KhunHeineken

The reasons you mention, and some more, is why I sleep better at night than guys who have exposed themselves to a Thai missus, and Thai laws here.

The earnings from the capital I would have to spend to buy the condo I am living in earns more money than the rent I pay on my condo, and I have no other ongoing expenses, and the freedom to move, not to mention, that capital is pretty much on call. Your comment is another one of your throw away lines. It doesn't take into account anything else other than the old, very old saying that "rent is dead money." You don't address the changing of an area, the health of the owner, the life expectancy of the owner, over development and poor construction practices affecting resale value, interest rates, death of Thai missus, relationship breakdown, being scammed etc etc. Just a broad comment, "rent is dead money." A very narrow view, in my opinion. What is your advice to those with no kids? Is it still, "rent is dead money?" Bullets are cheap in Thailand, a lot cheaper than lawyers. Balconies are free.

Sounds like a loving family, with contracts and caveats. It's been done to death on this website, over years, but the fact remains a foreigner can not own land in Thailand, in their own name. It's as simple as that. So, if Thailand will not allow me to own, I will rent. The old "rent is dead money" is is not true in Thailand. Renting is a wise decision, and as BMT said, if the OP rented, he wouldn't be in the position he is in. He would have held all of his cards, so to speak. I had a laugh when you said you are not so shallow as to burn the house down, can you say your wife's family is the same? Remember, no house to live in, that only leaves a block of land, which you don't own. "That said, I would consider it free rent for the period of time that I lived in it" - this was also funny. Obviously, accounting is not your strong suit. It's only "free rent" as you put it, after the land purchase and construction costs, and taking into account the amount of time you have lived in the house. Only after that time, can you claim you are "in the black." I don't know what's funnier from you, your posts about how you think you have snookered your wife's family so you don't get done over, or your "interpretations" of legislation. I do find them amusing. Keep the entertainment coming, but remember, a lot of guys before you, like the OP, thought buying was the best think to do, and many went back to their home countries broke.

I agree, but some will now have to wait until they are 67.

Many relations go south not long after a new house and land package is purchased. However, there are other things that can happen, for example, what if she was to die before you???? Of course you are going to tell us how well you get on with her family blah blah blah. We've all heard the same story before, then, the farang gets kicked out of the house and land he paid for. I'm with BMT. Renting is the best thing to do in Thailand. The funds to buy the condo I am living in, should it go on the market, is safe back in Australia earning more a month than the cost of the monthly rent, and I have no other fees, taxes, and maintenance to pay, and the freedom to move at anytime, or for any reason.

Thailand wants to tax the funds, not the person. On that basis, Thailand doesn't care how young or old you are, whether you are rich or poor, and whether the funds are a pension or some other form of passive income, and where the money originates from. They are simply seeking to tax the cash, and they don't care who's cash it is. It will be interesting to see how they are going to implement it and tweak it over the next couple of years. As I said in another post, the only way I can see it working is the Thai banking system will have to be onboard, otherwise, expat retirees could simply leave their pension in their home country and withdraw it from an ATM with a Visa card from their home country, just like tourists do. If the fees and exchange rate is cheaper than Thai tax, there's one solution. One would still be living in Thailand, and would be deemed a resident for tax purposes, but not remitting funds in the traditional sense. Of course, it would come down to the Thai legal definition of "funds" and "remitting" but I can't see Thailand taxing ATM withdrawals in the future. Interesting times ahead, particularly for Aussie expats.

Just a couple from a random search. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/australia/individual/foreign-tax-relief-and-tax-treaties "The Australian government plans to enter into new and updated tax treaties in the coming years. The relatively recently signed treaty with Iceland has entered into force to apply from as early as 1 January 2024. A new treaty with Portugal was signed on 30 November 2023 (yet to enter into force)." https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/2a6a9z41xb9ag79w1rh1c/australia-announces-expanded-double-tax-treaty-network "The government has restated its commitment to modernise and expand Australia’s double tax treaty network and has committed critical resources and funding to support this expansion of Australia’s double tax treaty network."

The information is from the Services Australia website. Obviously, a credible website. Scorecard's experience may have been 20 years ago. In any case, one day he claims he's on the aged pension, and the next day he claims he's on a veteran's pension. You can't be on both pensions. Credibility zero.

