KhunHeineken

Breach of forum rules.

Not much happening back in Australia these days that isn't embarrassing.

That's 183 days inside Australia EVERY YEAR, or possibly face a 32.5% lower pension. Nothing to do with the qualification period for portability.

You really have no idea. Have you heard of the term "mortgage prison?" Basically, it's where a mortgagee does not qualify for a new mortgage on the same property they have being paying their current mortgage on because interest rates have gone up, and they no longer meet the bank's lending criteria for a mortgage on the property. Plenty on the internet and in the news about it. https://www.smh.com.au/money/banking/borrowers-warned-mortgage-prison-escape-plan-could-trip-them-up-20230622-p5dioy.html "With the rise in interest rates since May last year, many mortgage holders would fail the stress test now, leaving them unable to switch to a mortgage with a lower interest rate." The bank will not and can not "structure things" for people they know can not afford the loan under current interest rates. It's as simple as that.

Is this on topic for "Australia Aged Pension?" https://www.austchamthailand.com/thai-government-to-begin-taxing-foreign-sourced-income-as-of-2024/ This guy explains it in simple terms. More information will be forthcoming, but it appears one may have to chose, or be deemed by either Australia, or Thailand, as to their tax residency status. Of interest, Australia says 183 days, but this guy says for Thailand it's 180 days. If this is the case, the only way I can see getting around paying non resident tax in Australia is to spend 186 days inside Australia, then spend 179 days inside Thailand. This will see you qualify as a resident for tax purposes of Australia, and a non resident for tax purposes of Thailand. Interesting times ahead, of course, all of this just could be for guys like Paul Hogan.

Any legislation will be for everyone, unless exemptions and/or means testing is placed within the legislation. There was no mention of either in the proposed changes. The myth of it being too costly to the government to financially pressure retired expats to return to Australia has been discussed. The main argument is medical costs, but all that will happen is the queue for Medicare gets longer. They are not going to hire extra medical staff because over the next couple of years thousands of retired expats return to Australia, spread across the country. I have explained before how the government would like all that pension money circulating in the Australian economy, not assisting a foreign country's economy. They get a lot of that pension money back in GST, excise, levies, tolls, fees, licenses, rates, insurance etc etc. The rest helps create employment, and what do employees pay, income tax. It's about repatriating that pension money. They couldn't care less about the actual pensioner. As mentioned, they will not increase Medicare services, just let the queue become longer. Same with public transport. The buses and trains run anyway. It's already paid for. No problem if there is an extra passenger who is a pensioner getting a cheap ride. That small amount paid by the pensioner for a train ride will be a bonus, because it's extra money. That pensioner was living overseas before. Some of that rent assistance comes back in the form of the landlord paying tax on rental income, rates, capital gains on sale etc etc. As for energy allowance, that's another account / sale for an electricity company. There's supply fee and GST on electricity. That liter of fuel at the servo, that beer at the RSL, that packet of cigarettes, most of it is tax, all going back to the egovernment. You are ignoring the flow on effect of having billions of dollars in pension money circulating in the Australian economy, and not a foreign country's economy.

The property market in Oz is resilient because of the lack of supply. It's in the financial interest of all 3 tiers of government to have a higher housing prices. I have never suggested they should do away with negative gearing. In my opinion, it needs some regulation. For example, a barrister or a surgeon, on a high salary, having 5 or 6 investment properties in nice suburbs, in order to lower their own personal tax, needs to change. They could put a cap on the amount of properties one can own, or a cap on the dollar value of an investment property portfolio. Bill Shorten went to an election with this idea and was voted down. Too many people on the negative gearing gravy train now. You're joking, right? You don't think there is a property bubble back in Australia? Are you serious? You do know thousands of property owners are coming off fix rates and they already know they can't afford their monthly repayment after several interest rate rises over the last 12 months. They thought cheap money would be around forever. I think there will be another interest rate rise next month, or in December. You have contradicted yourself. You say the property market in Oz is resilient, but then say it's due for a market correction. If due for a market correction, it's not going to be so resilient, is it? It's a bubble that is being propped up by lack of supply, hence, the housing shortage Australia has right now, which is leading to unaffordable housing, and homelessness, not to mention enslaving people for 30 years to a bank. Look at all the land in Australia, and we have a housing crisis. It's a disgrace.

