KhunHeineken

As I said a long time ago, the days of people retiring and being able to claim a pension are coming to an end. Most people entering the workforce in the early 90's will have contributed to their own Super until retirement age, and thus have too much to meet the criteria to claim a pension. OP, you seem to be one of these, or close to it. This is why I mentioned in the pension thread, some time ago, that basically, pensions will be a thing of the past for most Aussie retirees in the next 15 years or so. I remember crunching some numbers in that thread, and even with the average wage, over a 40 year career, you go over the allowable criteria to get a pension. That turned the focus to Super and non resident tax in that thread, which is something you need to consider. Just one of many websites with information. https://simplyretirement.com.au/tax-super-overseas "Additionally, should you draw a pension from an untaxed superannuation fund, and these are largely limited to Government, public sector funds, then you may be taxed on your pension on a non-resident basis in Australia should you retire overseas. Non-resident tax rates are higher than residents tax rates because there is no tax free alowance. That tax may, or may not, be available as a tax offset in the country of residency." The above also relates to the double taxation treaty between Australia and Thailand, which is the source of some debate in the other thread.

I posted this yesterday, well before posting the youtube clips. You totally disregarded it. It comes from the Treasury website. "The agreements work be giving the country of residence the exclusive right to tax certain catagories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. If the income is then taxed by the country of residence, it is to allow a credit for tax paid in the country of origin."

For those doubting the information in the first clip, here's another clip corroberating the first clip. This one is Australian. Only a short 2 minute clip.

I guess the information in the youtube clip didn't fit your narrative. Why don't you make some serious comments about it? Pick it apart. Call the guy wrong. Post a conflicting youtube clip. Etc etc. How does personally attacking me change the information and legislation?

If I was to post 10 credible links that conflict with Jim's information, would you start to consider Jim may be incorrect? If not, what about 20 links that conflict with Jim's information? Would you then have some doubts about Jim's information? If not, post how many links that disagree with Jim's information would it take for you to start to question whether Jim is correct, or incorrect. Serious question. Despite the hundreds of links that conflict with Jim's information, his link is being held out by some as the final word in the matter. Well, I am keeping an open mind and researching a little more. As I and a couple of other members have said, conflicting information is coming out of the ATO about this issue. Some members are now seeking tax refuge in the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand, and how it will work in relation to their residency status and pension. I encourage you to also watch the video clip above and to post your thoughts about it. In relation to the 183 days, it was crystal clear. Stay in Australia for 183 days and you are a resident for tax purposes. No ifs, no buts, 100% tax resident. Stay in Australia for 45 days or more, but less than 183 days, you must meet two of the criteria in the factor test. In my opinion, they are very easy to meet, but some may have difficultly meeting a second criteria in the factor test, not to mention the cost of airfares, accommodation, cost of living etc. Stay under 45 days in Australia and it appears you are a non resident for tax purposes. Expats had made submissions to government that the 45 days was too short. Labor said they were looking at tweaking the 45 days. (link previously provided) More than 45 days is good for a typical working expat, but not very good for retirees looking to do 6 weeks in Australia to maintain their tax residency status and escape non resident tax rates, and avail themselves of the tax free threshold. The government may increase the 45 days to 90 days, which is inline with other countries. I can't see many expat retirees doing 3 months in Australia every year.

I would encourage members to watch this short youtube clip. He explains it very well. Australia and Thailand even gets a mention. I will wait for some members to watch the clip and comment on it. If he is wrong, post some information to back up your claim.

As I have said, hardly any expats go to their Embassy abroad to vote at election time. A bit difficult to visit a local ALP branch in Thailand, don't you think, but I appreciate the humor behind your post.

You are the one that boasted Labor and Albo would never move forward with the Liberals proposed changes. I post a link showing not only did Labor publicly state the proposed changes are in their "in tray" but in July 2023 Labor submitted the Consultation Paper for submissions. How wrong can you be, and you want to talk about my credibility. At least I kept an open mind.

Have you read my link/s in reply? In any case, Australia is planning on changing its tax treaties, so interesting times ahead. (link previously provided) You are on a part pension, so where does that leave your tax liability for your supplementary income? Let me guess, somewhere around 32.5%, right?

I was watching some cricket. I am catching up. Unlike you, I have to reply to many members. You only have to personally attack me. Be patient, I will eventually respond.

Yawn. No, it's not black and white, clear cut. You post a link or two and disregard other links that conflict with yours. What makes you think your links are correct, and the other links incorrect? I have given my reasoning, why don't you do the same?

