KhunHeineken

Try asking for anything, from any Australian Embassy, and see how concerned they are about Australians living in a foreign country.

I pay tax in Australia as well. I am self funded. I do not receive anything from Centerlink. I would not be happy receiving a significantly larger tax bill, simply because of my geographic location in retirement. I will also reassess my position if, or when, these changes come in, but I am already planning for best and worse case scenario.

Australia has massive national debt, as well as household debt. Ukraine is rich in mineral resources, which no doubt Russia will strip out and sell to their friends in China for a good price. Big natural disasters in Australia. Real possibility of a hung parliament in May, causing some instability. A huge jump in the cost of living in Australia, inflation on the boil. Eg. petrol now $2.35 a liter. Interest rate rises on the way, which is not a bad thing for everyone, but there are a lot of over leveraged property owners, there will be many foreclosures. Mortgage stress properties are up by 42%. The Aussie dollar could slip below 20 baht over the next 12 months.

Time will tell on this one. Perhaps we will know later in 2022. Even if they exempt Centerlink payments, should these new tax laws be implemented, that's a concern for self funded Aussie retirees in Thailand. As I said in another post, with compulsory superannuation being around for decades, as those people who have paid in all their working life approach retirement, they will not qualify for Centerlink anyway. I did some rough math on it in another post. Even the average Aussie worker will have, from memory, around $300,000AUD in superannuation at retirement age. I can't see the government giving Centerlink payments to someone with $300,000 in the bank, but that's for another thread. My point being, in the future, and that's not next year, but 10 years or so from now, less and less retirees will qualify for a Centerlink payment upon retirement. This was one of the main reasons compulsory superannuation was brought it, to force people to save for their retirement, and take them off welfare in their old age. A Centerlink pension is only one part of this issue, and those on it will diminish in numbers over time, so these proposed tax changes really will be targeting expat retirees with an income, or income generating assets. I corrected myself with the $18,500 threshold.

So you will accept the loss of extra money in the form of a bigger tax bill. That is one way to deal with it. At least you are considering your options, and that's one form of a Plan B. I have considered this also, but would rather sell and move the money offshore and pay no tax. In the ATO's grab for more from me, they might end up getting zero.

Please post a link to what you have read. I am not saying pensioners would be targeted. I am saying they will be scooped up in the 183 day net, along with every other Australian who is overseas 183 day of the year. If you read it, you can link it. As you honestly admit, it's all your own opinion. I, and others, have posted links to the proposed tax changes. In my opinion, the 183 day rule is cause for some concern. If you are not at all concerned, that great, however, something more than "they would never do it" would be needed to alleviate my concern. Some on this forum think the poor old expat pensioner will be untouched. I hope that is right, but I would not be surprised if it turns out not to be the case. As I have said, several times, they would not be targeting pensioners, just scooping them up in the 183 day net. There is a difference. They could have an income threshold, but I have yet to see that proposed. Again, I, and others, have posted links to the proposed changes. That's all we know at this time. Good point. That's my error. Once deemed a non-resident for tax purposes, I believe tax is paid from dollar number one, but I could be wrong on this.

Like I said, easy targets.

You do understand that policy changes have outcomes, don't you? You do understand that tax rates play a big part in the actions of individuals and business, don't you? I have property in Australia. I have said on this forum that if the ATO is going to tax my rental income at the non-resident tax rate, because I am outside of Australia for 183 days, then I will sell up and move the money to a Singapore bank account where the ATO and their 183 day rule can't touch it. Another member said he would put his assets out of reach of the ATO. How many others would do the same? To liquidate property because it's no longer beneficial to keep it, tax wise, is nothing new. It's purely a business decision. Expats choosing to do the same, would this not free up some house stock in Australia?

I agree. Link please.

So why are you posting on the pension thread? I made a cross reference that basically forcing aged pensioners back to Australia MAY have an intended result of them selling up property and freeing up housing stock, so they can live in Thailand regardless of the 183 day rule. It would be an intended benefit, not a policy.

Great. What is the basis of your opinion? Do you have a link showing this law to back up your opinion? Here's an example. Say there's a aged pensioner in Australia and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well. Say there's a aged pensioner in Thailand and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well, however, the Immigration data base spits out a list of name of ALL Australians outside of Australia for 183 days and passes this list onto the ATO. Some on this forum have the opinion that the Aussie working in London on big money in finance will get a "please explain" letter from the ATO, but the Aussie aged pensioner living in Thailand will not. Maybe that will be the case, but in my opinion, they will both get the letter from the ATO. Perhaps aged pensioner expats will be exempt, but how many of them rent a house out, have some superannuation, or shares. Do you think these aged pensioners will get a free pass? Once again, I can't see the 183 day rule discriminating on age, geographic location, or amount of income, provided it's over $18,500AUD. Obviously, you see things differently, and that fine. I really hope I am wrong on this, but only time will tell if I am.

