KhunHeineken

The burden of proof between a civil case and a criminal case is very different.

So, you have Blake, from the ATO, replying to Bob, on an ATO forum, in which Blake clearly, in writing, informs Bob he will be a non resident for tax purposes, and will pay income tax at 32.5%. Yes, a pension is deemed an "income" by the ATO. See various links to this in previous posts. Here's the relevant line in your link. Blake from the ATO: "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." Now, your friend rings the ATO and is told by a staff member, "not interested in pensioners." Did he get that staff member's name? Did that staff member email your friend any links to relevant laws and regulations? What information do we rely on, Blake's, or the staff member over the phone? One is right, and one is wrong. Did the call center staff member tell your friend don't worry about the 183 days, and don't worry about your pension being an income, because it's not relevant to you because these laws are "not interested in pensioners." Perhaps it really is just "for guys like Paul Hogan." Did that call center staff member tell your friend "pensions will be exempt?" Did that call center staff member tell your friend, "we are making changes to the non resident tax brackets and the first $35,000 will have a tax free threshold? On what basis did the call center staff member suggest your friend will be able to stand outside the law? Again, you are using words like "I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners." They are not "going after" them. It's a tax they should have already been paying, as Blake informed Bob in your link, but outdated 90 year old non resident tax laws have seen them avoid paying it. Then, there's people like myself, and part pensioners, that haven't been paying, either. Then, I dare say, high net worth individuals have been avoiding paying it as well. It's not a new tax. What is new will be the 183 days automatic deeming of non resident status for taxation purposes, and with a pension being deemed an "income" at law, I would really like to know what information the call center staff member is basing their advice on. Do you think if he rang again, he may get different advice? Perhaps if he rang a third time, I would not be surprised if he got different advice from the first two calls. This is why I put more weight on what is in writing. "Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia" - but the call center staff just told your friend he doesn't have to because they are "not interested in pensioners" and you said they are not "going after" pensioners, so why are you saying this? Do we rely on the written word of the law, or your mate's telephone call and your opinion? "that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $." - it's a pension, not a share portfolio. How does this help pensioners with the proposed changes? "Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO. - where's the "chasing?" Immigration inform Centrelink and the ATO that John Smith, the Aussie old age pensioner, has been outside Australia for 183 days, therefore, he's now deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes. If he's on a part pension, the ATO bill him for 32.5%, and if he's only on a pension, Centrelink reduce his pension by 32.5% the first fortnight after the 183 days. Simple. All this is taking place while they are still "going after" guys like Paul Hogan. These changes simply get everyone outside of Australia for 183 days. No gray area, nothing to review, nothing to appeal. It's a numbers game, and the magic number is 183. You, and others, make it sound like the ATO and Centrelink have to employ 200 extra staff, with office space, to implement this. They don't. Computer data bases will do all the heavy lifting. Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do? Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court? Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok? No. He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.

For the mobile signal, have you considered something like this? https://www.lazada.co.th/products/electronicshopelectronicshop-110-220-v-tri-band-amplifier-900-1800-2100-gsm-dcs-wcdma-2g3g4g-lte-universal-booster-repeater-us-plug-i338956760.html?spm=a2o4m.searchlist.list.1.6f493c9fVmHCK2

