KhunHeineken

Why American is not the greatest country in the world. Australia gets a mention.

I was under the belief Aboriginal people got an annual, or bi-annual payment from their land council, which is a lump sum.

Income derived in Australia. The Australian government would want their cut. Don't you think so? Given that Centerlink can withhold the 32.5%, I can't see Thailand becoming a tax haven for pensioners. Just wishful thinking on your behalf. Australia will soon hit a trillion dollars of debt. The government needs every dollar it can find. Of interest is the quick way the Stage 3 tax cuts saw a change in the resident tax brackets. Hopefully, a similar change might happen to the non resident tax brackets, but then again, why would they let guys like Paul Hogan off paying tax on the first $30,000? I am simply reply to a member, like I am to your post. The clock is ticking on the proposed changes. As a part pensioner, have you considered my "prediction" may eventuate? Tick, Tick, Tick.

Whilst locating a link for another member, I came across the results of the petition about the proposed changes. It took me back to the early days of this debate, and the comments of some members like: "the government would never do that because it would cost too many votes" and "pensioners would be up in arms" and "there would be a big pensioner backlash" etc etc. I remember posting about the petition, for any member interested in signing their disapproval. Well, here is the result of the petition. Signature count: 5235. Yes, so big was the backlash from pensioners in Australia for their fellow pensioners living abroad, and so much were they up in arms in support for their fellow pensioners living abroad that a whopping 5235 people signed the petition. I am sure the government is very concerned about losing 5235 votes, from people that will not vote in an election anyway. I wonder if Paul Hogan signed the petition. https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN4259

I would think it almost an impossibility that the proposed changes would not be passed, by either political party, within the next 10 years. That would make the current laws over 100 years old.

Again, you still don't get it. You are not looking at the bigger picture. The proposed changes are designed to scoop up people living in Australia deriving an income, but who are not paying resident tax rates, and people deriving an income from Australia, but living overseas, who are not paying non resident tax rates. Both demographics have been getting away with paying resident and non resident tax rates for years. The resident has been saying they are a non resident, and the non resident has been saying they are a resident. The current laws are 90 years old and full of holes. The proposed changes are a physical presence and time based model, backed up at law by immigration records, so no reviews, no appeals, just days in and out of Australia, which can't be refuted. The proposed changes will net them all, and, without an exemption, or the introduction of a tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets, pensioners will be caught up in the net and will have to pay.

He doesn't get it. He doesn't understand the whole game changes as a non resident. I've posted links showing the pension is deemed an income. I've posted links showing the pension is taxable. I've posted links showing the non resident tax brackets. Yet, he still believes he will enjoy the benefit of the tax free threshold in resident tax brackets, even after being deemed a non resident for tax purposes. To be fair, I have asked him to post some links backing up his argument, only to be told "they don't exist." Here's another similar link. This time it's "Carvets and CaroATO." https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 "As a non-resident for tax purposes, we'll only tax you on the income you receive from Australia sources such as interest and your pension." I hope he sees the pension will be taxed at non resident rates also, not just the interest, which he says is "other income" that will be taxed, with the pension being exempted by a non resident tax free threshold that "does not exist" also.

Poor attempt at a personal attack. Without any links, I find your argument just your "interpretation" and "opinion" and is basically hot air and wishful thinking. Come up with some substance.

You are simply wrong. I have asked which one out of five points you think is incorrect in a previous post. Once you chose one, or more, and back it up with some "existing" links, then your argument can be explored. I'll gladly concede if you can prove your argument to me.

Again, you refuse to address the non resident tax brackets. They are 32.5% from $0. All the material you post is in relation to resident tax rates. The whole game changes when you are a non resident. Post a link showing pensions do not come under the non resident tax brackets. Too right it doesn't exist, and that's why it's highly probably pensioners will have 32.5% tax withheld from their pension after being outside of Australia for 6 months when the proposed changes are passed, exactly the way they have their supplements withheld after being outside of Australia for 6 weeks. I find it laughable that you state on here "pensioner do not pay tax" and then admit there are no links to back up your argument because such links don't exist. The links don't exist because your argument doesn't exist.

Do tell. Paul Hogan tried that, and look what happened to him. Who said Centerlink had to "collect" anything? They would simply withhold the 32.5% non resident tax in the same way they withhold the supplements. Yes, rocket science. It's clear that you seen to think pensions / pensioners are exempt from paying tax no matter their geographic location. So I can be clear on what point you are debating, can you tell me which of the following you believe to be incorrect? 1) The pension is deemed to be an income. 2) The pension is taxable. 3) There is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets. 4) There are no exemption in the proposed changes. 5) There is no proposed new tax free threshold for the non resident tax brackets. I have proved links for all of the above. If you can tell me one or more of the five thins above that is wrong, and back it up with some links, I could better understand why you think pensions / pensioners will not have to pay non resident tax. You are wrong. The pension is deemed an income, simple as that. I have posted links to this previously. It has nothing to do with having other sources of income, or not. You still can't get your head around the non resident tax brackets. I'll post them again for your benefit. Can you show me in the table below where someone's first $26,000 (the pension) doesn't have to pay any tax? The "zero tax" you are talking about is for residence of Australia for tax purposes. Living in Thailand for more than 183 days, you will be deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes and the rate is 32.5% from $0 to $120,000. Foreign residents tax rates 2023–24 Foreign resident tax rates 2023–24 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $120,000 32.5c for each $1 $120,001 – $180,000 $39,000 plus 37c for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $61,200 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

