KhunHeineken

It's definitely a "time will tell" matter. I am only going on the proposed changes, and some laws surrounding them. Eg. a pension is deemed an income at law. What is finally implemented has yet to be seen. We know the government has stated they are looking at tweaking the 45 day rule. I have posted links about this before. Basically, expats had submitted that if they have their 6 weeks annual leave in Australia with friends and family, and then someone gets sick or dies and they have to come back to Australia, they go over the 45 days, so the government was considering increasing the 45 days. This is the only possible change I am aware of. Common sense says they should just exempt pensions. It would be easy to do so, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. Perhaps the APA did make a submission and we will see this in the legislation when it is passed. Until them, it's the pension is deemed an income, the retiree is outside of Australia for 183 days, and there is no exemption for pensions, thus, my hypothesis or opinion on the issue.

It's too late to be "active" about it. The consultation phase concluded in September 2023. I would find it hard to believe the government would purposely put forward a policy that breaches such a treaty. Sure, they will move closer to the boundary, but not breach it. I agree it's not their aim to tax pensioners. I never said it was. What I have always said is pensioners may simply be collateral damage because there's currently nothing in the proposed changes that differentiate pensioners from Paul Hogan.

I am slightly confused by this comment. They are moving away from domiciled based residency system and moving towards a physical presence and time based tax residency model. When the changes come in, no longer can you have a house in Australia that you say is your "domicile" therefore maintain residency for tax purposes when you live in Thailand and haven't been back to Australia in years. The "I'm just on a long holiday" method will be no more. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia 183 days, non resident. Which country you live in, where you own property etc will mean nothing if you are outside of Australia for 183 days. I have said on many occasions, pensioners may very well be collateral damage in this. I have given my reasons. Basically, I don't see anything in the proposed changes that gives pensioners a tax break. No exemptions, means testing, tax free threshold added to non resident tax brackets. Time will tell if Labor tweak the proposed changes to add an exemption, which they should. Once again, all set to change to 183 days, backed up by the immigration data base. No reviews. No appeals. I have admitted previously I, and many Aussie friends, are using the loopholes in the current 90 year old tax residency laws. As far as the ATO is concerned, I am "domiciled" in Australia. I have maintained all the "associations" you have mentioned and have never paid non resident tax. The proposed changes will scoop me up, but with the pension being deemed an income, and a pensioner being outside of Australia for 183 days, and no exemptions in place, I am wondering where they will get their tax break from. Some have suggested the DTA, and I am research more about this. I, and some friends, show an interest in this because we may very well completely restructure our finances in the future.

As another member suggested, there was a core group of "haters", or possibly the same person with multiple usernames, who may have been working for AN's major competitor. They seek to have posts removed, members banned, threads closed etc in order to push people to the other website. There was consistently zero content from them. Only baiting, flaming, abuse, trolling etc. As I have said before, the proposed changes to tax residency laws is the single biggest issue facing expat pensioners in years, and I stand by that comment. Others have suggested it's portability, but that is nothing new, and you have to do your 2 years, it's as simple as that. It's only through discussion do we get to move past the "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident for tax purposes" misinformation.

I disagree. I have put forward public information, in the form of many credible links, media releases, youtube clips, extracts of law, and the opinions of professionals. I have formed my opinion based on this research. One thing I will not be swayed on is the the passing of the laws. In my opinion, it is only when, not if. I will stand by that opinion and will not budge from it, and I have given my reasons. Other parts I am happy to listen to the opinions of others. If they have a compelling argument, it may indeed change my own opinion, but I have to say, comments like, "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" as well as many other ridiculous comments don't hold much weight with me, and in fact, are just plain humorous. The proposed changes have not been implemented as yet, so no one knows what they will finally look like, and what method of enforcement will be used. I have put forward some ideas, and admitted they were just possibilities for the government, not necessarily my opinion on the matter. On the point of enforcement, as mentioned previously, there's not much to enforce when the payer (Centerlink) is also the taxer (ATO) using Immigration data. All three are government departments, so the non resident tax is simply withheld from fortnightly pensions, thus, automatic compliance, and no need for any enforcement. The physical presence and time based residency model makes it that easy. Computer data bases do all the heavy lifting. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I never suggested you are right and I am wrong. Or I am right and you are wrong. I simply asked what are you basing your opinion on. I am trying to see things through your eyes. I agree. The discussion has moved a long way from "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan." Do you agree with the "Paul Hogan" opinion? I don't, and I have stated my reasons. Not everything posted on here is right, and not everything posted on here is wrong. There's nothing wrong with discussing all comments. The internet and freedom of speech is a great learning tool. I personally hope pensioners do not have to pay non resident tax, but time will tell. Once again, I was only asking you what you were basing your opinion on. Hopefully, something of more substance than the "Paul Hogan" opinion.

