KhunHeineken

Something like 30% of property owners in Australia have a mortgage. Sadly, that minority is being left to carry the inflation burden of the nation, which is crazy, because typically, a mortgagee has less money to spend, therefore, they are not the ones fueling inflation.

I kept an eye on the robodebt fiasco. The suicides it caused were particularly tragic. Didn't some members of this forum suggest "the government would never go after pensioners" yet, robodebt happened.

A few things stand out for me in your post. Firstly, the guy you met, the decision maker, will be made redundant if/when the new laws come in. There will be no need to pay "decision makers" and lawyers and courts. There will be nothing to appeal. The proposed changes are black and white. Thus, further savings to government. I agree with you the proposed changes are more focused on the bigger fish, but many of these bigger fish have been using the same gray area as I, and hundreds of thousands of others have been using for several years. So, whilst the whole idea of these changes may be to scoop up the bigger fish, without any means / assets testing, thresholds, or exemptions, the little fish get caught up in the same net that was designed to catch the bigger fish. Quoting you below, this is exactly the gray area many have been hiding in, for many years, and exactly what the proposed changes were designed to stop. "the way residency works in practical terms means it is highly unlikely that proving someone is a non resident would be done by a 183 day rule. That is because there are clearly a range of factors such as links to Australia, property ownership, friends, families, what you are doing overseas, plans to come back, that cannot be ignored. What if you simply have a long holiday once retired ... " Basically, they don't want Aussies living abroad, who derive an income from Australia, paying resident tax, when in fact they are non residents, just because they have a property in their name, an electricity bill, maintain their membership of a local bowlo, have some mates back there they call occasionally, and some relatives. In the past, this has been enough to argue your case with a "decision maker" but that will no doubt change, one way or another, in the future. In any case, how would one argue that they "plan to come back" to Australia when they have been living in Thailand for years, or, have spent all of 6 months in Australia over the last 10 years, with their son or daughter living in their property, or, they rent out their property? This is where the guy you met contradicts himself. He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument. The whole idea of the proposed changes is to make it black, or white, NO GRAY, for the ATO, and the tax payer. The gray area is 90 years old. It couldn't last forever. If the 183 day rule is "problematic" then why was it commissioned to be drafted by the former Liberal government? Could it be they saw the 183 day law as less problematic, and lucrative? Perhaps you can explain how an Aussie expat, living in Thailand full time, can still be a resident for taxation purposes.

There are many in the same boat, including myself. I've been cruising along in the big gray area for some years, and I am sure the government know of hundreds of thousands of Aussie abroad who have been doing the same, hence, the gray area had to go, eventually.

In relation to 10% tax on interest earned in Australian bank accounts, maybe you are referring to this: Bank accounts held by foreign residents Financial institutions automatically withhold tax from interest earned on accounts held by foreign residents. If you've given the financial institution your overseas address, the tax will be withheld at the rate of 10%. Without your overseas address, tax is withheld at 47%. You don't include this interest as income on your Australian tax return. I was under the belief this was for foreign residents who do not hold Australian citizenship, or Permanent Residency, and who do not live in Australia. If you do not declare your Tax File Number (TFN) to your bank, the interest is taxed at the highest marginal rate, which is around 47%. If you do declare your tax file number, but are a non resident for taxation purposes, tax starts at 32.5% from $0 to $120,000. Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23 Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $120,000 32.5 cents for each $1 $120,001 – $180,000 $39,000 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $61,200 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000 If you are a resident, and declare your TFN, your interest is taxed at resident rates, along with other income. Resident tax rates 2022–23 Resident tax rates 2022–23 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $18,200 Nil $18,201 – $45,000 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200 $45,001 – $120,000 $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000 $120,001 – $180,000 $29,467 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $51,667 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000

You are correct, and no one has suggested they are law. They are proposed changes to the law. They were drafted by the former Liberal government, and I have posted a link showing the current Labor is aware of them, and may tweak the amount of days, but from memory, that was just in relation to the 45 days. I have no doubt that the current laws, which are over 90 years old, will eventually be overhauled, probably with something that has no gray area, such as these proposed changes with the 183 days. So until then, continue on as normal, but consider a plan for remaining overseas with 32.5% less income from Australia, if you can.

As I have said, I m not on an OAP, but maybe a member can explain to me why some of you are receiving different amounts? I can understand with the part pension, but why are members receiving different amount for the full pension?

Well it's a "hot" topic, which is sure to get a few "fired" up.

I didn't assume anything. Did you see I used the word "many" and not "all?" Do you deny there are many Thai ladies, note, I used the word "many" and not "all" that have never worked in Australia, yet by marriage, qualify for a pension in Australia?

Did you not see the 183 days is a "bright line test." This leads me to believe it will be relied upon, and carry the most weight, when determining one's residence for taxation purposes status. Why would that be relevant to residency for taxation purposes? It's unknown, at this stage, what the status of someone will be who is inside Australia for more than 45 days, but less than 183 days. I could do 46 days (6 weeks) in Australia every year. No way could I do 6 months in Australia every year. From memory, from what I read, the days do not have to be consecutive, to it could be a 3 week trip to Australia, and another 3 week trip to Australia, and depending on other factors, you MAY be deemed as a resident for taxation purposes. In any case, most expats in Thailand are living in Thailand full time, so their main consideration is the 183 days, and there's no getting around it if immigration have you outside of Australia for 183 days.