It's simple. Here's a link to the propose tax changes. https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/ I couldn't care less if you have a Plan B, or not, but it appears likely the 183 day rule is set to be the primary residency test, and I doubt it will discriminate. The whole idea is obviously to broaden the net. You can continue to debate on this forum, and hope, pray, and beg the ATO all you like, I don't care either way. For me, the writing is on the wall.

You still don't get it. You think it just targets pensioners. The 183 day law will not discriminate. It will scoop up EVERYONE outside of Australia for 183 days. They will get a little from some, and much from some others, and everyone in between. I am in a similar situation. My Plan B is to put my assets outside of the reach of the ATO, simply because I chose to live outside of Australia for 183 days. All I am saying is, Australian expats, retired or not, on a pension or not, need to have a Plan B for the 183 day rule because the change is coming. I, and other members, have have provided links setting out the changes. Just look at the Robo Debt debacle for how much the Australian government cares about people. It's a heads up, not scaremongering.

I'm simply suggesting to members they should have a Plan B. I hope it never happens, because I too will have to make some harsh financial decisions, but from what I read, new changes to the tax laws coming in put the 183 day rule front and center as the primary test. What does that tell you? I agree, and the Australian will welcome these consumers back into the Australian economy. even if it's for only 6 months of the year. The ATO can't be seen taxing some people who are outside of Australia for 183 days, and giving a free pass to other people who are outside of Australia for 183 day a year. How many others make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote? They will not be portrayed as vulnerable people. They will be portrayed as people living the high life in Asia on the tax payers money. I hope it doesn't happen, but the new changes appear to rely heavily on the 183 day test. Another member has already posted some links, here's another one. https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/ Quote: "The proposed new rules are based on ‘bright lines’ and ‘objective factors’. The first proposed test is a 183 day test. A taxpayer will be a tax resident of Australia if they spend 183 days or more in Australia in an income year." The 183 day test used to be secondary, now it primary. Notice how the ATO sys if you are in Australia for 183 days you are a resident. This tells me that if you are outside for 183 days, you are a non-resident. Does it read differently to you? They could do that, but what about those with income generating assets back in Australia, like a rental property and shares? I guess it will cause some lifestyle changes. I've put forward some links that show the changes. Let's be honest, many of us have been flying under the radar when in fact, we are non-residents for taxation purposes. The source of the income is irrelevant to the ATO. In my opinion, the clock was always ticking on this. Perhaps the time is near. Can you post some links that support your opinion that nothing will change?

Plenty on the net about it. Here's just a few links. https://www.propertynow.com.au/blog/downsizing-your-home-new-tax-incentives-may-help/ https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/retirement-income/the-600-000-government-incentive-for-seniors-to-downsize https://www.realestate.com.au/news/what-the-second-covid-budget-means-for-the-property-market/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-12/budget-2021-schemes-revamped-for-pensioners-self-funded-retirees/100132524

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_diaspora In 2015 there were 527,255 Australian living outside of Australia. More recent numbers, pre-covid, put it at 1 million. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/02/a-spoilt-brat-country-the-australians-overseas-who-decided-not-to-come-home Quote: "Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the foreign affairs department estimated there were about one million Australians living overseas at any given time." Doing some simple math. $1,000,000,000AUD / 1,000,000 expats = $1000AUD per Australian expat, per annum. Based on these figures, you don't think they can whip up "billions" off "hundreds of thousands" of Australian expats? If you have some links showing otherwise to the above numbers, please post them. It's not about saving money, it's about making money from them. I explained this in a previous post. They don't care too much about taxing the pension and paying less, they want / need hundreds of thousands of Australians back into the Australian economy, where every pension dollar generates jobs, and jobs generate income tax. We all know immigration is a taboo subject for Australian voters. How easy is it for the government to basically force the return of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens back into the Australian economy through tax law? No immigration issues, and you just boosted the economy by 200,000 or 300,000, or more, consumers. Any backlash from voters would be spread across seat across the country. True. I guess it comes down to is losing their vote worth the money back into the Australian economy. You make it sound like the major parties have a choice. Australia is broke. As I have posted, there's easy billions to be made by enforcing the 183 day non-resident for taxation rule. Not all of the 1 million Australians overseas are retired. Many are work, and on good money, who have also been flying under the radar for non-resident taxation. Same plan as myself. It's not the way I want it, but I have a feeling it's the way is going to have to be. As I said, with a housing affordability crisis in Australia, I'm sure they will be happy with freeing up some housing stock as well.