I used to use Teamviewer, but now I use AnyDesk. https://anydesk.com/en-au

You still don't get it, do you? What does it take for the penny to drop? Blake explains to Bob that he has to pay non resident tax on his pension. That's 32.5% of it. That "tax policy" or tax law has been around for decades. It's not a new tax. You, me, and probably most members reading this thread should have been paying it every year we have been living in Thailand. Stop thinking the proposed changes are a new tax, they are not. Expat pensioners haven't been paying non resident tax because of a big gray area in current tax law, the same law Blake informs Bob about, because the ATO couldn't distinguish been an Aussie living overseas and therefore clearly a non resident, and an Aussie having a long holiday overseas. That's the brief version of it. The longer version is, consideration is given if the person has a domicile in Australia, community ties, family, a vehicle, maintains a utility bill etc etc. Basically, things that would tend to show they have every intention of returning to live in Australia. The trouble for the ATO was proving "intention" of returning, or not returning, and most expat retirees have access to a family member's residence, or domicile. How does the ATO prove one's state of thinking, or their "intention?" It was basically to time consuming and costly to try, so we all got away with not paying non resident tax. People constantly asking for reviews, appealing the adjudication, not paying etc tended to make it not worthwhile to prosecute these cases. The above is a very short and simplified version of the pages and pages of criteria of resident v non resident on the ATO website. There are people working overseas on big money, but spending a lot of time in Australia, who pay no tax in Australia, despite using all of Australia's infrastructure. Then, you had the opposite, those living overseas but deriving an income from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an "income" at law. This demographic is us, living in Thailand, on Aussie income, pension, or otherwise. We are stripping money out of the Australian economy. Many in the two groups above didn't really pay non resident tax. Now, the government, that's Labor and Liberal (see the Labor "in-tray" link) are changing the old way of determining someone's residency for taxation purposes from "domicile, community ties, family, vehicle utility bill etc" and "intention of returning to Australia" to 183 days inside Australia you are a resident for taxation purposes, and 183 days outside of Australia you are a non resident for taxation purposes. The non resident tax brackets haven't changed. The definition of "income" hasn't changed. It's not a new tax. It will just close the loopholes in the current non resident tax laws, which are 90 years old. What has changed is the gray area mentioned above will change to simply the amount of days inside and outside Australia a year. No more gray area. Nothing to review. Nothing to appeal. Nothing to prosecute. Basically, judge, jury, and executioner. Pensioners may wonder, well, I'm living in a village in Issan, how can they make me pay non resident tax? As I have said, pensioner's "payer" is also their "taxer" so, in my opinion, and I'll say that again, in my opinion, once a pensioner is outside of Australia for 183 days, their pension will be reduced by 32.5%, in the same way it is reduced now when outside Australia for 6 weeks. Self funded retirees with simply get a bill from the ATO. A while ago I actually read the pages and pages on the ATO website about resident v non resident. There are so many clauses and sub-clauses. It's all going to change to 45 days and 185 days. Simple as that. The government is not changing tax policy. The government is not introducing a new tax. The government is going to bring in a system that allows them to ensure compliance with existing tax non resident tax laws. Does this make it clearer for you, or are you going to tell me the 183 days only apply to guys like Paul Hogan, or you still have a Medicare Card so you are still a resident for taxation purposes, despite living in Thailand full time?

At any point in time there are around 1 million Aussies living and / or working overseas. (link already provided) What about the hundreds of thousands of other Aussie expats, many of them working on six figure salaries, do they get a free pass because the government doesn't want to force a minority of that 1 million, being expat pensioners, to pay non resident tax? If you are suggesting safety in numbers, expat pensioners don't make up the majority of the 1 million Aussie expats around the world. Like I said, expat pensioners should already be paying this tax. It's not a new tax. What is changing is compliance / enforcement, forcing expats to pay non resident tax rates in the future, and without an exemption, or a change to the non resident tax thresholds, that will include pensioners as well. The tax itself isn't changing, just how the ATO determines one's tax residency is changing, and it's based on days outside of Australia. It's funny how you will not comment on the Bob and Blake link.

Whist as recent as a week ago, there was one member under the belief that expats still had access to the domestic tax free threshold, and another member believing if he didn't withdraw his money from an ATM in Thailand then the government wouldn't know he is outside of Australia, I feel compelled to keep posting on the matter. What assistance do you offer?

Did you read the Bob and Blake link? If so, what has that got to do with being nice to expat pensioners, or how much tax can be collected from them? That link confirms that expat pensioners should already be paying non resident tax. It's the gray area in the 90 year old laws which meant the ATO couldn't chase every individual case and prosecute it. It was too costly and time consuming for them to distinguish who was on a long holiday, and who had left Australia with no intention of returning, and how would they prove the tax payer had no intention of returning? It's not about an individual's net worth. It's about ensuring compliance with non resident tax law, and the proposed changes were designed to do just that. The new laws turn that gray area in to "days" inside and outside of Australia to ensure compliance. That compliance is part of tax enforcement. The "days" will be proven by immigration records. Simple, effective, and cheap for the ATO to deem expats either as residents or non residents for taxation purposes through immigration records. Once again, you are posting like it's a new tax, it's not. It's about finally scooping up ALL expats that are non residents for taxation purposes by changing the gray area into "days." The non resident tax brackets are still the same. The amount of tax a non resident must pay is still the same. The definition of "income" at law is still the same. What will change is the ease in which the ATO can deem an expat as a resident or non resident for taxation purposes, and the key "days" are 45 and 183. I'll ask you again, how will an expat pensioner argue they are a resident for taxation purposes when they are living in Thailand full time, and how will they argue their pension is not an "income" at law? There were no exemption or a change to thresholds mentioned in the proposed changes. How would they avoid paying non resident tax, other than returning to Australia for 6 months of the year? Links have been provided showing a pension is deemed to be an income at law. Put simply, it was never about a new tax on expats. It was about ensuring non residents paid the correct amount of tax and not continue to use loopholes in 90 year old tax laws. The debate about fairness, dollar amounts, Labor v Liberal etc is irrelevant. I don't know how to be any clearer than this.