Where have career politicians got Australia?

All that tax on cigarettes was supposed to go to hospitals. Basically, smokers paying for their own health care when they get sick from smoking. Non smokers were going to benefit from this also. Billions of dollars in extra tobacco tax and the medical system still has record waiting times. Where does all that tobacco tax go?

Given the high cost of living, including property costs, it sounds like you will be in Australia for the foreseeable future. You are lucky because you got out while you still had just enough left to start a life back in Australia. Many lose the lot in Thailand.

That goes to the tie breaker in a DTA. https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/international-tax-agreements/in-detail/what-are-tax-treaties "Your residency status determines the jurisdiction in which you pay income tax and how much tax you are liable to pay. Most tax treaties include a 'tie-breaker' test under which a dual resident is deemed to be a resident solely of one of the two jurisdictions for the purposes of taxation." I agree. It's like the use of the word "may" in legislation. May does not mean "will" or "can" or "can not" etc. That one small word "may" can and has effected big cases in the past. All true. As I said in the other thread, the current residency tax laws are 90 years old. There's so many loopholes in them that they are no longer fit for purpose. I have no doubt the proposed changes will be passed by government in the not so distant future. The current DTA with Thailand is 35 years old. The government has stated they are updating all DTA's with countries. The DTA with Thailand will change in the future also. Then, you can see how quick Thailand moved on taxing remitted funds by foreigners. Where were all the comments about how "the Thai government would never do that" and expat pensioners would be up in arms" and "Thailand is only looking to tax guys like Paul Hogan." As Thailand has done, so will Australia. You'll read the news one day that legislation has changed and it will most likely have a financial impact on expats, including pensioners. Change is inevitable.

All fair points, but China has been stockpiling a lot. Probably not for a war, but so they can turn off the tap for a while and watch us beg for them to come back to the table. Either that, or they sell our own raw product back to us at double what they paid for it, because it will cost triple in Australia. During the GFC China basically stopped Australia going into a deep recession, but they beat us down to the absolute rock bottom price on everything. Many companies are now looking for an alternative to China, mainly due to China's theft of intellectual property. India is doing ok out of this, so is Vietnam. It goes back to that very basic example that we send them a few tons of iron ore and they send it back as a car. Who made the most money out of the deal? Look at gas in Australia at the moment. Other countries are willing to pay a lot more than Aussies for it, so the companies sent it overseas which caused more demand in Australia and shortages, so the price went up. Twenty years ago Australia had some of the cheapest electricity in the world, and now we are one of the most expensive, yet we have so much mineral wealth. The states have privatized just about everything. There's nothing much left to sell off.

I didn't get past your block. You didn't block me in the first place. Just admit it. You enjoy reading my posts.

You don't even know what type of plan your Super is in. :) You asked about interest earned on your withdrawals and I answered. 32.5% as a non resident for tax purposes

More inaccurate information from you. Firstly, you don't have to go to a Centerlink office. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/enrolling-medicare-if-youre-australian-citizen?context=60092#:~:text=If you move back to,to visit a service centre. "If you move back to Australia after more than 5 years overseas, you can re-enrol in Medicare. You don’t need to visit a service centre." Secondly, it's not so quick and easy to re-enrol. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/enrolling-medicare-if-youre-australian-citizen?context=60092 What you need to provide To re-enrol in Medicare you’ll need to give us both: a current passport for each person 2 documents that prove your family live in Australia dated within the last 6 months. Proving you now live in Australia You can prove you live in Australia by giving us either: 2 documents from Australia one document from Australia and one from where you last lived. Documents from Australia Documents from the other country Proof of rental or lease agreement and gas or electricity account in the same name Proof you sold your property Proof of purchase of property and gas or electricity account in the same name Proof you ended your lease Proof of your employment Proof you ended your employment Proof your child is enrolled in childcare, school or university Proof you moved household goods or furniture Proof you have a current bank account in Australia A statement showing you closed your bank account Proof of health, property or contents insurance Proof you cancelled health, property or contents insurance

These are your words. "I have already made a first small withdrawal a year ago and in that time the money has earned interest. I am just wondering if the interest I have accrued after making an initial and further withdrawals is taxable?" Yes, as a non resident, the interest is taxable at 32.5%. As for the income generated by the super fund, keep an eye on the other thread running. It' a complex issue of tax residency, DTA's etc. Tax residency laws in Australia are set to change, as well at the DTA between Australia and Thailand being updated in the future, as well as Thailand looking to tax the remitted funds of foreigners.