No contradiction. I am a resident for tax purposes, due to maintaining a domicile, and should I ever be questioned, I will say I am maintaining that domicile because I have every intention of returning to Australia to live. However, I really should be classified as a non resident, but due to loopholes in the current 90 year old laws, the ATO can't prove I am a non resident for reasons mentioned in a previous post. Thus, the government's need to move to a physical presence and time based tax residency model that does away with the loopholes.

For 90 years Australia's residency tax legislation has been based on whether or not an individual is "domiciled" in Australia, and whether or not that individual has an "intention" of returning. One can prove their intention to return by maintaining a property, a vehicle, utility bills, club memberships, family ties etc etc etc etc. The ATO can not prove you do not have an intention to return to Australia if you stick to your story that you do have an intention to return, particularly if you have left things in place for that return, such as the above. I, and some friends here, have maintained a "domicile" back in Australia. We haven't cut all ties to Australia except for income derived from Australia. We, and our various accountants, believe this is why we have never paid a cent of tax at the non resident rate, and it's due to the loopholes in the 90 year old tax laws. I, for one, can see why the government would want to change the current laws to laws based on physical presence and time, because just about every Aussie expat, all around the world, has been avoiding non resident tax for decades. Tell me how. You have no idea, do you? My income is derived from Australia. I pay resident tax on it, and have the benefit of the tax free threshold. I lodge tax returns each year. If I declare myself a non resident, I pay 32.%% from $0 to $120,000. That's a lot more tax than I am currently paying. Hence, keeping a "domicile" back in Australia, as well as all the other things mentioned. Then, it's up to the ATO to prove I have no intention of every returning to use them again. At law, it's very difficult to prove "intent" as it's in the person's mind. Thus, the inevitable change to a physical presence and time based model which does away with all the loopholes.

Where is the exemption for pensioners in the proposed changes? Where is a new tax free threshold for non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes so pensions are not taxed? As I have said before, pensioners may very well be collateral damage, and given they don't vote at election time, where's the political damage in lost votes if they do have 32.5% of their pension withheld in non resident tax?

Let me be very clear about it, and you can quote me on this. After the change of government, when the Assistant Treasurer met with expats in Singapore and said to then the proposed changes were in the government's "in tray" (link previously posted) I have always said it appears it's not IF, just WHEN. I have also gone on to say that even if Labor do not bring in the proposed changes, the next Liberal government will because they are the ones that proposed them, so once again, it's only a matter of time. We can speculate on "when" the current Labor government may or may not bring in the proposed changes, but you can quote me on saying that it is my opinion that they will eventually be passed, by either political party, at some stage in the future. As mentioned in a previous post, we saw how quick the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts happened. The proposed changes to tax residency will have no where near the same media scrutiny and will be easily passed in by Labor because it's the opposition party that proposed them.

I would think the "discussion paper" was put forward back in 2021 by the Liberal government. This was the "consultation paper" in which stake holders could make final submissions. So, I am thinking it's closer than what you think. As for holding my breath about changes to tax legislation, what about those changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts? You wake up one morning, and suddenly the Stage 3 tax cuts have changed. That's how quick it can happen. Here's an article from today. "Everything on the table" in relation to changes to taxation. I'd say the proposed changes to tax residency legislation would be on the table as well. Stage 3 tax cuts: Allegra Spender, Bill Kelty call to overhaul system beyond income tax cuts (smh.com.au)

Why do you think the changes will not be passed? Who is going to object to the legislation? The previous Liberal government proposed them, and the current Labor government is running with them. I can't see it being an election issue, so who is going to stand in the way of them being passed?

I could do 45 days, and even cop 60 days, but 90 days a year is not good. Dated October 23. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/business-travellers-tourists-could-be-caught-in-new-tax-rules-20231017-p5ecvy

Nope. Those on a full pension have posted. I am self funded and posted. I think you are the only member actively posting who is on a part pension. Are you considering some financial restructuring after the changes come in?

How can you lose land that you can never really own in Thailand? The purchase money just gets redistributed to Thai's, one way or another.

What about those that haven't lost their life savings in Thailand, are they "lucky" or something else????

1st Feb 21 is nearly 3 years ago. Do try to keep up with the latest news on the civil war in Myanmar to save embarrassing yourself anymore than you already have.

Hardly. Serious question.

Another useless troll post from you. That makes it 500 superfluous, redundant, and against forum rules posts you have made in reply to me. It may simply come down to who lives longer as to who will prevail.

Have you seen the price of houses and rents across the country lately?