I've never disputed that the ATO write of debts. I have only asked a certain member that continually posts on here that, basically, any debt accumulated by a non resident for tax purposes will be written off because it probably will not be that much. I have requested the member on many occasions to supply a link setting out what dollar value the ATO will chase, and will not chase. Still waiting for that link, yet he continues to bait and troll me. Given we are all living longer, say you retire at 65 on a pension, and move to Thailand, for good. That would / could be about 15 years, or more, depending on the individual's health, of 32.5% of the aged pension accruing in ATO debt, although I am on the opinion Centrelink will withhold the 32.5%, based on the information given to them by immigration. For those on a part pension, or self funded, i can't see the ATO allowing years of non resident tax to just die with an expat overseas. Take into consideration the thousands of retired expats living outside of Australia, and I hardly think it's a small debt that the ATO will write off, either individually, or collectively.

No where in your post do your address the 183 days outside of Australia. I suggest you do some more research.

Your post is off topic. This thread is about the denial of the old aged pension. Please stay on topic.

Links posted have proven, beyond doubt, that the Australia aged pension is deemed to be an in income by the Australian government. Further links have proven that an expat pensioner living in Thailand, for years, can in no way argue their case they are a resident for taxation purposes. There was even a link posted by another member from an ATO forum where an ATO staff member informed someone they should pay 32.5% tax of their pension if retiring overseas. It was the "Bob and Blake" link. The government has proposed changes in their "in tray" that shows the 90 year old laws surrounding tax residency MAY change in the future for a simple physical presence time based law. Many links provided about this also. However, here you are, saying none of this is relevant to the old age pension for an expat living in Thailand.

Unlike yourself, and your many "nom de plumes" I have a life outside AN. I sign in occasionally to debunk inaccurate posts, many of which are yours.

Government manufactured change in Australia culture. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rental-crisis-australian-children-move-back-in-with-parents/de73d3a4-192a-4370-912a-ce43a3f8edf4

It's not hypothetical. It's about law, and it happens every day, all around the world. "Intent" is difficult to prove. How does the prosecution actually prove what the accused was thinking at the time of the crime? Eg. Did they want to really kill them, or just mess them up? If the accused does say, "I wanted to kill him" how can the prosecution prove "intent" to kill? I was speaking in general. Without the evidence you mention, say she just committed the crime, what would the prosecution have? Very little. Just the first one on a Google search. https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice#:~:text=In any given year%2C 98,from the American Bar Association. "In any given year, 98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain — a practice that prizes efficiency over fairness and innocence, according to a new report from the American Bar Association." Of course, you say you would fight your case.

Better than the conduit pipe inserted up you know where, then a piece of barbed wire put up the pipe, and then the conduit pipe removed. Triva / Quiz. Guess who?

Listen to the lies. Do we want post covid tourism, or not? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-07/catherine-king-airfares-to-come-down-qantas-competition-730/102828870

And if she said it was an accident, or he grabbed her hair, punched her, domestic violence etc? How would her case look then? Point being, difficult to prove murder in this case if that was her story, or, she chooses not to be interviewed. Well, if you didn't deny it, I guess you also see an unjust judicial system in that bastion of freedom and democracy called, America.

What's $48 million when you have to make payments on this? https://australiandebtclock.com.au

Makes you wonder who has a lot of shares in Qantas, doesn't it?

How does a tradie work on the tools past 60, unless they have their own business? Their body is just not up to it anymore, despite mechanization.

The Voice was nothing but a diversion from the high cost of living, rising electricity costs, higher petrol costs, rising interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, homelessness, unaffordable housing and a housing shortage etc etc. Now The Voice is over, Albo has no where to hide from the real issues facing ALL Australians.

No need to worry folks. This law is only for guys like Paul Hogan.

I'm not arguing. In her police interview, say she said, "All I wanted to do was crash into his car so he couldn't use it." That's very different to saying, "I wanted to crash into his car to kill him." Do you see the difference, at law? Once again, not arguing. Can you give some more information about this case? Easy to say from a keyboard, and not in handcuffs. Many innocent people take the plea deal, or do you deny this?

A friend of mine chose to do this. Then again, living in your car is becoming a common thing in Australia now.

Why do you constantly post about the old age pension when you are on a vet pension? They are very different pensions in amounts, and benefits.