KhunHeineken

Yes, he was, but there could have easily been a concrete block there and the driver would have hit it. It's called "inattention." Different if he ran out in front of the car, but he was laying on the ground.

Interesting that the member totally deflected though, isn't it? I threw in a bit more "Paul Hogan" for you. It was one of the funniest replies I have ever read on this whole website. Yes, just put me on your ignore list and do the forum a favor.

You have nearly 40,000 posts compared to my near 6000 posts, and you have admitted to having more than one username, so the of posts for you is higher. On this thread, a large amount of your posts have been posts trolling me. Members of this forum saw American members come to the Australian forum troll us because you were trolling them. How bad would one have to be trolling for that to happen? Correct, and you are on a part pension. Even if pensions get a free pass under the new laws, what about your other income? I agree. I have requested people to put me on their ignore list. It allows interested parties to discuss this serious issue without all the troll posts. Your usual personal attacks are wasted on me.

What challenge was that? I do laugh at the positive re-enforcement on this thread. It's the herd mentality. Shooting the messenger doesn't make tax go away. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't make the tax go away. If, for example, a member posted, "If I have to do the 45 days in Australia to keep my full pension, I have arranged to stay with my sister. She said it would be fine." I would say "Good plan. Good luck to ya." However, when one says these laws "are only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I'm still a resident of Australia because I still have a Medicare Card" then do you inform them to the contrary, or let them carry on under such false belief? Serious question.

I suppose my accountant needs some help as well then. Yet, you just replied. If you can't understand the impact the proposed changes to tax residency will have, why post about it at all? Here they are again, and these HAVE NOT been passed yet. Proposed tax residency rules Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency. The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes. The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include: The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency); The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses); Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia; The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia). The above is from an accounting firm from the first page of a Google search. https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/ You do realize the above are PROPOSED CHANGES and have not been passed into law yet, don't you? Now, see where it mentions the primary test is the 183 day test? They have called it a "bright line test." When these laws are passed, under this 183 day test, can you tell members how they can still remain a resident for tax purposes if outside of Australia for 183 days? Rather than personally attacking me, can you post some substance? Can you post what you are basing your opinion on, in relation to the proposed changes, not the current laws? The factor tests relate to being in Australia more than 45 days but less than 183 days. You don't get to be outside of Australia for 183 days, and then use the four factor tests to claim you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, hence, primary test and secondary test. So, do you agree with the 7 points I listed, or do you disagree with them? I note you did agree with some within your post. I know all about "domicile." I maintain a "domicile" in Australia. (house) Under the current 90 year old tax residency laws the ATO can't prove I do not have an "intention" to return to Australia to live. That's the loophole many have been using, for decades. The 183 days removes this loophole. Thailand has similar, so do other countries. It's not a new thing. Why do you think Australia will not move to a similar model? Hardly. My ducks are in a row. I can do the 45 days in Australia and meet two out of the four factor tests, should I have to, can you? May I suggest you stop posting about the current laws when we have clearly been discussing the proposed changes. You are either behind the time, or do no comprehend the sub-topic. Have you looked at the dates of the last posts on the old threads? I don't post that much, or that often, but do admit I feel compelled to point out misinformation spread by posters such as yourself. Have I broken any forum rules? Posters like yourself just keep positively re-enforcing such misinformation because the reality is too much to bare. You should seek some professional help if these proposed changes cause you some distress. Just dismissing such an important subject as scaremongering does nothing towards informing members of these proposed changes. They are real, and progressing through the system under both major political parties. What a funny comment. Thanks for the laugh. I have never, and will never, put anyone on my ignore list. I believe in freedom of speech and I'm prepared to read all other points of view. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It's not playing out a court case. You have the proposed changes. They are not my opinion. They are from the government. How they will impact individuals living overseas is clearly a source of debate, but why are you discussing the current laws when members have been discussing the proposed changes? Very strange. How is this relevant to this thread? It's off topic. That said, I couldn't care less about your witch doctor or backyard psychologist rubbish. Once again, you total misread the topic. Sure, I have no problem with that. I have admitted I was wrong on this forum in the past. It's hard to be wrong about something that hasn't even been passed yet, isn't it? Currently, no one is right and no one is wrong because they have not been passed yet, but due to the current laws being 90 years old, and having a lot of loop holes, and the fact Labor took Liberals proposed changes and progressed them, this tells me it's only a matter of time before they are passed. If you disagree, I have no problem reading why. Geez, I remember many members cheering when Albo got in and their posts being directed at me about how Albo would bin them. Well, he didn't, he progressed them to the next stage. What's that tell you? Then, the DTA got rolled out and many directed their posts at me under the belief the DTA covered pensions, only to find out it only covers service pensions. Who knows, when they pass them they may add an exemption for pensions, or a small $25,000 tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners. You see, there is a lot of emotion around it, but not really from me. All I stand to lose is living in Thailand for 45 days a year. I suppose you could say I lose some airfare money, and that would be correct, but I do get to see my kids. The airfare is way less than the 30% tax in my case. The need to shoot the messenger comes from those with no where to stay in Australia for 45 days and / or can't even afford the airfare home. I understand their precarious position, but how does shooting the messenger or burying their head in the sand help their plight? I suggest these members start planning for best and worse case scenario, and everything in between, when these proposed changes are passed. Wouldn't you think that prudent, rather than just saying the proposed changes "are just for guys like Paul Hogan?" Given the pension is deemed to be an income, I'm still interested in your advice to members on how they can remain an Australian resident for tax purposes when the new laws are passed, and they haven't been back to Australia in years.

