KhunHeineken

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?

And the Thai government wants some it.

Or, just withdraw it from an ATM with an Aussie debit card. Yes, some fees to pay, but it might be a small price to pay to keep the money away from the Thai tax system.

Really? If that's the case, why did it take you 600 of his posts before proving him wrong? I mean, how wrong is that? As we do responding to you.

Any suggestions for those pensioners living fortnight to fortnight?

Same. Either Jim is correct and Blake and Caro are incorrect, or Blake and Caro are correct and Jim is incorrect. The plot thickens. I would suggest this may also be retrospective. Existing account holders will be informed they have "X" amount of months / years to obtain and link the number to their account, or their account will be frozen until they do. I am yet to look into this, but I would be surprised if existing account holders got a free pass. We saw similar with Thai sim cards years ago. Register your number with ID, or it will be cut off the network.

It's funny because many other links have been provided that contain information that conflicts with "Jim's" information in nobra's link, but because it fits the agenda of many members, and that agenda may simply be tax minimization, Jim's information is now gospel, and all the other links should be disregarded. Once again, the psychology behind it is very interesting. Maybe it's a bit like Thai bar girls. "My link is different."

Well said. At least we have progressed past, "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident." I also found the same webpage. This stood out for me. "Article 18 of the Thai Agreement provides that, subject to Article 19, a pension paid to a resident of Thailand is only taxable in Thailand. Paragraph (2) of Article 19 of the Thai Agreement provides that a pension paid by Australia in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall only be taxable in Australia. However, a pension is taxable only in Thailand if the person is a resident of, and a citizen or national of Thailand. 'Services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions' are principally of an employment nature and the pension must relate to that employment. This includes, for example, ComSuper pension payments to a person who was employed in the Australian Public Service." "discharge of government functions are principally of an employment nature and the pension must relate to that employment" - this indicates to me that's not the aged pension. Of course, I could be wrong. It's new ground and I will continue my research.

If you maintain Jim from the ATO is correct, can you state why Blake and Caro are incorrect? There's conflicting information, which is fine when it comes to complex tax issues, but can you explain your reasoning for relying on Jim's information, whilst disregarding Blake and Caro's information?

Probably confused by your early celebration and victory dance, not over me, but the ATO.

Article 18 is subject to the provisions of Article 19. That means they may as well be the same Article. Of course, this is only my opinion, and debatable, but I am interested in other members interpretation of the document.

Hey Lacessit. Are you enjoying the links I posted in the general forum? I would be interested in your opinion on the "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" part of your link.

The link I posted shows more research and discussion is needed on your comment. Can you post a link show a change to non resident tax brackets? I know Alvo announced a change to resident tax brackets, but I did not read any such announcement about a change to non resident tax brackets. Are you posting "porkies" again? norbra's post quoted a "Jim Quinn" from the ATO who has supplied information that conflicts with the "Blake" link and "Caro" link. I'll ask you the same question, why do you think Jim is correct, and Blake and Caro are incorrect? Can you explain why you give weight to Jim's information, and disregard Blake and Caro's information?

A member has posted a link to the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand which states this: Article 18 Pensions and annuities 1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State. Article 19 states this: Article 19 Government service 1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who: (a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or (b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services. 2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State. 3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply. Now, it's a credible link, and it's there in black and white, and the celebrations from other members lead to the invigorated personal attacks and trolling on me. However, a link stemming from Treasury's own website suggests the treaty allows Thailand to tax the pension first for what percentage they want, and Australia must give a "credit" for this tax paid and then tax up to what I would suggest be the 32.5%. (links provided) Basically, the member put forward the link to say the tax treaty with Thailand cuts out non resident liability to the ATO back in Australia. This could be true, and I have said I will research more, as I hope other members will also, rather than just personally attack me for posting a link that is conflicting to what they really need to believe because of financial gain. For me, Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 does raise some questions. Feel free to post your opinion on it.

More misinformation from you. It was a Consultation Paper, not a discussion paper. You have the link. It clearly says, "Consultation Paper." I await your reply to my post in the general forum.

The conversation was eventually going to lead us to the double taxation treaty. It's funny how one minute some members are arguing the pension isn't an income, and the pension isn't taxable, and the non resident tax rates aren't applicable, and then support a link which goes against their previous argument because for that link to be relevant to them, they would have to accept the pension is deemed an income, the pension is taxable etc etc. Too funny.

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?