KhunHeineken

I think the photo in your post depicts the Australian Tax Office going after money quite well.

Perhaps because Centrelink has been reading your posts on this website.

I didn't know there was anything positive to say about governments, politicians, and taxes, especially new taxes. Ever since I was a teenager, any talk around the pub table was critical of government and politicians. They were either incompetent, lazy, or corrupt, or a combination of all of these, and history shows this to be true, but on these proposed changes, you are confident they will be "fair." Sorry, I don't see it. This is the big pensioner backlash theory, except now you're saying it's superannuants being up in arms. Here's an example. Bill and Betty are self funded retirees living in a suburb in a major city in Australia. They pick up their grandkids from school a couple of days a week and mind them for a few hours to help their own kids out, and on weekends the extended family get together for a BBQ. Bill has the odd roll and a beer down at the bowlo with his mates, and Betty hits the cafe with her friends. Your typical Aussie retired superannuant / self funded couple. Just like in the pensioner backlash theory, tell me why Bill and Betty would give a rats a** if a superannuant living overseas was going to be taxed at non resident rates, let alone, why would they vote alongside that expat when it means more money for Australia, which would possibly benefit them? Why would Bill and Betty be "up in arms" about it? It doesn't effect them one little bit. Now, say John was early 60's, single, has had a few trips to Thailand, will retire in the next couple of years, and wants to live in Thailand, yes, he will vote against it, that's if it even becomes and election issue, which I doubt it will. How many like John are in the electorate, compared to how many are like Bill and / or Betty? John is in such a small minority, and spread across the country, that both political parties wouldn't care about his vote, and knowing that expats don't go to an Embassy at election time, both parties would care even less about expats overseas. Or, both political parties offer Jacki or Andrew a big government call center employing 300 people in their electorate, or a big new hospital in their electorate etc etc to vote with them. Their constituents will think they are great for bringing in employment and / or extra services. How would being "fair" to expat pensioners, or future expat pensioners, whom Jacki and Andrew receive next to zero votes from, be worth turning down such an offer from either political party and being re-elected for another term? It's a no brainer for Jacki and Andrew to take the deal. You don't seem to understand that it's all about their constituents and electorate, not Aussie expats overseas who don't vote at election time. I certainly don't delight in any of this. To be honest, the naivety of some on this topic is quite surprising. As a single, white, male, middle aged , employed, middle class with private health insurance, I've been paying out for others most of my life, and receiving nothing back, and you expect me to be "positive" about these proposed changes, and for the government to be "fair" towards me. Well I simply don't share your confidence. Blind Freddy can see what these proposed changes are all about, and with no mention of means testing or exemptions in them, I can only assume, yes, assume, there will be none built into the legislation, and everyone outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and deriving an income from Australia, and that includes a pension, will all be treated the same. Anything other than this will be a bonus. All you are seeing in my posts is me preparing for the worse, and hoping for the best. Members need to consider their situation in Thailand if they are going to be 32% down on whatever income they are receiving from Australia, because comments that were posted a few pages back like "the government would never do that because it would cost too many votes" or "that's just for people like Paul Hogan" is simply laughable. It's human nature to resist change, especially if it effects out comfort zone, but you know what they say about death and taxes.

What about taxing expat pensioners? Do pensioners in Australia care if they do? You seem to think there will be an exemption. I hope there is, but there's nothing in the propose changes suggesting there will be, and if the law doesn't discriminate, every expat is in the same kettle. From the rich, right down to the pensioner. You said it yourself, they are a minority. Maybe a couple hundred thousand indirectly forced home, spread out over many electorates across Australia. Then, you have to get the opposition to make it an election issue and for them to promise to repeal the legislation. Not going to happen. I actually don't think it will be an election issue. It will probably be pushed through 5 minutes before the end of a sitting. Even if the media jumped on board, the policy can easily be justified with the headline, "Australian government seeking to stop Aussie tax payer funded pensions from been spent overseas" or something similar. Do you think Australian tax payers would be for or against such a headline? "Self-funded retirees are living off investments within their superannuation funds" sure, but are they living overseas off it? All bets are off when you are deemed a non resident for taxation purposes. The pool of voters with investment properties and franking credits is a lot bigger than expat pensioners. What makes you think these proposed changes are big enough to become an election issue? It only effects a minority, many of who don't vote at election time. "Self-funded or OAP recipients, retirees are a significant electoral bloc. Whether they are inside or outside Australia." so why would the ones in Australia care about these proposed changes? Why would they vote against it? Sure, there may be a few that are aspiring to live overseas when they retire. Do you think there numbers are there to have this voted down? What if both parties are for the changes?

