KhunHeineken

Yes, Labor are running with it, and if they didn't, it would only buy some time until the next Liberal government were elected, but we are not so lucky as Labor are picking up where Liberal left the proposed changes. I have said why I think this to be the case in a previous post.

I agree. I am not requesting you post a link to this. I know it to be true.

Not sure how that strategy can work, given the government (immigration) know you are outside of Australia for 183 days, and Centerlink (government) is the department that pays pensions, and the ATO (government) want their tax revenue. They have pensioners on toast.

Yes, it is debatable. I have stated many times that it is only my OPINION as to how I think the ATO will get their non resident tax from pensioners. After 183 days outside of Australia, I can't see Centerlink forwarding full pension payments to non residents for tax purposes, only to have the ATO try to chase people overseas and place airport warnings etc etc. In my opinion, it will implemented in the same way the supplements are cut off after 6 weeks. In the same way the cash for supplements is withheld it's my opinion the 32.5% will be withheld in the same manner. Once again, just my opinion, nut as I have said in the past, why would the payer (government) then be the collector at a later date? They will just collect at the time of payment, similar to PAYG tax and people's employers. .

Don't forget the possibility of the 45 days, and meeting two of the factor tests. This could be an option for quite a few. They could plan their 6 weeks in Australia each year around medical check ups and possible procedures. That said, due to submissions from expats, the Labor government is looking at tweaking the 45 days. Working expats were calling for 90 days, which is inline with other countries. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with.

It was a "Consultation Paper" which is different to a "Discussion Paper." Said it 10 times now. Labor put it out for submission in July 2023 which tells me Labor are running with the proposed changes. Submissions closed in September 2024, so I would suggest we are a few street closer to them being legislated than you think. Funny you post this quote because it was the main reason I posted the proposed changes why back then. All I ever suggested was pensioners consider the possibility of their pension being reduced by 32.5% in the future. What followed has been quite the ride.

You have contradicted yourself again. You said in previous posts that a single guy living in Thailand should be fine losing $120 per week. Now you say you agree that it's a considerable loss of income, and will pose problems for visa extensions. Interesting comment. Expats under 65 years of age would be self funded, so that's the loss of 32.5% of their income. I would suggest this demographic are looking at losing a lot more money than pensioners. They very well may burn through cash getting to 63 and then have to go back for the 2 year prison sentence. Of course, everyone's situation and financial capacity is different. I am sure a friendly Thai visa "agent" can offer a service for those who will not be able to meet the marriage visa extension requirements on paper. You are another member taking it personally. I don't know why. From day one I have said I am self funded, so I'm set to lose 32.5% of my income. I posted the proposed changes on here as a heads up to pensioners because I knew the pension was deemed an income, and I knew the pension was taxable, and I knew the non resident tax brackets were from dollar zero. Then came the ridiculous comments as to why it can not / will not ever happen, followed by abuse, trolling, personal attacks etc etc when confronted by links I posted to back up my claims. I stand to lose financially, so why do you think I want to see the proposed changes passed? I don't. It's all a fantasy in your own head. I was hoping Labor binned them and bought us all some time until the next Liberal government was elected, but Labor hasn't binned them and I have posted links showing this.

Labor are running with the proposed changes, and it would find it highly unusual for Liberal to vote it down, given they proposed them. Labor took the proposed changes to the "Discussion Paper" stage, which show they are not dead in the water under Labor. Why do you think under the current Labor government, and any future Liberal government, the proposed changes will never be legislated?

Why do you think I originally posted about it on here? It will cause many to face major lifestyle and financial decisions. Yes. It will be difficult for those with partners explaining it to the missus. They will be thinking, "he's got a mia noi." Happy to here your argument on this. The Liberal government proposed the changes. The Labor government haven't binned them and have taken them to the "Discussion Paper" stage, which ended September 2023. Why would they do that if they have no interest in putting them before parliament? Where are the numbers going to come from to vote it down? Labor will basically be presenting legislation proposed by Liberal. It would be highly unlikely Liberal would vote down their own proposed changes. The current laws are 90 years old. How much longer do you think they can remain relevant?