In Jim we trust. We will soon see who has to pays more, and who will receive more.

No speculation and no deflection. You refuse to answer the simple question, how do you think the ATO will deem someone outside of Australia for 183 days?

Only for Over 55's. Is that Labor fundamentals? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-03/jobseeker-budget-boost-for-over-55s/102279970 "While older JobSeeker recipients look likely to receive a modest increase in support, roughly 684,000 single people under 55 on JobSeeker and Youth Allowance would see their payments — at $49.51 and $40.20-per day — remain well below the Henderson poverty line."

It works, until the money runs out, or a wealthier guy comes along.

It caused over 2000 deaths. Disgraceful. What a legacy to leave as a politician. Totally immoral. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

He's a crook. https://www.theage.com.au/national/stuart-robert-lobbying-conflict-claims-demand-further-inquiry-20230328-p5cvzr.html

I've known a few guys over the years that will look me in the face and say they do not pay their Thai lady for sex, yet admit to buying her the latest phone, new motorbike, and sending money to the family in the village for some house repair that doesn't really exist etc. Money, money money. Paying, paying, paying, but never for the sex. Whatever reconciles it for them in their own head, they fool no one, only themselves.

The Australian housing market will tank. No one will have any money to pay for sex. Booze has too much tax and excise on it so people will stay home and drink. Dump your position and buy shares in banks. Their profits are already up near 20% and there's more interest rate rises to come.

You are just trolling now. I'm sure it went longer than the 20 seconds it would have taken to say what he was quoted as saying in the article. In any case, the point of me posting that link was to show that Labor have the proposed changes in their "in-tray" as said by the Assistant Treasurer. The proposed changes are not dead in the water as many members thought they may have been because Labor is such a caring and sharing political party.

But you will be able to if they keep printing money.

Of course I don't have the transcript, but I am sure the meeting went more in depth than just the brief comments reported in the article. Once again, if if they condense 100 scenarios into the 183 day rule, how does that help retired expats who have not lived in Australia for years, and who have no intention of returning for 6 months every year in order to maintain a resident for tax purposes status? You are missing the point. The Bob and Blake link confirms expat retires should already be paying non resident tax, and should have done for years. The proposed changes just make it easier to either bill them, as in the case of self funded retires, or reduce their pension, as in the case with retirees on a pension. The 183 day may be of interest to those who come and go from Australia, maybe Australia's version of the European snowbirds, but in general, for expat retirees, the 183 day law is of little consequence because what it does is turns the gray area into a maths formula informing "days." It's as simple as that. Did you read the testimonies in the article? if you are teaching overseas, for example, and come back to Australia for the overseas school holidays, totaling 6 weeks over the year, then something unforeseen happens to a family member in Australia, causing you to return, you have basically used up your 45 days on non resident status allowance. However, this is irrelevant to expat retirees. Again you are focusing on the dollar return from pensioners as the motivation for the proposed changes, and I have said many times pensioners may very well just be collateral damage, because as it stands, there are no exemptions or thresholds mentioned in the proposed changes. As another member called it a blanket law or blanket tax. Again you miss the point that pensioners should already be paying non resident tax anyway. This was confirmed in the Bob and Blake link. 45 days or 183 days is of little consequence because what these laws will do is reduce the gray area to "days" inside and outside of Australia, backed up by immigration records, and there will be no way getting around that. I really thought we were past the votes lost from pensioners and the dollars gained from pensioners debate about it, because the proposed changes seem to care little about both.

It's a news article, not a transcript of the whole meeting. I'm sure he spoke about the proposed changes more in depth than what was reported in the article. That said, many working expats want to be deemed a non resident because they are working for big dollars in a low tax jurisdiction. They don't want to come under Australia's non resident tax laws, so the 45 day law is more applicable to them than the 183 day law. Then you have expats with small incomes from Australia, including pensions, that want to be deemed a resident for tax purposes, so they do not come under the Australian non resident tax brackets, so the 183 day law is more applicable to them than the 45 day law. Can you see how the proposed changes scoop up everyone? I'll ask you the same question I asked another member recently. Given the proposed changes, how would an expat argue that they are a resident for tax purposes when they have spent maybe 2 months in Australia out of the last 5 years, or haven't even been back to Australia at all in the last 5 years? How could one possible argue they are an Australian resident for tax purposes? For most expats, the 183 days is irrelevant because they have no intention of returning to Australia for 6 months every year for the purposes of qualifying for tax resident status. Once again, confirmed by the Bob and Blake link, that pensioners should already be paying non resident tax. If one maintains a domicile, maybe a vehicle, a utility bill, bank account, community ties and has family,, basically all the things that kept them in the gray area for so long, the 183 day law does away with all of it. If one is a resident because they have been in Australia for more than 183 days, wouldn't that mean one is a non resident because they have been outside of Australia for more than 183 days? It can't work both ways.