I stand corrected. It was 1992. This changes everything now. Everybody can relax now. LosLobo has posted super started in 1992, not the late 80's as I remembered. These proposed changes to non resident taxation are now null and void. Break out the champagne.

You don't need to be an expert to know hiding assets and crying poor to Centrelink can be a crime. The way the member posted it, that's the way I took it, and so did another member. I asked for clarification, he gave it, and I left it at that. I'm not hell bent on making people vulnerable. The proposed changes have been posted. People should start planning for best and worse case scenarios, as per their individual circumstances. Unlike yourself, I don't think this one is going to go away, or put in the too hard basket, or the too unpopular basket. The current legislation is old and outdated, and has a lot of gray area. The proposed changed do away with the gray area many have been hiding in for years, and not paying the correct tax. Pensioners may just be collateral damage of the changes. I agree, but what's the harm in discussing it? I have said, I don't think it will become an election issue because it effects a minority, many who don't vote anyway. It will not effect pensioners in Australia one bit, so why would they care? Why would they be vocal, or vote a certain way, on a policy that does not effect them? The pensioners living overseas don't vote at Embassies come election time, so no votes lost, only money to save. Here's the non resident tax rates. (scroll down a little) It's actually 32.5%. https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/ Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $120,000 32.5 cents for each $1 I think you need to stop focusing on the word "pension" and start focusing on the legal definition of "income." Out of Australia for 183 days. Income from Australia. Without an exemption, this is the way the new laws will view you.

Just watching out for the member. Wouldn't want to see him in the news with the headline, "Australian expat arrested in Thailand for defrauding the Australian government for 14 years."

I'm not confusing anything. What about the other 194 countries in the world? What about the Aussie expats living in those countries? These proposed changes don't just target expats living in Thailand. They target all expats deriving an income from Australia who are overseas for more than 183 days, no matter what country they are in. I actually think there are many self funded expats, and even more to come in the future, given compulsory super started in the 80's. Will they continue to be able to afford living overseas if their earnings / income are taxed at non resident rates? I agree Thailand would be one the most popular places, if not the most popular place for Aussie expat retirees. I would say Bali would be popular as well. See the below link. It's from a government website. This is what it says, "At any time, there are around one million Australians living and working overseas. Whatever the reason for moving overseas, properly preparing for a long stint will make the transition less stressful. Read this page along with our guide for all travellers for a great start!" https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/before-you-go/activities/living-overseas#:~:text=At any time%2C there are,travellers for a great start! Here's the same from Services Australia. This is what it says, "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." https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040 It will depend how many of the over 1 million will be able to continue to afford to live overseas if they are taxed at non resident rates. Many may make some big lifestyle adjustments and remain overseas on less income. Some may adjust their finances so they are less exposed to non resident tax, and some will be indirectly forced home. Over 1 million Aussies living overseas, out of a population of only 28 million Australians, many of whom are not currently being taxed at non resident rates, not to mention, they are supporting a foreign country's economy with money from Australia, and you don't think the Australian government might like a piece of that action? I have addressed this. Do you think the savings made in pensions, and taxing of self funded retirees, and those still working, many of whom are on big money, would more than cover any additional costs? What about all the extra tax the government gets back from the pension by having these expats return. Eg. GST, fuel and alcohol excise etc etc. Do you think the government cares? I remember in the 80's when some pensioners were forced to eat PAL dog food, or go hungry. Every winter now the saying is, "do I heat or do I eat" because pensioners can't afford to turn the heater on in winter, and to have some dinner. They have to chose one, or the other. Why would they have to submit a tax return? Immigration tell Centrelink whose been outside of Australia for 183 days. The next fortnight's pension is reduced by 30%. What avenue of complaint do you have? What avenue of appeal do you have? Can you see how simple the proposed changes are to collect non resident tax? It's like traffic lights. The light was red when you went through, here's your fine. It's can't be half red. 183 days is 183 days. Income is income. You see it as cost saving as far as pensioners are concerned, but what about all the self funded retirees. That's not saving, that's revenue for the government. Then what about all the people still working, on big money, playing the current system. That's even more revenue for the government. It all amounts to billions of extra dollars in revenue, and the only down side is people have to wait longer to see a doctor, as if the government cares about that. Let's just say the proposed changes come in, and pensions are not exempt. Do expat retirees living outside of Australia for more than 183 days, and who are receiving a Centrelink pension, come under the criteria of been taxed at non resident rates, as per the proposed changes? If the answer yes, the only hope is for an exemption. If the answer is no, I'm happy to hear what part of the criteria they do not fit under.

