KhunHeineken

Hence why many return just before pension age and do the 2 years thereafter. However, I have asked the question, can returning prior to pension age be easier, and maybe shorter?

Some want it both ways. They want to say their pension can not / will not be taxed in Australia, now, and in the future, and also not in Thailand, in 2025, or in the future, due to the DTA. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways, due to your residency status, with the proviso you are living in Thailand full time. Time will time, both in Australia, and in Thailand, but the good old days are coming to an end.

Interesting. So, after being away for years, if over 60, can one fly straight back to Australia and claim Newstart, whilst waiting for the aged pension and portability? Do you have to re-establish residency for Newstart?

I had met some Aussie backpackers in some bars, all over Thailand, some years ago. I started some chit chat. How long is your trip, where are you going etc. Ended up more than a few told me they were on what I think was the old Newstart, called Austudy. They could do a Mickey Mouse online course, submitting assignments online, whilst backpacking around South East Asia. Basically, a working holiday on the Australian tax payer, for 2 years. When I asked what sort of course is that, it was some Certificate 3 or Certificate 4 in b*gger all. When asked "How can that take a year?" Answer, "I'll do another one when I finish this one, so 2 years." So, one each each. I remember asking one kid where he was from, and him telling me from one of the wealthier suburbs of Sydney. He appeared to be an over confident smart a**, but well spoken, thus possibly a good education, so I believed it to be true. Australia - The Lucky Country.

Any means testing for Newstart? Just interested how at the age of 63 he could have fronted up like an 18 year old and claimed it. Of course, there's methods of moving one's assets in a way that brings one under any means testing in Australia.

I believe the member was discussing "pretending" in order to be granted a pension, and achieve portability. In other words, "pretend" you have the "intention" of remaining in Australia, thus entitled to portability. With all that's going on with the proposed changes in Australia, and the Thailand taxation issue, I was wondering if this "portability" issue could be argued against, once the proposed changes are passed into legislation, in Australia. I mean, if after 183 days one is deemed a resident for taxation purposes, could one argue, at law, as a test case, "well, you've deemed me a resident because I have been here 184 days, so I want my portability." Could it be a double edge sword for the government. I mean, one set of laws classify you a resident, but they want to use another law to say you haven't met the criteria for residency, thus no portability. Could be interesting as test cases come up.

Would it surprise you if their native language was of the country Australia sent soldiers to fight against?

Yes, and be asked to get put through to the DVA. They are probably based in India.

In my opinion, citizenship and residency shouldn't come into it. There should be a sliding scale. You pay "X" amount of tax in Australia, regardless of which country you work and live, then you should be able to receive "Y" amount of pension. Thresholds and assets can be debated. That's the elephant in the room that many either don't want to know about, don't think will happen, can't accept, or think is only for Paul Hogan. Guess what the non resident tax bracket is from $0, and Aussies are concerned about Thai taxation.

Yes, but my question is, how long prior do you have to go back and start "pretending?"

Any link for the 2 years prior to pension age? We know about the 2 years after, just wondering about the 2 years prior. Link please.

And those on welfare, and those that pay tax to support those on welfare.

Such as????

Interesting post. Made me think of a scenario. Say one has dual national parents, one being Australia, and take your pick for the other. Could be the UK, Italy, Greece, Germany, France, Vietnam etc etc, and the parents have lived and worked pretty much all their life back in the home country, perhaps after wars finished and it was safe to return home, and one, or all of their children, qualify for an Australia passport, because they were born in Australia. The child gets an Australian passport, as they are entitled to, flies back to Australia at 65 /67, despite never living a day in Australia, cries poor, gets the pension and leaves. I think many would be concerned about this, as you mentioned. I can see why the Australian government requires some type of "appearance" of establishing residency. A member on this forum has called me a tax evader because I am still earning in Australia, and still pay tax in Australia, just not at the non resident tax rate, yet, it appears perfectly fine for many members of this forum to go back to Australia, BS Centerlink for 2 years, with the allusion they have the "intention" of remaining in Australia, and leave for Thailand straight after portability. I guess it goes to ones sense of "entitlement."

Can you explain your theory behind this? I do see your words "if you are eligible" but many Australians work overseas, and don't pay a cent in tax back in Australia. They work in countries that offer no, or very little tax, for their skills and expertise. Should one spend most of their working life overseas, earning good money, and paying little or no tax in the country where they work, and zero tax in Australia, why should they be able to fly home at 65 or 67, claim a pension, either live in Australia, or fly straight back out to live overseas? I can understand if one worked for decades in Australia, and retired early, but many haven't. For these people, all they have had that is connected to Australia is a passport. Why should they get a pension? This is why world wide taxation is coming, particularly as we are now in the digital age, with people working online, from anywhere.

The writing was on the wall decades ago. There are more on welfare than workers, so those on welfare get to dictate government policy every election. Thus, it's set to keep going in the same direction for decades to come.

Don't forget the whole suburbs of housing commission in Campbelltown. How many different mothers? Usually, the guy was on the dole, and shouldn't be living with the girl who's on the single mother's pension. Between them, they brought in more money than most average paid workers. You still see these people in the shops in Australia, doing the same their parents did, and grandparents did, every pension day. First purchase, carton of cigarettes, second purchase, carton of beer and cask wine. Then, food for the kids. Talking about bars, cheaper to let them out and pay them the dole, than to build more gaols and protect the community from them. Hence, the high crime rate from this demographic in the community.

I bet the kids never ended up working, either. Of course they are. Why would you think they wouldn't be. They are Australian citizens. They can vote, so any government looking to stop the rorting would never be voted in, hence, they would never announce such a policy. So, it proliferates. Also, you are forgetting all the other benefits they all get over the decades, like no car rego, energy rebates, public transport etc etc. No end in sight. Set to continue for generations to come. Australia - The Lucky Country. Let immigrants from poorer countries in to work and pay tax so you don't have to work, then complain about immigrants taking a job that you were never going to do in the first place.

I've asked the member similar. Perhaps he feels entitled to both. Or, perhaps he's like another of this forum who has posted he's on a Vet's pension, then posted he's on a Aged Pension, then back to a Vet's Pension etc etc, when you can't be on both.

Unlike many others, who I have NEVER reported, I have not breached any forum rules. Many members take advantage of that. Water off a duck's back for me. You post says more about you, than me.

As mentioned, under an old scheme, I was under the belief that if one did 20 years in the forces, they could take a pension.

Not just country towns, the cities, also. Australia now has welfare generational families. Mum and dad never worked, and grandpa and grandma never worked, yet, they have a car, big TV's, can afford alcohol and cigarettes. Apparently, the child is supposed to grow up to see that the daily grind of having a job, just to support mum, dad, and the grandparents, and others, through their income tax, is the way to go. Being on welfare has become a lifestyle choice in Australia, and the shrinking middle class is paying for it. It's unsustainable.

Asked the same also. At 80, surely he was under the old scheme of 20 years in the forces and you can take a pension.

An ex-serviceman can not be on both pensions. It's due to receiving other forms of incomes and thresholds. I'll go an edit that post now and ask whether the member thinks he should be able to receive both pensions.

I was under the impression that, under an old scheme, back in your time, if you did 20 years in the defense force, you got a pension. Correct me if I am wrong. The gold card, however, is very different. I have edited this post after reading a post from another member. If you are receiving a military pension (I thought you were not) do you feel you are entitled to both pensions, the military pension and the aged pension?