Perhaps, once the proposed changes are passed into law, YOU can explain to members how they can remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for more than 183 days in the financial year. As for paying non resident tax on pension, I have said this MAY happen. The reasons for this are: 1) The pension is deemed to be an income - do you disagree? 2) The first non resident tax bracket is 30% from $0 to $135,000 - do you disagree? 3) There is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets (see above) - do you disagree? 4) The "bright line" test in the proposed changes is for 183 days inside / outside Australia - do you disagree? 5) Immigration records show one is outside of Australia and for how long - do you disagree? 6) There are no exemptions or means testing in the propose changes - do you disagree? 7) The "payer" of the aged pension, the Australian government, could also be the taxer, the ATO, the Australian government - do you disagree? Put all the above together and you can see how the ATO can potentially tax expat retirees, including pensioners, based on their tax residency status. Now, given many expat retirees / pensioners haven't been back to Australia for years, how can they possibly be residents of Australia for tax purposes? Can you explain it to them? You've contradicted yourself. Once again, please explain to members how an expat retiree, pensioner or self funded, remains a resident of Australia for tax purposes when they haven't been back to Australia in years? Once again, the first non resident tax bracket is 30% tax from $0 to $135,000. Do you see a tax free threshold in the bracket? No. Is the pension deemed an income? Yes. Funny how the more your say I am "wrong" the more you prove the point I am making? The whole game changes as a non resident for tax purposes. Firstly, the tax free threshold for residents of Australia for tax purposes is 0% tax from $0 to 18,200. Not $17,000. Please show me the tax free threshold for non residents for tax purposes. Oh, that's right, it's all about tax resident status to get the tax free threshold, and expat retirees in Thailand, who haven't been back to Australia in years, are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, according to YOU. Well, that's a new one. Firstly, let's not mix up "Australian resident" with "Australian tax resident for tax purposes." They are different things. Thailand has a very high bench mark to gain permanent residency, so the majority of expats will never gain permanent residency in Thailand, but it does exist. So, after being in Thailand for 180 days, are you a tax resident of Thailand? That's a yes or no question. Firstly, citizenship has never been a point of debate on this sub-topic. Most members reading this thread will have an Australian passport, so can easily meet one for the secondary four factor tests, being "right to reside." A question for you, if, say for example, you haven't been back to Australia in 8 years, but could be a lesser amount, under what criteria do YOU base your opinion that YOU still "consider myself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes?" Whilst YOU may consider yourself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes, can you also post, using the previous time outside Australia, why the Australian government would / should also consider you a resident of Australia for tax purposes? I also have another question for you. In relation to the members who go back to Australia for 2 years to achieve pension portability, if they were always a resident of Australia for tax purposes, as you claim, why do they need to "re-establish" residency by staying the 2 years???? Firstly, it doesn't matter what visa class one is using to remain legal in a foreign country. Let's go back to Thailand's 180 days law. That's accumulative, not consecutively. One can go over Thailand's 180 days with a retirement visa / extension or multiple tourist visas. This makes me laugh because Thailand has a physical presence and time based model, yet Australia modernizing 90 year old laws to have a similar model and it's "scaremongering." You are wrong, again. "Domicile" IS NOT established through physical presence alone. Read the interesting and recent case below. Basically, an Aussie guy took a 5 year contract in Dubai through his Australian employer. The ATO still considered him a resident of Australia for tax purposes, despite him spending most of the 5 years in Dubai. https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/regulation/21033-tribunal-affirms-atos-view-in-tax-residency-case The above article also touches on "intention." The case is the reason why the proposed changes were drafted, to stop many reviews and appeals. The physical presence and time based model will do away with a lot of argument around "intention." It's "intention" that is subject and often difficult to prove, this, 45 / 183 days will stop most of this legal argument. The above case is interesting because, as I mention before, it's financially beneficial for expat retirees, pensioners or self funded, to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, but the case above shows the legal argument around "intention." It even mentions the furniture he bought in Dubai. In this case, he was found to be a resident for tax purposes, but it shows the things they look at to easily deem one to be a non resident for tax purposes. Eg. selling house in Australia, long lease or buying property in Thailand, buying a car in Thailand, bank accounts, long visa etc. The proposed changes will do away with all of this. There may be some future legal argument around the four secondary factor tests, but the 45 / 183 days will sort most of it out. Here's the the consultation paper. It's not a long read, but the proposed changes are detailed on Page 4. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