Yes, and soon you'll have to use a wheel barrow to cart the money into a bakery, just to buy a loaf of bread.

A little bit of Aseannow has died with him. He was the encyclopedia of Thailand's visa laws, and everything in between the lines of those visa laws, and helped so many people over the years. He will be missed. RIP.

I actually thought the Labor government would extend this, as it was for covid, but now due to the high cost of living, but it appears not. https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-budget-2023-low-middle-income-tax-offset-stage-three-tax-cuts-explained/b0735bc5-ce62-4c29-a923-354710093ed3 "So for many Australians (according to the ATO, more than 10 million people claimed the LMITO in 2019-20), their tax bill will increase by up to $1500 next year." Fundamentally unlike Labor.

From the Australian Debt Clock link. Total all debt. "Total Australian Credit outstanding includes all debt and equity outstanding of the domestic non-financial sectors. Total Australian Credit has grown from AU$787.7 billion in December 1989 to AU$6.3 trillion in December 2016; an increase of a little over 800% over a 27 year period." Total government debt. "Total Government Debt is the gross sum of liabilities across federal, state and local Government in Australia. Total Australian Government Debt increased by a mere 13.5% from December 1989 to December 2007, from AU$81.2 billion to AU$92.1 billion. However, from December 2008 to December 2017 Total Australian Government debt increased by over 520% from AU$115.4 billion to AU$716.3 billion. The primary reason behind this increase has been to provide depth in the market for government bonds so that the Reserve Bank of Australia can easily increase liquidity through open market operations by printing more Australian Dollars and buying the government bonds back." Some scary statistics.

No. The way it reads to me is this part of the proposed changes has nothing to do with retired expats who are living overseas full time. Many working expats wish to be deemed a non resident for tax purposes, but were concerned if they came home for a 4 week or 6 week holiday, and then had to come home again within the same year for something unexpected like a funeral or illness or injury to a family member, then that would put them over the 45 days, but still under the 183 days, so they would be deemed a resident for taxation purposes, and hit with a tax bill from the ATO. Here's a quote from the article about it. "Vanessa is a school teacher, and like many of her colleagues would return to Australia for the annual six-week break. However, based on a 45-day allowance, this would not provide for any buffer if she needs to fly home for emergencies such as a family member being unwell or even a teacher conference. As the draft rules stand, the 45-day test does not distinguish between work or personal travel. If Martyn was required to attend Australia for work-related purposes, this would also reduce potential visits for the balance of the year." In my opinion, there's no doubt that if you are outside of Australia for 183 days you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes. This is obvious. As seen by a link posted by another member, involving Bob asking a question on an ATO Forum, and Blake, an ATO staff member answering, and something we have addressed time and time again on this thread, with many disagreeing, expat pensioners should already be paying non resident tax, but it's the grey area of 90 year old laws that allow so many, including myself, to slip through. The 183 days, linked to immigration records, will do away with that grey area and see every expat "deemed" a resident or non resident for taxation by the ATO simply based on the amount of days inside and outside of Australia. It's a simple and as cut and dry as that, no gray area, at all. Nothing to ask for a review, nothing to appeal. Black and white law. This is the real issue for consideration with these proposed changes. Not whether a pension is an income, or if you still have a Medicare Card, because these were already known at law well before these proposed changes, but the ease in which the government will be able to deem you in the future, simply through immigration records, and not through a 90 year old law's gray area. This is why they were designed the way they were. Simply to scoop everyone up, and have no way to appeal the tax bill, as it's all about the amount of days inside and outside Australia, nothing more. The member's link involving Bob and Blake settles a lot of debate. The 183 days in the proposed changes does away with any existing gray area and will be based on immigration records. I think this is pretty clear. When you simply look at these two things, the issue facing expat retirees, including pensioners, becomes very clear. Pensioners are already having their pension reduced when outside of Australia for 6 weeks. Consider how easy that is for the government to do, then consider the 183 day law with no exemptions or threshold, and one can see the financial impact, and the seriousness, of these proposed changes on expat retirees.