Do you have a link for this? I know Albo has announced the changing of the resident tax brackets. I did not read anything about a corresponding change to the non resident tax brackets.

You were wrong on the maths. It's ok. It happens. Have you considered you may also be wrong, which in my opinion would doesn't make you a loser, but wrong never the less, about expat pensioners not having to pay non resident tax? Just throwing it out there.

Yes, you definitely need to do more research on the whole matter, not just the exchange rates.

Yes, it was, yet, the member believe him to be WRONG and a loser also, despite putting forward nothing to back up his own interpretation and opinion. It appears it's still in dispute. We;ll probably go around in a circle again where it's disputed that the pension in deemed "income" to then progress back to the circle of whether it taxable. Correct. A tax free threshold that does not exist for non residents for tax purposes, yet, a member is claiming it is still tax free for non residents for taxation purposes. Could you also be WRONG, and a loser?

Links have been posted previously showing the pension is deemed to be an income, and the pension is taxable. Do you accept this a fact, yes or no? The amount has never been in dispute, it's a simple mathematical formula. All I have ever said, from day one, is expats should prepare for the loss of $120 per week because it could happen, then, there was a flood of absolutely ridiculous and funny comments as to why it can't / won't happen, followed by ridicule and abuse directed at me. At least you have crunched the numbers. That's a start.That said, I would suggest there are many expats that need that $120 a week o maintain their current lifestyle here. Do you think it's something they should take seriously, or should they stick to the argument "it's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "pensioners don't pay tax?" Some may have commitments in which they rely on that $120 per week. Everyone has their own individual circumstances.

Good post. I agree with everything you have said. I will now wait for the member to post that you are WRONG, and a loser also.

I accept it for resident aged pensioners. I do not accept it for non resident aged pensioners. I have given my reason why. Blue, purple, pink, whatever. It's only you interpretation and opinion, which does not hold any weight, without any links to show how you formed your opinion. Once again, you are focusing on resident for tax purposes information, and think it also applies to non residents for tax purposes. It doesn't. Quote from your link: "Question 1: Do people on the Centrelink aged pension have to pay tax? The age pension is taxable. But if that is your only source of taxable income, then you end up paying no income tax, as age pensioners are also entitled to the Senior Australian Pension Tax Offset (SAPTO). Combined with other offsets, this gives single age pensioners an effective tax-free threshold of almost $33,900. When you consider that superannuation income payments are paid tax free from age 60 (unless coming from an untaxed source, which would be unusual), then this is very generous. It’s only when older Australians have considerable other taxable income, say dividends, interest from shares, managed funds or other non-super investments, or rent from an investment property, that some tax becomes payable." Can you show me where this is directed at non residents for taxation purposes? No, I don't agree, The Blank and Caro links clearly show this not to be the case, as well as links from accounting firms, investment houses, solicitor firms, youtube clips etc. I have posted many links, from many sources, saying otherwise. You have posted two links that are irrelevant.

Once again, the game changes when deemed a non resident. You are still focused on the pension attracting no tax in Australia, and think it's the same for non resident pensioners, it's not. Here are two links, directly from ATO staff members stating the pension attracts non resident tax rates. https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380 I know you have stated Blake is simply "wrong." Is Caro also wrong? Are the accounting firms, investment houses, solicitors firms, and everyone in youtube clips in all the links I have posted all wrong, but you are right? You have contradicted yourself. You have just sid that are no link, and then say you have posted links. I remember reading one link, which was irrelevant to the issue. If I am mistaken, please repost the links that show non resident pensioner still pay no tax. And now you are back to saying there are no links. Which is it? Have you posted relevant links, or not? Of course I will accept a credible link, but without one, I disagree with your interpretation and opinion because it's not backed up by anything. You'd have to say that's fair enough, wouldn't you?

