KhunHeineken

I posted that link because I found it interesting that in 2018 - 19 more people left Australia than returned. No other reason. It was not about the amounts of people. Obviously, should that trend continue, and it very well might, due to the increasing higher cost of living in Australia, more and more retirees make seek to retire abroad, thus creating a bigger incentive to tax them. I posted the other link for you because you said you couldn't be bother to scroll back, so yes, I posted it for your benefit. What is so shaky and hypothetical about the proposed changes to non resident tax law? It's in black and white. Do you see any exemptions, thresholds, or means and assets test in them?

Talk about changing the narrative to suit your argument. Now you are banging on about living in Australia for 6 months for the purposes of tax minimization and how there are nice climates to chose from in Australia. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many wealthy expats chose to live in Thailand for things other than the climate. Eg. personal freedoms. I could win the lottery tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to stay in Australia for 6 months of the year, for every year. The bleeding obvious, which you fail to see as relevant, is if / when these proposed changes are passed into law, every expat, including pensioners, will be impacted financially. The impact may be so great that many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand. There could very well be a 32.5% reduction in pensions, because they are an "income" and the pensioner is overseas for more than 183 days a year. I know one pensioner who is preparing for it buy looking into caravan parks in Australia with decent locations, but with cheap rent. He will have to do the 6 months in Australia if his pension is reduced by 32.5% and will need cheap accommodation whilst serving his time. Would you like me to tell him none of this is relevant to him?

Can you give some examples?

Whilst posting the link for Lacessit, I came across this statistic from a credible source. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australias-population-over-75-million-born-overseas "In addition, in 2018-19 there were 75,000 Australian citizens who returned to Australia after living overseas but in the same year there were nearly 87,000 who decided to emigrate." It shows more leaving than returning. I wonder how many retirees were in the 87,000.

Support, by way of security updates, would be the main reason. Support for Windows 10 doesn't end until October 2025, so I see no rush to move from 10 to 11, which is another reason Windows 11 has not been widely adopted to date.

No sour grapes. Any operating system that would not work on a high percentage of machines, all around the world, was not going to be widely adopted in a short time frame. If it wasn't a publicity stunt, how important is the TPM anyway? Microsoft said Windows 10 was going to be their last operating system, yet they bought out Windows 11. Why is Microsoft still sending the notification that a machine does not meet the minimum requirements for Windows 11 when they have allowed people with older machines to install Windows 11?

I disagree that I am practicing sophistry. I have backed up my comments with links, and when I have posted my opinion, I have said so. I simply disagree with you that cost will be higher than the reward in this matter. As another member said, at this stage, it appears the 183 day law is a "blanket" law that covers everyone. Such a blanket law is bound to be profitable for government, otherwise it would be scrapped. Given the Labor party are aware of the proposed changes, and I have posted a link showing this, as they are possibly going to change the 45 day part of the law, it may be the case Labor pick up what Liberal started. Here's another link. Don't know if it's the same one I posted before. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040 "At any time there’s around one million Australians living and working overseas. Properly preparing for a long stint outside Australia will make the transition less stressful. Read Going overseas to live or work on the smartraveller website for more information." Services Australia would have credible data. In relation to cost, all of the current infrastructure would be used. I believe some pensions are already reduced when outside Australia for something like 6 weeks, I would see the 183 day law as operating not much differently to what is already happening. Actually, the 183 day law would probably be cheaper to implement and enforce because there is no gray area. There would be nothing to review, nothing to appeal. It's there in black and white and can not be refuted by the tax payer because immigration has it documented, and we have already established that a pension is deemed an "income" at law.

How so? Take a reasonably wealthy expat retiree in Thailand. Maybe a good sum in cash at bank or super, or a large share portfolio, or a small portfolio of rental properties. How will they "easily conform" to the 183 day law?

For me, health is wealth. Nothing more important than your health. The insurance is expensive though.

It means Australia is heading towards becoming a banana republic.

Good post. I just posted this link in another thread. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-feeble-economy-for-rest-of-decade-imf-downbeat-on-outlook-20230411-p5czgf.html It paints a bleak picture of the Australian economy.

