KhunHeineken

A broad statement like that isn't worth much. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Enlighten me.

Refer to a post replying to you in the general forum, and once again, it was "Consultation Paper" not a discussion paper. What I find funny is, you were one of the ones that said Albo and Labor would never put the proposed changes to parliament because Labor cares more for pensioners, yet, Labor commissioned the "Consultation Paper" in July 2023. Here's the link. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf You will see it clearly says, "Consultation Paper" and is indeed a fact. Talk about egg on your face.

@norbra @Lancessit @scorecard @LosLobo @ 4MyEgo @Artisi @HighPriority and any other interested members. Ok, so I see we have some interesting links worthy of some research and further discussion. I will make this general forum post addressing the links, but will then reply to some individual posts more briefly. As usual, I will talk members through how I came to my conclusions, which are debatable, and post some links. In relation to nobra's links, I would like to say I am concerned at the conflicting information from the tax office. It appears "Jim Quinn" states something completely different to "Blake" and "Caro" from the ATO Community website. I am not disregarding Jim Quinn's reply and your post. I give it some weight. The question to you is, why do you believe Jim Quinn over Blake and Caro? Either Jim is correct and Blake and Caro are wrong, or Blake and Caro are correct, and Jim is wrong. Can you post why you think Jim is correct and Blake and Caro's information should be disregarded? In relation to Lacessit's post and link. It caused me to Google "Australia tax treaty with Thailand." I then found the below link on the first page. It's from the Treasury department, so I doubt even my most avid haters can doubt its credibility. https://treasury.gov.au/tax-treaties/income-tax-treaties I then scrolled down to Thailand and then clicked on the section "Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1989**.) This lead me to the below link. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2156925/upload_binary/2156925.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search="R62" What caught my eye was this part: "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. Examples of catagories reserved for tax by the country of residence include: "Industrial or commercial profits where the taxpayer has no permanent establishment in the country where the profits are earned; -Most pensions and purchased annuities" Now, for the record, Australia's tax treaty with Thailand is new ground for me. I was always going to check it out once Thailand announced they were going to tax foreigners, but I hadn't got around to it until Lacessit's link. I have only had a quick look. Many of my posts were dealing with members who refused to accept, despite links being provided constantly, that the pension was deemed an income, the pension was taxable, and there was no non resident tax free threshold, and then to explain the proposed changes. It appears we may finally have moved on from the ridiculous to some actual legal argument. So, the way the above reads to me is, Thailand get first bite of the cherry for whatever percent tax they want, then Australia takes what they want, but Thailand's percent is credited to the total 32.5%, thus, the individual is not paying 32.5% AFTER Thailand has taken their tax, which would effectively be double taxation, which is what the treaty is designed to stop. The words that stand out for me are: "giving the country of residence (Thailand) the exclusive right to tax certain categories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. (Australia) This basically reads to me like Thailand gets gets to tax an Aussie expat first, and then Australia gets the rest, being the 32.5% non resident tax rate. Of course this is open to debate, and I would be interested in what members think of the link. I noted the "warning" at the top. Once again, I will have to research how double tax treaty work. It appears the above conflicts with Lacessit's link leading to the treaty which says pensions are only taxed in the resident state, but I did see it stated, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19 etc etc" and then under Article 19 it states "as a citizen or national of that other state." As we all know, very few foreigners can be a Thai citizen, and we are certainly not Thai nationals." I will have to do more research, but I don't think it's as cut and some on here would like it to be. So, as you said to me Lacessit, "enjoy." Now, for those relying heavily on the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand, this may also come into the mix, particularly as Thailand has announced the taxing of foreigners, and Australia has announced its proposed changes to non resident taxation laws. https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/australia/individual/foreign-tax-relief-and-tax-treaties Two things stood out for me on this page. "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)." Who knows when Australia's current tax treaty with Thailand will be changed, but as the link says, the government is planning it, and I would suggest, due to Thailand's new tax, Thailand's treaty might be at the top of the list. The other thing that stood out for me was. "* Limited to allocation of taxing rights in respect of certain income derived by specified individuals, such as retirees, government employees, and students." I note there is no asterisk next to Thailand. Does this mean the limitation of taxing right does not exist for Thailand and the tax can be shared between the two countries, as mentioned in the link;/s above? I have no idea. I will research more, but I have to say, despite the sly negative comments, it's refreshing to see we have finally moved on from the ridiculous reasons put forward in the list I posted as to why certain member believe none of it will happen, and if it doesn't happen, none of it will apply to them. As LosLobo says, it's about the exchange of information, and to that point, I finally think we have finally started to get somewhere. That said, I welcome all the personal attacks and trolling about how one link is right, and another link is wrong, despite no reasons being given, just because I, KhunHeinhen, posted the link.

Similarly, tanks again for the post. It really is refreshing to see information put forward, not interpretations and opinions. Likewise, I will be addressing your link shortly in a general post.

Thank you for your post. I will address it in a general forum post.

100% agree, and well put, but I don't think the impact on pensioners will even make the media. It will "sold" to the Australian public as forcing wealthy tax dodgers to pay their fair share, to which the general Australian public will cheer in approval. The impact to expat pensioners will just be collateral damage of the policy.

I agree, and they don't vote anyway, so why would a political party care? I addressed this quite some time ago. Many members were under the believe that it would be financially detrimental for the government to force pensioners back to Australia for 6 months of the year. The old, "we would cost them to much in Medicare if they did that" argument. Yes, another funny reason put forward to help people cope psychologically with the possibility the proposed change may be passed. I remember posting that, basically, Medicare is already paid for, and returning expats will not cost more, but just make the waiting lists longer. The government is not going to employ more doctors, nurses etc, or build new hospitals, for returning expats. I still stand by this as a reason the government couldn't care lease about the "Medicare" argument of expats. On the other hand, as you say, all that pension money going back into the Australia economy, and not another country's economy, returning back to government in the form of GST, taxes and excise, fees, levies, licenses, insurances, income tax due to more employment etc etc, far outweighs some longer Medicare waiting time. Some put forward a big pensioner "backlash" and pensioners being "up in arms." Once again, whatever helped them psychologically to deal with the issue. Alas, Labor are pushing forward with the proposed changes, so it really is just a matter of time now.

Robotdebt is yesterday's news, and was perpetrated by a previous government. I disagree. Robodebt will have nothing to do with bringing in these proposed changes. If the current Labor government is concerned about Robodebt, why are they continuing on with the proposed changes?

I agree. It's a stroke of the keyboard for government to make an exemption for pensions. Let's hope they do. I doubt they will add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets because that gives every non resident a small "gift." so the most likely thing to do would be exempt pensions from non resident tax. I have said before in my opinion any loss of votes is nothing the government would care about because most expats don't make their way to an Embassy to vote at election time.

The current laws are 90 years old, full of loopholes, and no longer fit for purpose. At some stage they were going to be "modernized" which is a term used to described the change. The party couldn't last forever.

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.