No, not being argumentative, merely pointing out Australia has already sold the biggest station in the country to the Chinese, and we don't even manufacture our military's uniforms anymore, China does. So, I ask the question, have we looked after our food production, and can we fund supplying our own military? Imagine for a moment every single item with "Made in China" becoming unavailable in Australia. If you thought punch ups over toilet paper was bad enough during covid, picture China ceasing exports to Australia.

You have said you are a non resident for tax purposes. I gather the amount you withdrew is earning interest in a bank account in Australia. As a non resident for tax purposes, there is no tax free threshold. Here's the non resident tax brackets. You would be up for 32.5% tax on the interest you earned. At a tax rate of 32.5%, you might consider moving the money offshore. Oh, and before you ask, the below tax brackets are not just for guys like Paul Hogan. Foreign resident tax rates 2023–24 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $120,000 32.5c for each $1 $120,001 – $180,000 $39,000 plus 37c for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $61,200 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

When, and it's when, not if, Australia passes the proposed changes to tax residency and moves to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, it's possible one could be a tax resident of both Thailand and Australia. Leaving the 45 days part of the proposed changes aside, one could do 183 days inside Australia and fly to Thailand and do 180 days. That would make them a tax resident of both countries, but why would someone on an aged pension want to be a tax resident of Thailand for the sake of staying a few extra days in Australia and living tax free for the year? Of course, none of us want to do 6 months in Australia every year, and the cost of doing so would far outweigh and tax Thailand would try to impose, if, as you say, they can impose it. I certainly agree with you, the matter goes well beyond Jim Quinn and Article 18, despite another member putting all their faith in Jim's comment.

What makes Jim Quinn right, and all the other people in the many links, some of them being ATO staff, and all the people in the youtube clips, wrong? You are only backing Jim because it suits your narrative to do so. You don't give any consideration to the possibility Jim could be inaccurate, or wrong. You refuse to address the provisions of Article 19 which Article 18 relies upon. T & G has brought up an interesting point regarding the legal definition in Article 18 of "resident." Jim says "resident for tax purposes" but Article 18 just says, "resident." Could that be "permanent resident" in which case just about no foreigners in Thailand have Thai permanent residency because Thailand does not offer a reasonable pathway to permanent residency. A retirement visa is not permanent residency. The Thai government says after 180 days you will be a resident for tax purposes, but once again, what type of residency is Article 18 referring to? I said the DTA needed more research, and I keep an open mind. That's still the case. Jim mentions resident for tax purposes, but that's not in Article 18, is it? Article 18 just says "resident." Why type of resident? Permanent resident, or resident for tax purposes. If Article 18 means permanent resident, then Australia, being the source country, gets to tax you, because none of us have Thai permanent residency. In any case, as I said before, the DTA with Thailand will soon be updated and may look different to the DTA of 1989, but T & G does raise a good point.

That's why I don't go into the gogo bars as much as I used to. The talent just isn't on stage like it used to be. Not only are the pretty girls getting their customers online these days, but also doing some live streaming for payment on some platforms in between.

Australia's biggest station was sold to the Chinese years ago. https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/cubbie-station-sold-to-chinese-consortium-despite-buy-back-offer-of-250m-from-cubbies-founders/news-story/e9c19f6eb5afd3eaddc6870a28559ded Really? The Australia Army even imports its uniforms from China. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/why-australia-is-paying-china-up-to-14m-every-year/news-story/b1aba0519175b00a465b18003110a30e

In a lot of ways, what they are doing to Trump tin America reminds me of what they did to Pauline Hanson in Australia.

Not moaning, just presenting the facts. Was this guy "moaning" back in the day? What's changed since he spoke up, nothing, in fact, it's got worse. "As a government, you are not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."