAVE off after JUNE, this means that I wont qualify this past financial year. Maybe next yr I will. All too confusing for me :doh:
FTB - EITHER ONE, is NOT BASED ON PREVIOUS YEAR INCOME
it is based on an ESTIMATE of your income for the current financial year - thing is, when you get to end of the year, if you underestimate your income, you've been overpaid and get a debt. so yes, your FULL entitlement is worked out at tax time - but your fortnightly payments are based on the estimate of this years income
So BG, I gave the FAO an estimate of my income in July for the new CCB rates (to make sure they stopped paying me CCB) but now with the General Agreement and working fulltime, our combined income has gone up a little more. Do I need to call the FAO with a new estimate to ensure that they know I'm now over the threshold?
Sorry for the qsns hun, you're brilliant with all the help you give us BB girls about stuff like this.