Thanks for the new content. Can you elaborate on how this ties in with the proposed changes to the tax residency laws? Are you suggesting that the Australian aged pension, once taxed at the non resident tax rate of 32.5% then breaches the minimum amount as set out by the minimum standards in the link?

I agree, and that's what the current Labor government did. They continued on with the Liberal government's proposed changes and moved them onto the consultation phase. Here it is again. Consultation closed in September 2023, so I suggest implementation is not so far away. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf At the consultation phase, any interested party can make a submission. Did the APA make a submission? Was it in the media? Were pensioner "up in arms?" I posted about it to show members that Labor were moving forward with it, after some members thought an Albo government will kill off the proposed changes. Well, clearly, they are very much alive and well under Labor. Once again, another credible link which goes towards the hypothesis or "opinion" that I have formed on this matter.

I mentioned in another thread that the day is coming when just about every company will require Two Factor Authentication. (2FA) This means, you will need a sim card from your home country that is registered to your account. The best sim cards for this purpose will be Pay As You Go with 365 validity for a small annual fee. It costs nothing to receive SMS when roaming, so the small annual fee will simply be to keep the sim card on the network. I expect to see more and more threads about "how to get a sim card from UK, USA, Europe, Australia etc etc in Thailand" in the future. I have one bank account that after I sign in I have to enter a code sent to that country's sim card before I can progress to my account's home screen. If I'm not in that country at the time, I have to put the sim card in the phone. Over time, more and more companies will start moving to this extra layer of security. I suggest next time members visit their home country, they pick up a cheap PAYG sim card to prepare for 2FA, or, have a friend / relative set one up for you and post it out.

Did you complain to WH, or inform Surfshark that one, or all, of their UK servers have been blacklisted by WH? You should not tell WH anything about what you are doing. Chances are, somewhere deep in the fine print of their T's & C's, there is a clause you can only use their website, thus place a bet, only from inside the UK, or possibly the EU, which might change after Brexit. The fact that it's geoblocked tells me there's a fair chance of this. If you were to have a big win, they might not pay out if you have corresponded with them about betting on their website from overseas. Do yourself a favor and buy a set of AlwaysHome. Get the set sent to you and you post the home dongle (router) to the friend or family member of your choice, or have the set sent to them and have them send the companion dongle to you in Thailand. Be careful not to mix them up. They look the same, but the home router must be in the UK to work as intended. They have serial numbers on them. You could also contact the company and see if they can split the set and post to different addresses, for a fee. The dongles (routers) do not look like the ones in the youtube clip anymore. They are about half the size of a cigarette packet and in a strong aluminium case. They are still USB powered, but with a cable and wall plug. All someone in the UK does is plugs it into power, and into their home router. That's all. No port forwarding, no settings adjustments. Zero else to do. All you do in Thailand is plug yours into power and your router, and then connect via WiFi to the AlwaysHome router with the default password and you will be on your friend's / relative's IP Address. To WH, it's as good as you living at that address in the UK. I suggest you chose someone with a decent speed and unlimited internet connection in the UK. They use next to no electric, so that will not be an issue for them. There's nothing magic or new about this. You can do it yourself with two small travel routers, or Raspberry Pi's. You can even set up a VPN from router to router on some brands. To do so takes some technical knowledge of port forwarding and and how to use the VPN config file, and you would have to buy some hardware anyway. These have all of the configuration done at the factory and you just plug and play. You will never be geoblocked ever again because you are using a VPN to a residential address in the UK, and not a data center where a VPN company rents a server that could have hundreds, possibly thousands of people, using the same IP Address, with many of them using the WH website, so WH blacklist it because it's obviously a VPN.