Fair point. So, what odds do you give it? What percentage do you place on it being passed? Have a look at this article, particularly the second half of the article. Talk of the need to raise the GST and so on. Australia is in trouble, big trouble, with debt soon to hit over a trillion dollars. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-feeble-economy-for-rest-of-decade-imf-downbeat-on-outlook-20230411-p5czgf.html "But a report by independent think tank the Grattan Institute, released overnight, shows the country remains on track for 25 years of deficits without significant structural change." 25 years of deficits. They have to pull the money in from somewhere. The Liberals commissioned the proposed changes to non resident tax laws. The Labor government are aware of the draft legislation. The current laws are around 90 years old. Just think what overseas travel looked like 90 years ago. Then consider no mobiles phones and no internet back then. Fast forward to 2023 and people can easily live and work in other countries, and easily travel back to their home country to visit friends and family. Why wouldn't they bring the non resident tax laws into the current century? Why are you telling me this? You should be voicing this opinion to your Local Member of Parliament. You have read the proposed changes. There are no exemptions, means or asset tests, or thresholds mentioned in them. They were designed to be a blanket law in order to scoop up everyone outside of Australia for 183 days. How could one appeal this? What legal grounds would they have? in any case, how is this relevant to the Aussie expat living in Thailand, who is clearly a non resident for taxation purposes, and not just on a holiday? How could he get around the "blanket" law? Once again, this is your opinion. I have openly admitted I have been living overseas in the gray area. I live overseas, but don't pay non resident tax rates. I'm sure many others are the same. Some other members have admitted this also. Why wouldn't the government want to eventually catch up with me? There have been all sorts of reasons put forward as to why members believe these laws will not be passed. Some were quite humorous. Paul Hogan, pensioner backlash, losing votes etc etc. All of these reasons were discussed. It will be interesting what's in the May budget, but I can't see the government, current or future, throwing this draft legislation in the bin. In my opinion, it's not if, just when, that it will be passed, and the best we can hope for is a threshold or exemption. Why are you so confident these laws will not be passed?

I agree successive governments, from both parties, have made Australia a more unequal society. This is most evident with housing at this particular point in time. You seem to think because the savings are small, the government will not implement the 183 day law. Why is that? There will be big revenue from wealthy non residents, and the less wealthy and pensioners will simply be collateral damage. Does it really matter if they only save $1 billion for Centrelink? A savings is a savings. We have been through the "pensioner backlash" discussion before. I'll ask the question again. Why would a pensioner in Australia care one bit about pensioners overseas? Serious question? It doesn't effect them at all. Pensioners in Australia will vote for a $250 electricity voucher, and couldn't care less about Aussie pensioners overseas paying non resident tax because it doesn't concern them. There is no comradery amongst pensioners. Pensioners are just another demographic of voter that will vote for which party will put the most money in their pocket each fortnight.

I have posted links for you before. The links, which are credible, one being a government website, clearly state at any given time there are about 1 million Australians living overseas. We discussed what percentage of that 1 million were retired expats. From memory, I suggested around 20%, or 200,000, you suggested only 80,000. A member, possibly yourself, posted that Thailand had 20,000 Aussie expats. I posted a link showing Bali had 10,000 Aussie expats, so I think your figure of 80,000 is a bit skinny. These figures were discussed to show the savings to Centrelink by withholding 32.5% in non resident tax would be in the billions of dollars, which you disagreed with, and I posted math to show the savings would indeed be over a billion dollars. Now, you are asking for the same links again, about the same topic, which as already been discussed. Quite frankly, even if the government was one lousy dollar better off, why wouldn't they do it? I agree with you that bureaucracy expands. What is your point? As for computers taking staff away from the public service, I never suggested that. My point is, and members have given examples to back this up, at the press of a button, Centrelink staff, and no doubt immigration, the ATO etc etc, know that you are outside of Australian, and for how long you have been outside Australia. Surely you agree with this. This data can simply be used to implement / enforce the 183 day law if / when it comes in. If your point is, it will cost the government more money to withhold 32.5% of pensions from pensioners overseas, I disagree. It will simply be a data base doing it, and it's already happening with some pensions when people are overseas. You hope that the costs will exceed the savings, in my opinion, is incorrect.