I have posted a link that I, and I suggest you, need to explore further. I will do more research. I admit the tax treaty in new ground for me. I have never needed to consider it before, but I will have to now. I will reply back with some results of my research in the future. As I have said before, "Subject to provisions of Article 19" did raise my eyebrows in relation to Article 18. I ill look into it more. I suggest other do the same. Err, not need to take tax policy personally. I am not the Commissioner of The Australian Tax Office. If I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong. It's interesting the Thai tax treaty has been wheeled out as an escape to non resident tax for Australia. You have the link I posted in the general forum. Give it some consideration and report back. Other members have disagreed with you, yet you don't call them a "Loser." Why is that? Could it be safety in numbers?

Have I not taken members from the ridiculous list of reasons that they thought the proposed changes would never happen, or would never apply to them, into the real world???? It's been quite an effort, yet, you criticize me for putting the work in. You've seen the crazy psychology behind the posts. You've seen the crazy ideas and beliefs. You have seen the absolute hate directed towards me when I have challenged such ideas and beliefs, yet, it's not my policy, it was Scomo's, and now Albo is running with it. Here's a scenario for you. Say I posted a little while ago "Thailand is going to tax foreigners." Once again, I would have been ridiculed, personally attacked, trolled etc, for just daring to mention it. Now, Thailand is taxing foreigners. I post Australia is proposing changes to its non resident taxation policy, and that's exactly what I have got from members, hate, and for what, it's not my policy, and I stand to lose more than most. Thailand moves faster than Australia, but when the proposed changes are passed, and I note there are some who still believe they will not be passed, and that's fine, they are entitled to their opinion, what will members say? There's already members saying absurd things like how I am praying for the changes to be passed, despite me losing more money than them if they are passed. As I have said before, it's not members of this forum against KhunHeiniken, it's all members of this forum against the ATO, but hey, if you throw enough rocks at the messenger, perhaps the message goes away with the messenger. Ignorance is bliss.

Now let me put it in simple terms. Just because you provide a link, why is it just because you provide it, it's beyond being questioned, when you have done nothing but question every single link I have ever posted on the issue? Why am I not afforded the opportunity to scrutinize your links in the same way you do mine. What makes you think your links are not open to debate? What is funny is, you provide one link that conflicts with so many other links from credible sources, and then declared you are right, I am wrong, and I should just accept it. Well, no. You are going to have to do better than that if you want me to concede I am wrong. I have posted a link that conflicts with yours. Both links are from creditable sources. What makes your link right and mine link wrong? Prove it to me and I will gladly concede, after all, it's to my financial benefit that you are right. I just don't see it, and have provided links to show why I do not think you are right at this stage.

That's quite a statement, Lacessit. Unlike you, I have never reported anyone, ever, for anything, because I believe in freedom of speech, which is totally opposite to Geobbels. You on the other hand.................... Perhaps you are more like Goebbels than me. As for mental distress, are you the spokesman for all Aussie members on this thread? I don't think so. Since when, in Thailand or back in Australia, has paying more tax not been stressful? Serious question. It's not a pleasant subject, and any loss of even one extra dollar to the tax man causes angst. As I have said in the past, don't shoot the messenger just because of the message. I made a general post and then said I will address individual posts, as I am this post of yours. One member has already begged me to reply. I can only type so fast, but will get around to reply to all posts, eventually. Perhaps you should stop blaming me for Australia's tax policy. It's the policy causing stress, not me point towards the policy, or would you rather members remain in ignorant bliss?

I will gladly admit I am wrong, after all, it will be in my financial benefit to be wrong. I just don't think you have proven me wrong yet. You are taking it all very personally. There's no need to. I want you to be right and me wrong, because it means I retain more money, but I actually think you are wrong, but I still remain happy for you to prove me wrong, and please, with something more than your "interpretations." Have you read the link I posted in the general forum? If not, after you do, please post your "interpretation." No deflection. Been here all night, paying common courtesy and replying to posts such as this. No, I don't agree, and I have posted a link, which comes from the Treasury website, that says to me more research is needed. As I said in another post, perhaps you are celebrating too early.

Have we? Really? Perhaps not, but hope is a good thing.