Yes, you did post the Blake link, and members still refused to accept it, despite it being from the ATO. I have since posted another similar link with the same information. Here it is: https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 What's your point? The other member was discussing a "Consultation Paper" that he wrongly called a "Discussion Paper." Of interest, some still hold onto the hope the proposed changes are dead in the water under Labor. If that were the case, why is it Labor put forward the Discussion Paper in July 2023? This says to me the proposed changes are very much alive under Labor. Now, this is just my OPINION, but the submissions closed in September. Historically, I don't know how long it usually takes a government to tweak legislation after submissions close, but given the proposed changes are very straight forward, relying on a mathematical formula, I can't see there being a lengthy time tweaking the proposed changes, so we might see them put to parliament this year, possibly to start for 1st July 2024.

Wrong. It was a Consultation Paper whereby the government allows submissions for stake holder, in this case, Aussie expats, about the impact the new legislation will have on them. A Consultation Paper means the government is not too far from putting the new legislation to parliament, and given the Liberals drafted the legislation, it would be highly unlikely they would then vote it down. Just on this point of consultation, the current Labor government is examining the 45 days. (link previously provided) Some expats seem to think 45 days is not long enough and I tend o agree with them. Examples were put forward in the link.

It's tax legislation. How is discussing a country's tax law scaremongering? I have put forward many links. I have given some opinion based on the content of those links, but have posted links to show how I had come to certain conclusions. If the tax law scares you so much, best to put me on your ignore list.

Well, well, well. It's great to see some credible links posted that deal with the actual legislation, and now the double tax treaty with Thailand. I would just like to take member's minds back to when the below were put forward as the reasons why expat retirees would NEVER have to pay non resident tax. They are all very funny, but it's good to see we have moved on from them. Perhaps one day we can have a poll and vote for the funniest one. The Paul Hogan comment would get my vote. "the Government would never do that. " "that will never happen." "Centerlink told me 6 years ago..................." "there would be too much bad publicity for the Government." "there would be a big backlash by pensioners." "I use a VPN when accessing the MyGov website." "that's only for people like Paul Hogan." "they can't tax a pension." "I'm still a resident because I am using an address in Australia." "I didn't tick the box leaving permanently on the departure card." "I told my Australian bank I am still a resident of Australia." "I'm on a veteran's pension. It's different." "I'm still a resident because I go back to Australia for a couple of weeks every year." "it would cost too many votes." "I still have a Medicare card so I am still a resident." "My mate told me................................" Many members would defend the comments above with ZERO consideration for the legislation, and ridicule me along the way, without any links put forward supporting their position. Finally, it appears members are doing some research so the issue can be debated in a serious manner. I see one member continues to take the matter personally. As another member rightly points out, there are no winners and losers in this debate. We all just need to find out where each of our individual tax liability circumstance lay within the Australian tax system, currently, and after the proposed changes are passed, and now the Thailand tax system, including the double taxation treaty. It's strange this particular member takes it so personally, considering he is on a part pension, so his supplementary income is definitely on the chopping block for 32.5% non resident tax. I will now address each post aimed at me.

Living the dream.

Yes, it's my opinion, but there are indications that it will be the case. (links previously provided) How is discussing it "scaremongering?"

As I have said in the past, which is debatable, in my opinion, it's not if, just when. The current Labor government never binned the proposed changes that were proposed by the previous Liberal government. Should Labor put them to parliament, why would the opposition block them? We all may escape them in the May budget, but they are coming for sure.

Did your research extend past more than just one link? Surely you researched more than just this one link. As for "seeing no reason why the ATO would stick it to a welfare recipient" this is just opinion, and not worth much. Can you post a link showing that the ATO "does not stick it to a welfare recipient?" Every link I have posted you have said is "wrong." Can you post some link/s from some credible sources that state "non resident pensioner pay no tax?"