The human weakness called "greed" means people can never have enough assets in their lifetime.

YOU posted the link. It contradicts the point YOU made, and it's YOUR own link. The example in YOUR link, Derek, relates to a high percentage of expats. I call you out on YOUR error, and YOU resort back to YOUR usual deflection and personal attack on me. Not to mention, your post is off topic.

"Wealthy" is a broad term. As a reference point, Australia's median personal income was $52,338 in 2019 - 20. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/personal-income-australia/2015-16-2019-20 At what dollar value would you say someone is wealthy?

With over 1 million Australians living overseas, and a large percentage of them retirees, one member claiming Thailand having 20,000 Australians alone, I would say it's financially beneficial to have all that welfare money remaining in the Australian economy for 2 years. With computers doing most of the work, I don't think wages of staff to implement the policy is an issue.

Which is my point. This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed. How so? I am in Thailand for prolonged periods of time, only returning for major family events. I have admitted I have been living in Thailand "in the gray area." Others have admitted the same. It's not illegal, it's just pushing the boundaries of the tax laws. How can one seriously claim to be a resident of Australia for tax purposes just because they have kept a house, car, utility account, bank account etc, when they haven't been back to Australia in over a year or more? In the past, it could have been argued that one was just on a long overseas holiday, with every intention of returning to Australia, hence maintaining ownership of a house, car etc, but the 183 day law will end that gray area and every Australian outside of Australia for 183 day will automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes. Where's the schadenfreude? We will all be impacted by the change in the non resident for taxation law, just some more than others, and I expect it will have a greater impact on myself than pensioners.

Have you never come across a geo blocked website?

OP, is your Hotmail account out of storage space. 15GB for email and 5GB for One Drive. The GB's include attachments as well.

Over a year ago I had a look for some work arounds and found the below clip that explains a lot about the TPM. This guy has a good channel with over 15m subs. I have watched some of his other clips over the years. After watching this clip, I formed my opinion and haven't really looked into Windows 11 since. Watching this clip is why I said the work around may not be able to be done by many users. It appears things were not going so well with the Windows 11 uptake, some may even say its introduction "flopped." Fast forward a little and Microsoft have realized they made an error and it's now as easy as what's in the clip below. Maybe the whole TPM thing in Windows 11 was just a publicity stunt.

I disagree it's a fallacy. People in poor countries are, well, poor. They can't afford to just go and buy a new computer for the latest operating system. Even many in western countries are now feeling the their finances squeezed with interest rate rises, higher taxes, inflation, and the higher cost of living. If they have a computer that's working, upgrading may be a luxury the can't afford. I'm not bickering, and I haven't moved the goal posts. I am simply disagreeing with you, and told you why. I find it funny that you said you will be staying with Windows 11, yet it will not "flop." Well, it's "flopped" with you, and "flopped" with me, and how many others? If we had access to Microsoft's data, I would not be surprised if 11 had the slowest uptake of all of Microsoft's operating systems. Your argument is it will not flop because eventually all machines fail, and new machines must be purchased. I agreed with this, it's the obvious, but unless they address the TPM issue (they now have, which I will address in another post) I couldn't see it being widely adopted by the Windows 10 end of life date.

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/international-social-security-agreements/overview-international-social-security-agreements#:~:text=Australia's agreements with Austria%2C Belgium,also include provisions which regulate "Australia's agreements with Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, the Republic of North Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the USA also include provisions which regulate the Superannuation Guarantee contributions and contributions to partners' countries social security systems for non-resident workers to avoid double-coverage. More information on the Superannuation Guarantee is available on the Australian Taxation Office(link is external) website. Generally, Agreements allow Australian residents to maximise their income by helping them to claim payments from other countries where they have spent part of their working life."

You were overseas "in the gray area" still appearing like you were an Australian resident for taxation purposes? Many have not maintained a "gray area" in Australia and are non residents which ever way you look at them. They will have to do their 2 years.