I accept your opinion is different to mine, which is fine. I am just trying to understand what you are basing your opinion on. Did you read a clause somewhere in the proposed changes? Are you relying on the DTA? Do you think the government will amend the proposed changes so pensions / pensioners do not pay non resident tax? Where in the proposed changes do you see an exemption for pensioners? Where in the non resident tax brackets do you see a tax free threshold? I agree with you it's not the intent of government to tax expat pensioners. I have said many times on the other thread, "pensioners may very well be collateral damage." Obviously, the proposed changes are not designed to target pensioners, but I see nothing in the proposed changes differentiating between pensioners and guys like Paul Hogan, hence, my opinion that pensioners may just be caught up in it. The way I see it, the government will not introduce a tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets to cater for expat pensioners because that would give guys like Paul Hogan a tax break. A common sense option would be to exempt pensions / pensioners, but nowhere in the proposed changes is that mentioned. Surely that is by design, so one must ask, why? You mentioned the APA. Did they make a submission during the recent consultation phase? If not, they should have, but as I said, why would they represent non members? I have been very clear what I am basing my opinion on. In summary, and this has been backed up by many links, youtube clips, and quoting relevant law, the pension is deemed an income at law. One will automatically be deemed a non resident for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for 183 days. There are no exemptions or means testing in the proposed changes. There is no tax free threshold in non resident tax brackets. Article 18 in the DTA relies on the provisions of Article 19. (as I said in the other thread, more research is needed on these articles in the DTA) These are what I am basing my opinion on. When it's in black and white, I don't think it's a "leap." Other than the "that's just for guys like Paul Hogan" and the "pensioners would be up in arms" argument, can you post what you are basing your opinion on? Is it just hope?

Yes, I am aware why the policy exists. I have posted about it previously. You state it's financially beneficial for the government to pay pensions when the person is living overseas. I asked you, if that's the case, why do they enforce the 2 year qualification for portability? Wouldn't it be financially beneficial to just pay them the pension when they reach pension age and hope they stay outside of Australia? Why force them back to Australia for 2 years, if a pensioner living in Australia is a bigger loss? Could it be there is some substance in the reasons I mentioned the government would like that pension money circulating within the Australian economy, for the taxes and flow on effect, and not growing a foreign country's economy?

In my opinion, resident pensioners will not care about non resident pensioners. Why should they? There's nothing in the proposed changes that impact them. How many expat pensioners are members of the APA? Why did you stop being a member? Why would the APA care about non member pensioners? It could all be a moot point anyway, if it's not an election issue.

Why would a pensioner living in Australia care about expat pensioners? This is the "pensioners would be up in arms" argument. They wouldn't care less, and would care even less if it's sold that taxing expat pensioners will mean a little more money each fortnight for pensioners living in Australia. An easy sell, if it has to be sold at all. Also, why do you think it will even be an election issue? Look how quick the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts came to being. The proposed changes may sail through in the same way. The proposed changes to tax residency will have no effect on pensioners living in Australia, so I can't see them caring at all about it, and that's even if they do get a chance to vote on it as an election issue. So, the study is over 20 years old. Question. If it's so financially beneficial for the government to have pensioners live overseas, why do they insist on the 2 year qualification period to gain pension portability? By your thinking, they should pay them the pension so they stay outside of Australia. Why do they force them back for 2 years with this policy if the policy runs at a loss? Can you show me in the proposed changes where non resident pensioners get a tax break? Without further changes to the proposed changes, pensions, and pensioners, will be treated as any other non resident deriving an income from Australia, and yes, the pension is deemed an income. Paul Hogan does not get the pension, but what in the proposed changes differentiates pensioners from Paul Hogan? What do you think they will tweak to give expat pensioners a tax break? The higher taxing country has primary taxation rights. I posted some youtube clips about this some time ago. We will have to agree to disagree on the financial gain or loss to the government if pensioners return home, but what about if the government could tax expat pensioners, but they still live overseas. Cha-Ching. It would be interesting to know how many pensioners would return to Australia to live permanently, or for 6 months of the year to escape the non resident tax, or, continue to reside in Thailand with a lower standard of living.