Please report back the results, with some speed tests also. Get your sister to speed test, and then you speed test off the dongle and let us know how it goes. Of course, you need to know what speed your sister is paying for. Remember, you must buy a home proxy dongle, and a companion dongle. You can't just buy the home proxy dongle to put at your sister's place and access it through their app, because the app is hosted in another country. You need the two dongles to make that 13,000 km ethernet cable. Home proxy dongle at your sister's house. Companion dongle at you house in Thailand. Don't mix these up. These dongles are nothing super special. You could buy two small travel routers and configure them to do what these dongles do, as others have mentioned, but these come pre configured, so no IT guy needed. They are plug and play. Just on the point of VPN's. I went to the trouble and expense of finding a VPN provider that offered a dedicated IP address in my home country. That's an IP address on there server only used by me, so it couldn't be blacklisted. Foxtel didn't work on that dedicated IP address. Only the dongles worked on android. Like I said, I don't know exactly how they do it, but they work well for me, and I think you will have the same experience, but like another member said, you may have a problem not related to geo blocking. I suggested it may be the way you are using 2 Step authentication. I would suggest when you are signing in to these platforms, make sure your computer and your phone (for 2 Step authentication) are both connected to the dongle's WiFi, which is your sister's network, and turn off location services and GPS in your phone. I think using a US sim card for an OTP would be better because it does not rely on location services, and any other way Google tracks a phone. Good Luck.

No fleas on me.

It costs millions of dollars to draft legislation. It's not something they give to a bunch of kids straight out of uni. No doubt the government of the day spent this money on the drafting because they could see a long term financial benefit to do so, and it was obviously drafted with making money in mind, not losing money. I admit, such legislation was more aimed at the top end of town who individually escape from paying millions of dollars in tax, but the law can't discriminate, unless means testing or exemptions are written into the law, and I saw none of that in the proposed changes. The end result is, John Smith is treated the same as Paul Hogan, whether John Smith is a pensioner, or not. The second half of this part of your post is just your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and I don't mind reading. Of course, covid turned a lot of non residents into residents for 3 years, and the government had its hands full with that crisis. Now things are back to normal, but with an even bigger debt to service, I am sure the government, whether that be the current Labor government, or a future Liberal government, will be looking to get their hands on John and Paul's money again. As you say, it's just your opinion. There's nothing in the proposed changes that says pensions will be exempt from non resident tax rates. What has someone in Australia sending money to someone overseas got to do with the proposed changes? Is that person in Australia who is sending money overseas and who wishes to retire overseas an Australian citizen? If so, after 183 day overseas, any income earned in Australia would be taxed at non resident rates. Why would they be treated any differently. If they are not an Australian citizen, no vote lost there, either. Since when have you expected a government to be fair, especially when it comes to tax? I see your point. Do you think the benefit of either saving in Centrelink payments to non resident pensioners, and indirectly forcing some of the expats home, and having their full pension circulating in the Australian economy, outweighs their use of infrastructure here? I did say, having them return creates jobs, even in hospitals, and what do people with a job pay, income tax. An example of the extras you talk about, say some free car registration. They now drive a car in Australia and pay for fuel. Do you think all the tax and excise, including GST on petrol for the year, amounts to more than the free rego? I say it would. What about that beer they have at the RSL? All the tax and excise on it going back into government revenue, not to mention the extra bar staff employed to serve that beer, and the income tax they pay. Now picture just these two examples across hundreds of thousands across Australia that were indirectly forced to return, and you will see the government has more than made enough to cover some medical. I see it as a financial win - win for government, and on that basis, I put the chances at higher than remote.

What negative have I invented, Scorecard? I didn't know there was any positive to paying tax. You have seen the proposed changes. They are very clear, with the 183 day in / out rule. I didn't invent them. They are simple to understand. Aussie citizen outside of Australia for 183 days is deemed a non resident for taxation purposes. Does that Aussie citizen derive an income from Australia, if yes, taxed at non resident tax rates. Is a pension an income derived in Australia, yes. Will pensions be exempt, maybe, maybe not. What part of the below do you dispute? Are you an Aussie citizen? Yes. Do you live in Thailand? Yes. Do you derive an income (pension) from Australia? Yes. Are pensions exempt? Unknown. Some suggest the government wouldn't tax pensioners at not resident rates because of a backlash. I have suggested such a backlash would cost close to zero votes. I have never made my way to the Australian Embassy to cast a vote, have you? If we took a poll of members on this thread and asked them the same question, how many would say they have ever voted at an Australian Embassy? No doubt they will upset pensioners if pensions are not exempt, but it will cost them no votes, so why would they care? It's a no brainer for government. Save billions of dollars in Centrelink funds, for costing zero votes. What government wouldn't take that deal?

