KhunHeineken

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?"

Not about agreeing with me, it's about the links I, and some others, have put forward that show the pension is deemed an income, the pension is taxable, and there is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets, and then the proposed changes with the 183 day "bright line test." If you agree with the links, then say so. It's not personal.

Where does it mention in your link if the pensioner is residing overseas?

Good to see you are being proactive. If I was to do the same, and report back here, people would still not believe me. Check out this link. It specifically mentions "The pension is my sole source of income." https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 Could "Caro" from the ATO also be wrong?

You're joking, right? No confusion here. Blake tells Bob he will have to pay 32.5% tax on his pension. Seems clear to me. "As a foreign resident for tax purposes, you will pay income tax according to foreign resident rates. This means for all income under $180k, you'll pay 32.5c per dollar. You would only report and pay tax on your Australian-sourced income to us." - what don't you understand about this???????? Are you suggesting the pension is not "Australian sourced income?"

It's been working for many, including myself, for decades. Why do you think they proposed the changes? Good point, and as I have said, the current 90 year old laws are mainly about "domicile" and "intention" thus, a lot of loopholes. It's all set to change to a system that will automatically flag an individual as a non resident after 183 days outside of Australia which will be linked to immigration, ATO, and Centerlink data bases. The proposed changes will be passed in the future, by either government. No point trying to discuss the loopholes in the current legislation that many have benefited from in the past.

Not just the ATO being incorrect, every other link and Youtube clip, they are all incorrect, yet he is correct. When does "interesting" give way to "trolling?"

The member has posted a link to such "does not exist" yet, he is to be believed that is the case. Funny that. The pension is taxable. (links previously provided) It's the tax free threshold that basically sees the pension not taxed. There is no tax free threshold for non residents, yet, the member believes regardless of tax free thresholdes, and geographic location, the pension is not taxable. Yet, no links provided by the member to back up the claim. According to the member, Blake from the ATO is wrong, yet, no link provided showing where Blake is wrong.

Sounds like a double back flip to me. Link please. Well, you could start with trying to post some links to "prove" you opinion, interpretation, theory etc. You claim to have done some "research" so it should be easy to post some of that "research" so we can all see how you came to your conclusion.

If one was doing that, to a decent degree, they would be on a part pension, not an aged pension. So, you must be talking about fully franked shares. If so, you have an interesting point, but how does this help those on a full aged pension, which is this forum title?

Mentioned it many times since I raised this single most important issue facing expat pensioners in decades.

Wrong yet again. It still remains my principle place of residence. I am just on a long holiday. (for the record, which I have stated in the past, I am not on the aged pension, but my point still stands) How do YOU propose my accountant gets around me being outside of Australia for 183 days? Rubbish. Post a link or stop posting misinformation.

Absolutely ZERO "what if's" in the proposed changes. The 90 year old laws that have a lot of loopholes will be replaced by a physical presence and time model, backed up by immigration records, which can not be refuted. You are still trying to cherry pick 90 year old legislation that will soon be redundant and replaced. The best pensioners can hope for is either an exemption, or a tax free threshold added to the non resident tax brackets.

If you maintain a "domicile" (property) you will have no case whatsoever when the proposed are passed. It will no longer be relevant. 45 days inside Australia and meet two of the criteria in the Factor Test = resident for tax purposes. 183 days outside Australia = non resident for tax purposes. The above will be all it comes down to, and I would suggest, most expat retirees will be outside of Australia for 183 days.

Can you post a link confirming this? You say "Blake" from the ATO is wrong, but I have also posted another link from the ATO Community website from another ATO staff member saying the same thing as Blake, that's on top of Youtube clips and many other links. Do you really expect members to believe those sources are all wrong, and you are right, without producing any evidence to back up your claim?