I see you are putting forward "the government would lose too many votes" and "the government would never do that" argument. Did you make your way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote in the last election? I didn't, neither did any of my Aussie friends. How many votes do you think the government would lose from expats? It would be so small that it would be irrelevant. Also, who's to say it will be an election issue? It could be presented during a budget, or passed into law 5 minutes before the close of a sitting. You must remember, the previous Liberal government proposed them, and the current Labor government haven't binned them, with the assistant treasurer stating they are "in the government's in-tray." The current Labor government also moved the proposed changes on to the consultation stage, so the proposed changes have bipartisan support. So,with no political opposition to the proposed changes, they will sail through parliament eventually. The Labor government has stated that are looking at the 45 days rule and possibly increasing it, but the proposed changes are not dead in the water under Labor. How many years ago was that study? I posted some time ago that the government would like to see all that pension money in the Australian economy, and not going to help another country's economy. Reason being, they get a lot of the pension back in taxes, fees, licenses, rates, excises etc. That's a lot more people and a lot more money going towards growing the Australian economy. Returning expats also create employment, and what do people with a job pay, income tax. Returning expats need accommodation, and what do landlords pay on rent, tax. Petrol in the car, tax. Beer at the bowlo, tax. Food at the supermarket, GST. Etc, Etc. Currently, every pension being sent overseas is a total loss to Australia. It's financially beneficial to have that pension, and the person, inside Australia, with that pension money circulating in the Australian economy. All that pension money to pensioners every fortnight does have a flow on effect. On this point, your argument focuses on Medicare. So the waiting lists get longer, that's all. Do you really think the government is going to recruit more medical staff, no. The hospital bill will remain the same, but the queue just gets longer. As the proposed changes stand, there are no exemptions, means testing, or no tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets, so how do you propose expat pensioners will get out of paying non resident tax? The pension is deemed an income. The recipient is outside of Australia for 183 days, thus, a non resident. The payer is also the taxer, so easy to collect. The law will treat the old age pensioner in the same way as it treats Paul Hogan because there is nothing in the proposed changes to differentiate between the two. The government could add a tax free threshold to non resident tax rates, but why would they guys like Paul Hogan a tax break? In relation to the DTA with Thailand, it must be remembered that whichever country has the highest tax has primary taxing rights. Eg. Australia taxes 32.5%, so you don't pay say 10% in Thailand. There are thousands of Aussie retires across Thailand. The Australian government would have noticed Thailand's new tax on remitted funds and may be tempted to update the DTA with a tax just above Thailand's, so not only is it the source country but also the primary taxing rights country. I have posted the DTA with Germany, and from memory, it was 15%. Interesting times ahead, but I disagree taxing expat pensioners will cost votes, and how it's financially beneficial to the Australian government to see as many pensioners as possible leave Australia to live overseas.

Many, including myself, have been avoiding paying non resident tax for years, and this is due to the many loop holes in the current 90 year old laws, which are mainly based around where an individual is "domiciled." The proposed changes to the tax residency laws will modernize to a physical presence and time based model. Outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be a non resident for tax purposes. It's as simple as that. No reviews. No appeals. The proposed changes do not have any thresholds, means testing, or exemptions, so they are not just for "guys like Paul Hogan." As the proposed laws stand, pensioners will be treated in the same way as someone who is self funded. It's been shown before the pension is deemed an income, at law. Are you on a pension? If so, you'll have to wait and see how the law is implemented, and if there are any changes to the legislation that has been proposed. If you are not on a pension, and are self funded, you are going to have to move all your income generating assets out of Australia, which includes liquidating property, if you have any, otherwise, you will be taxed at 32.5% by Australia, and under the DTA, 32.5% being higher than Thai tax, you should pay no tax in Thailand. I'm sure it will be fun explaining this to the Thai tax man. It's been shown before that foreign governments inform the Australian government of how much funds a foreign national is remitting. Keep in mind, Australia is now in the process of updating and expanding its DTA's, so the DTA with Thailand today, may not be the same DTA with Thailand tomorrow. Times are changing. Data bases are lining up. Governments are broke and desperate. The tax man is coming.

30,000 baht is a good night out.

That's a common way of "owning" a property here. It's better than the shortcuts many guys take by just buying the property outright, in the Thai girl's name. You bring up an interesting point about economies of scale. Land and property construction is a pitance up in Issan, but to live there, no way. As mentioned in another post, who works all their life to spend their retirement in near solitude, compounded by being surrounded by non English speakers, and by choice? Many have committed financially and emotionally to Issan, led like a sheep. A loss to a Thai girl because one put money down and everything in her name is still a loss, regardless of economy of scales. These guys wouldn't even contemplate a similar idea in their home country, but in Thailand, with a younger Thai women, they lose their sh*t. Renting and pays as you go gives you longevity and sustainability in Thailand, and you become no one's fool.