I think what the member was getting at was he has lived and worked in Thailand for 35 years, and paid tax along the way, and employed people who also paid tax, but will never see 1 baht of government money by way of a benefit go his way, yet your wife flies in after 7 years away, and 2 weeks later receives a pension. Easy for a Thai lady in Australia to get a pension, many of whom have never worked or paid tax in Australia, yet a farang, after decades of working in Thailand, will never see 1 baht of government assistance, ever.

If anything in this thread has caused you, or someone you know, distress, call Lifeline on +61 131114. Help is only a phone call away.

Yes, I mentioned that. Plenty of warning for the 80,000 impacted by it. You don't think they have the numbers to pass it? Why would they announce it if they haven't secured the support to push it through? It's a done deal.

Another short puff of air from you, with nothing. Predictable as usual.

This was discussed some time ago. We were not sure if you will be deemed a resident, or a non resident for taxation purposes, if you spend more than 45 days in Australia, but less then 183 days in Australia.

The government would simply view this as repatriating pension money back into the Australian economy, and actually get some of that pension back in GST, council rates, taxes and excises, licenses, fees, levies etc. Do you think the high hanging expat fruit will get a free pass because the government doesn't want to impart non resident taxation on Aussie expat pensioners? I think it will come in, but the best that can be hoped for is pensions will be exempt. As another member pointed out, what about all the part pensioners? Their pension may be exempt, but not their other source of income, otherwise the government opens the stable door. Part pensioners are not on big money, but I can't see their other source of income getting a free pass. They may suffer more than full pensioners.

I would not be surprised if what you describe takes place. On a side issue, there are already many homeless Aussie due to the housing shortage crisis and ridiculous rents and house prices. Of course, one question the interviewer will ask is, "What about your family in Australia?" The answer from most retired expats would be interesting. Perhaps it may cause an amendment in the laws to make pensions exempt. Who knows? As I have been discussing with another member, it's a savage tax at 32.5% for most expats, who are lower to middle hanging fruit. I have no doubt the proposed changes were designed to scoop up everyone, with a focus on netting big dollars from the high hanging fruit, with little to no thought about the severe financial consequences for the low hanging expat fruit. I have posted a link where the assistant treasurer said Labor were looking into possibly adjusting the number of days, but that does nothing for full time expat retirees.

Let's hope it's never passed, but it's a 90 year old law that, although I have been taking advantage of the gray area, needs to be reformed. We have just seen reform of what, a 35 year old tax law, something like that. The non resident tax law is over 90 years old. A government could justify reforming it with not much of a sales pitch to the public. The proposed changes have been up for all to see for years now. Government has given forewarning of their intentions. The high hanging Aussie expat fruit needs to pay their share. I would put myself as middle hanging fruit, and believe I will be scooped up in this. Whether or not the low hanging fruit get a free pass remains to be seen, but I haven't read anything in the proposed changes suggesting any expats get to stand outside these changes, have you?

Yes, which is exactly why the 183 days outside of Australia was designed. No getting around it.

Will it be exempt as a non resident? Sounds a lot like an assumption, a twist, speculation. You've read the laws. Please point out where pensions are not taxed at non resident rates for pensioners living overseas? I didn't see that bit.

I've only posted the non resident tax brackets about four times. There is NO tax free threshold for non resident tax brackets. The first tier is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5% and it goes up from there. (see previous links) Once again, there is no mention of a change to the non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes. Is that me being "negative" or that are not mentioned? Can you see how the proposed changes are designed to scoop up everyone? Is that me being "negative" or there's no way getting around paying the tax man?

And that's how easily and quickly something like this can be passed. Who are they going to go after next?

Please point out something positive for expats about the proposed changes. Any data I have posted I have linked. I was "creative" with the 200,000 Aussie expats living abroad on a pension, and explained how I got to that figure and said, many times, it's debatable. You you don't want any latitude in posting, let's do this: The proposed changes deem anyone outside Australia for 183 days as a non resident. A pension is a designated income. Non resident tax rates start at $0 to $120,000 at 32.5% and go up from there. Go your hardest and tell me this is not fact, and I have "created" this, and that it's misinformation. Then tell me how YOU will not be impacted by this. You have links to the proposed changes. I didn't write them. They are not my websites. Are they an assumption, a twist, a speculation? They are there for you to read. There's every chance they will become law one day. What I am interested in your own assumptions, twists, speculation, and positivity as to why they will not impact you, and others. Please share with something more than "These laws are only for guys like Paul Hogan." Tell us all why YOU will stand outside of these laws. Now who's making assumptions? So, there's some black and white proposed legislation, which is all over the internet, but some "mention" of some relief for pensioners in the media is what you are going with. Well, I'll go with what I have read on the many accounting, law, and wealth manager websites, but good luck with the "mention" in the media. I have no problem if you block me. In fact, I encourage members to do it.

See my previous post for how I got to that figure. I did say it's debatable. Only immigration and Centrelink know the exact figure. At any given time there are around 1,000,000 Aussies living overseas. (see previous links from two government websites) Only 2 out of every 10 of those Aussies being on a pension seems reasonable to me, but it's debatable. Another member put it at 90,000, because thousands of others were on part pensions. I addressed this in a subsequent post. He said Thailand has 20,000 Aussie expats alone. I would suggest the majority are retired. Bali has around 10,000, so I would say the figure of 90,000 is a little skinny, but appreciate the member putting it forward, rather than a useless personal attack.

Non resident tax rates start at $0. You're "ok" if inside Australia, maybe not "ok" if / when the proposed changes are passed. The pension is taxable (income) and you are outside Australia for 183 days. Now, what part of this is "misinformation?"