Oh, I've been here "playing." Next time to sign in you'll be able to catch up and give us more of your "interpretations." That said, good to see you are finally researching and providing credible links for debate. Your link interests me. I'll quote the relevant part and then comment. "A Double Tax Agreement between Thailand and Australia classifies pensions as taxable only in 1 country, as defined in Article 18 of this DTA. If an Australian retiree moves into Thailand with pensions brought, the retiree can use it as tax credit against Thailand in paying a reduced tax rate during the Thailand residency." Now, did you see the link I posted in he general forum? When you do, pay particular notice to the word "credit/s" in that link. It basically sets out that what Thailand taxes you goes as "credit" to what Australia will tax you, but because Thailand taxes you that doesn't mean you get a free pass from Australia taxing you. Basically, Thailand tax you first, then hand you off to Australia to tax next. Could it be a coincident the term "credit" was used by Siam Legal? If so, in what context did Siam Legal use the word "credit?" What are they suggesting the "credit" is for" Where does the "credit" go? All interesting questions, don't you think? Do you have any answers? In relation to Blake, and I know you will not accept this, and I haven't finished my research, but is it possible, just possible, that Blake's information is correct, as well as Caro's, and the Aussie expat pensioner will indeed pay 32.5% tax, but it's just that Thailand might get, say, 10%, and Australia the other 22.5%? Is this something you even remotely would consider, even after reading the link I posted in the general forum? Once again, eagerly awaiting your "interpretations" as they are always entertaining.

"<deleted>" away, LosLobo, but can you point out, exactly, the reason for the bollocking? After all, in your own words, "it would be foolish for you to pre-empt."

Well, if that's the case, I guess the ATO will be happy. That means they get to tax more. (see the link I posted in the general forum)

Do you think you may have, just may have, popped the champagne cork too early? You have put all your faith in Article 18, which states, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" and then I have provided a link setting out that Australia is planning on changing all their tax treaties in the near future anyway. I continue to find your "interpretations" amusing. Go ahead, entertain me some more with your interpretations.

They are not after aged pensioners, but without an exemption they will scoop them up as well, and for no loss of votes. As for changing the tax treaty, would you care to comment on this link? 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)." The above reads to me a lot like that are looking at changing legislation. How does it read to you?

Wrong. I have addressed things put to me in the general forum, and now replying to individual posts. I was offline last night as I went to a party. Today I was at home and replying, in between watching Australia v West Indies. The match has finished so I am catching up with my AN fans, including you.

I take on board anything of substance that I can research and inform myself about. I thank members for new links of substance. That does not include your interpretations and opinion. You asked for thumbs up, but you didn't see the p*ss take on your "interpretations" by another member. If I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong. I notice the double taxation treaty is now being put forward as an escape to non resident tax in Australia. I have no problem with that, and have stated my position. I will research more and report back. The tax treaty is new ground for me, but "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" has raised my eyebrows. It's called a "double taxation treaty" for a reason. Has it occurred to you the "double" part may only mean the portion of difference between Thailand's tax percentage and Australia's tax percentage? Can it be possible the residing country's small percent sees the source country unable to tax their bigger percent? Maybe, but maybe not, and I have posted links to show that Thailand gets to tax first, and then Australia. Not Thailand gets to tax first, and Australia gets nothing. After reading my link, does these seem at all plausible to you? In any case, I have posted a link showing Australia is planning changes to all they tax treaties. I will also research this, and typical time frames. I have suggested that due to Thailand's announcement about taxing foreigners, Australia may put their treaty with Thailand at the top of the list, but that's just me speculating. In my opinion, it's too early to celebrate yet. Sure, you may feel differently, and you are entitled to your opinion, but for me, more research is needed, which I propose to do. At least we have progressed past the list of ridiculous reasons why none of this will happen and / or why none of this is applicable. Go on, admit to which comment on the list was yours. Was it the "Paul Hogan" comment? Was it the "Medicare Card" comment? Come on, own up to which one was yours. I might scroll back tomorrow and bump the comments from some of the vocal haters.

Naturally it would help if you could post how you came to the conclusion of forming your interpretation, rather than just posting your interpretation and then stating, "links don't exist." So can you explain why you accept and believe the information from some, and disregard the others? Yet, you've never posted links to any legislation. Why is that? I've posted a link, which came from the Treasury website, showing that Thailand gets to tax first, then Australia. More research is needed, but do with that link as you please. In my opinion they will become compulsory. Of course this is debatable, but I am happy to hear any opinion you may have as to why they will not. What's your interpretation of Article 18 and Article 19, given Article 18 sates, " Subject to the provisions of Article 19..................?" It all may change as "Australia plans to enter into new an updated tax treaties..........." (see link in other post) No thumbs up from me at this stage. You have not "sold" it to me. There is conflicting evidence out there, and it will take more than just your "interpretation" to sway me. By now we have all read Articles 18 and 19. Once again, can you post your reasoning behind your interpretation?