Ignore at your own peril. Everyone should have a Plan B for this. As I said, maybe they will not cut off the pension, just tax it at non-resident rates because the recipient is outside of Australia for 183 days. How many Australian expat retirees make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote every election? Do you think the government cares about non-voters? Nothing like a couple of little Murdoch press releases about Australian retirees in Thailand p*ssing it up with a girlfriend half their age, on the taxpayers money, to whip up a bit of envy and get the tax payer on board for cutting them off or taxing them. Scaremongering or not, I have a Plan B.

That's going to be hard work in the near future.

I hope I am wrong. Those that are renting out a house in Australia will be forced to live in it. Then there are boarding houses, group homes, aged care facilities etc. There's been talk of pushing grandpa or grandma out of their 60's model house on a quarter acre in the suburbs to free up homes for young families for some time now. Federal and State governments don't care too much for where seniors end up living, even if it is under a bridge. Cutting the pension off would be drastic, so why not scoop them up in the 183 day law and class them as non-residents for taxation purposes? In reality, we are outside of Australia for more than 183 days a year, spending money that was generated in Australia, by whatever means. Therefore, easy targets. The government looks good, as the haven't cut any pensions off, just taxed the money at non-resident rates, which the 183 day law will allow. When's the last time you took the trouble to go to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok and cast a vote? Do you think the government cares about expat retirees who don't vote anyway?

I doubt there will be any Grandfather clause or concessions. The law will simply be, you are an Australian citizen outside Australia for more than than 183 days, so you will be deemed a non-resident for taxation purposes and will be taxed accordingly on every Australian dollar you receive, regardless of where it comes from. Simple, effective, easy to prove, and impossible to deny, and they haven't stopped the pension payments, just taxing them at non-resident rates. This will scoop up hundreds of thousands of people, and net billions of Australian dollars.

At least you have a Plan B to engage. Many don't.

The other side to that argument is that pension money is not circulating in the Australian economy. Ok, so pensioners get cheap rego, discounted public transport, Medicare, some utility bill subsides etc, but pretty much all of that pension money is spent on the cost of living. Eg. rent, food, utilities, transport, entertainment, goods, and services etc. Putting that pension money back into the economy creates jobs, which earns the government income tax from the barman or cook who is serving a beer or meal to a pensioner at the local RSL, for example. Now if that RSL is big enough, they will have to pay Payroll tax, not to mention work cover insurance, superannuation, maternity leave etc etc, which all keeps employees off Centerlink now, and later in life. There are taxes that the government get back from their pension money being spent in the economy. Taxes like GST, alcohol and tobacco taxes, fuel excise etc. That $1 of pension money put back into the economy is good for the government. How happy do you think the Australian government is with seeing their pension money going to assist another country's economy, and not Australia's? How happy do you think the Australian government is that they see zero return on their fortnightly handout? Now ask yourself this question, "Do you think that will try to stop this in the future?" The new changes to the resident and non-resident for taxation purposes are being discussed in another thread. It's pretty clear the ATO is going to be relying on the 183 day rule as the primary test. This is because it's so simple to prove, and can't be denied. The Immigration data base know if you are inside, or outside Australia, and for how long. All they would have to do is deem non-residents for taxation purposes ineligible for any Centerlink payments and many, if not all of those pensioners, and their pension money, will be forced back into the Australian economy. Australia is in record debt. Not only will they need every dollar, but they will be desperate for it.

There it is again, the 183 day rule becoming the primary test, and stricter. "The most significant change is that a stricter 183-day “primary” test would replace the existing one, which would mean that if someone is in Australia for at least 183 days in a year they would always be treated as a tax resident." It clearly says if you are inside of Australia for 183 days, you will be treated as a tax resident. However, that leads me to believe that in the near future when these changes come in, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days of the year, you will be treated as a non-resident, and that is going to hurt many expat retirees, with some not being able to afford to be classified a non-resident for tax purposes.

Any gains are well overtaken by the huge increase in cost of living.

Did it occur to you that a guy could leave his user name and password for the app to his missus, in the same way he can leave his ATM card and PIN, so the money keeps flowing long after he is dead? The approved person is used to see you are still breathing.