This has been debated on many other threads, over many years. In short, the fact is, no one flew into Thailand for their first time, and made their way straight to a rural village in Issan for their first ever visit to Thailand. They were introduced to the village by their Thai spouse, with many eventually getting trapped there, either financially, emotionally, or both. Who works all their life to aspire to reside in their twilight years before departing this world in a rural village of Issan? I've met some of these guys. They know absolutely nothing about farming, yet here they are, saying how happy they are with rural life. Of course, they appear in very poor health because they do everyday is drink. Met a guy one time who was boasting about his produce. I asked how much it is selling for a kilo these days. He didn't even know, just a blank look on his face. I'd had a few beers and couldn't control myself and just laughed. There are your own words. " Been quiet lately because I have been away enjoying the coast." Most of us get to enjoy the coast everyday. You are the one that put money down on something you don't own. You tool the classic short cut and are exposed. A loss is a loss, no matter the amount. You are the one that just weeks ago begged me to, and I quote, "come out and play." Now you have a sulk and pick up your bat and ball a go home. You may fool some of the people some of the time with your "interpretations" of the law and love stories, but you fool me none of the time.

Same source. https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380 And this one. https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 The lodging of a tax return may be a moot point. The government pays the pension. The government knows you have been outside of Australia for 183 days. The government then deems you to be a non resident for tax purposes. The government then withholds 32.5% of your fortnightly pension for non resident tax. This is regardless of whether a tax return has been submitted, or not.

https://www.dyson.com/support/journey/tools/967479-04

No doubt that bell is a sweet sound for you. That's the bell signalling the end of anther round in which you are getting a beating.

No problem. As mentioned, keeping it on the network may save you going through the hassle the member in the other thread is facing. Leave it sitting somewhere for a year, but as more and more businesses move to 2FA, I am sure it will come in handy one day.

I enjoy the same comforts, if not more, in my condo, which is near the beach, not in a rural Issan village. Location location. You are the one that suggested I had been stung before, yet you are the one at risk, not me. You are justifying your actions by stating the affordability of rural land, and construction in Thailand. The fact still remains that you have exposed yourself to being "stung" and I have not, but then you seem to think I have been. Your posts about how you have a caveat on the property etc etc was just great entertainment from you. It gave me a good laugh. Yet, some of us simply don't "invest" here, so stand to lose nothing. The money for the purchase price of my condo is making more of a return for me back in Australia than the monthly rent costs me. The monthly rent is well worth having no property and maintenance costs, and the freedom to move should I want to / need to. It might be different if the rent was depleting my asset portfolio at a rapid rate, but it's not. Condo owners cringe when they see more and more development because it negatively effects the value of their condo. I smile because it's not only keeping rents low, but also driving rents down. A nice little story about love, but time and priorities, as well as health and family can change. Sometimes slowly, and sometimes in a split second. Who knows about tomorrow? Maybe one of her family members accrues big gambling debts, or gets locked up, and she has to sell the house. Maybe someone in the family gets sick and needs an expensive life saving operation and she sells the house. As mentioned previously, maybe she dies before you. Anything can happen. Yet, you post here how the house is yours because you can put a caveat on it. The question whether she would have still "loved" you had you not bought her land and a house is for another thread, but most would agree that had you not, you probably wouldn't be together right now. Not exactly a solid foundation for a relationship, yet, you want to preach on here about "love."

Article 18 relies on the Provisions of Article 19. When I asked for your "interpretation" of the Provisions, your reply was, and I quote, "Forget about Article 19." It's laughable. I merely said I would like to research more on the Provisions of Article 19, and their effect on Article 18. It wouldn't matter how many people on here agree with your interpretation, it's how the law is applied, and the way the ATO and Court/s implement that law. "Forget about Article 19" isn't exactly "crossing T's and dotting I's" is it?

You work all your adult life to barely exist in your latter years, yet boast on here how you own properties. You can't even dine out even once a week. You must watch a lot of "free" TV.