Living hand to mouth and in the cash economy. He was never going to pay SS, the same as millions of other Thai's.

You don't say. No. Just called him a Thai driver because he's Thai. I'd say you are very "woke" about it. I just say it as a fact. "That's a testimony to the inherent danger of some automobiles in terms of blind spots" - your words, not mine. You have contradicted yourself. How so? Once again, say a sober tourist was just standing there and got hit, you would be posting differently. You are just fixated on him being drunk and laying on the ground. Say he was sober and laying on the ground. Does that effect the shared negligence? Say he was sober, and tripped over seconds before being hit. Does that effect the shared negligence? Say it was a small child standing there, waiting for their parent. Does that effect shared negligence? Say it was a concrete road barrier. Does that effect shared negligence? Where your argument falls down is the distance in the CCTV footage. The driver had ample distance to see and react to any obstruction on the roadway, but didn't. This is even more pertinent as the "object" in front of the driver (the Swedish man) was stationary. Bottom line is, he would have hit ANYTHING in the Swede's location, due to inattention.

Yawn. Thailand has been through all of this, with the beatings, taxi stand turf wars etc, and the conclusion was, you can't stop people using ride apps. Someone should help this 66 year old Thai guy out and get him onto Bolt. He needs to move with the times, or find another occupation.

Not the smartest of Thai ladies. Most have nowhere "down there" for the crabs to hide, if you know what I mean.

Would you have considered him more sane if he jumped off a tall building?

Thailand will start marketing to the African market soon. What could possibly go wrong?

Nice deflection, but no cigar for you. The driver was Thai, was he not? Now, what about that "driver inattention" thing, or was it the car manufacturer's fault for poor car design and blind spots?

I bet he does for police check points. Just unlucky he hadn't already picked up his passenger/s. One of them may have pointed to the Swedish guy and said something like, "Look how drunk that guy is" and the driver would have went around him.

Wrong. I'm calling out the incompetence and / or inattention of the Thai driver. Only visible to those paying attention. The Thai driver was probably looking at his phone for the next fare. Rubbish. Look at the arc the driver took and the distance. The Thai driver wasn't paying attention to the road in front of him. Rubbish. The driver wasn't paying attention. Simple as that. My bet would be, particularly as he is a Bolt driver, was he was looking at his phone. Plenty of videos on the net about it. Here's just one. The driver hit a parked car. Now, a parked car is way bigger than a person, right?