It's taxable because it is deemed to be an income. Why do you think it will not be taxable at non resident rates, if outside of Australian for 183 days?

It's not about cuts to the pension. It's about you deriving an income, yes, the pension is an income, from Australia, and your geographic location. You say there is a 1 in a million chance the government will cut pensions, but if / when these changes come in, there is a 100% chance you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes if outside of Australia for 183 days. Do you see the issue? Pension = income. Outside Australia 183 days = non resident for taxation purposes. Exemption = maybe, maybe not.

How many of these people make their way to an Australian Embassy to vote at election time? I have never voted at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. So, whilst not being a popular policy with expats, how many votes do they lose? Close to zero. This is another incentive for them to no exempt pensions from non resident taxation. Think of the billions of dollars returning back into the Australian economy, and the jobs it creates. You see it as a negative, but it's actually a financial plus for the government to indirectly force pensioners home. They want to see the Australian tax payer's money circulating in the Australian economy, not circulating around another country's economy. They give you a pension, and they get some of it back in GST, excise, council rates etc etc, and also income tax from the jobs created. They give you that pension and you are overseas, they get back zero. Yes, they are unclear, but will become very clear if the new changes come in. 183 days inside Australia, you are a resident. 183 days outside of Australia, you are a non resident for taxation purposes. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Once again, you are using words like "pension cut." I have said, these changes do not target pensioners. They target everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia. They may exempt pensions, they may not, but people living outside of Australia will be deemed non residents for taxation purposes and there will be no way to get around that. The question simply is, will pensions be exempt? There is nothing in the proposed changes saying they will be, so I would put it a little higher than "remote."

Understood.

Maybe I misunderstood. I was under the impression you either did not qualify for a pension, or would receive a reduced pension, due to having significant savings in a bank. You then moved all of that money to Thailand and cried poor to Centrelink and was granted a pension, or a larger pension. If I am wrong, what was the purpose of moving all your money to Thailand? If I am right, what consequences do you think there will be if / when they catch up with you?

Minix boxes (android) come with a remote control, but they are not cheap. I own a couple of them, and never used the remote, not once. I own one of the keyboard / mouse combos in the photo in your post, but ended up just sitting one of these on the coffee table, as easier to use, especially when typing in movie titles for search. https://www.logitech.com/en-au/products/combos/mk240-minimalist-keyboard-mouse.920-008202.html

It can't effect money transfers, but Centrelink will know you are overseas, so there maybe less money (non resident taxed pension) deposited into your Australian bank account for you to then transfer to Thailand. Let's hope pensions are exempt, but it seems they are deemed as "income" at law.

So therefore it's "income" and at risk of being taxed at non resident rates under the proposed changes. Do you agree or disagree with this? Not non resident tax though, right? The whole game changes when outside of Australia for 183 day, if these changes come in. Isn't that what we are all doing on this forum, discussing the proposed changes, and how they MAY or MAY NOT be implemented, and how they MAY or MAY NOT effect individuals? Of course I am presenting my thoughts and opinions on the matter, aren't you? One thing that is not an opinion are the proposed changes. They are fact. If / when they come in, we will see how they will be implemented, but the "183 day bright line test" is of some concern for me, and no doubt some others, and possibly pensioners as well. Perhaps Centrelink pensions will be exempt, but superannuation payment will not be exempt. Or, there will be no exemptions for anyone. Who knows? Nothing wrong with discussing the proposed changes and their possible effects on expats.

Ok. Any advice for the expats coming through?

What do you think would happen if / when Centrelink discover you have assets / income in Thailand? You do know Australia has a tax treaty with Thailand.

I've never filled the form out, but surely it asks what you own. Eg. house, Ferrari, diamonds, shares, CASH etc.

I own several android boxes. The OP wanted to control a media player with a remote control. For me, there's little different between a remote control and a mini keyboard / mouse combo.

That's one option, but doesn't a pension application take into account overseas assets and income? Did you make a false declaration?