KhunHeineken

All I am suggesting is, the way they cancel the energy allowance because they know you are outside of Australia, may be the same way they implement the non resident taxation of pensions. Easily done, because they are already doing it for this allowance.

Well, I believe you are still entitled to it, just a reduced amount. The point being, they know you are out of the country, and to withhold the appropriate amount of pension. How convenient for them, and quite easily tweaked to fit in with their new non residency test tax laws. And that's all you do, attack people who who offer up their opinion, thoughts, predictions, examples, and links. Stop shooting the messenger, and post about the issues at hand. How doesn't it? You can tick whatever box you like. Tick them all, and take an each way bet. Immigration know you have been outside of Australia for 183 days, they pass that information on to the ATO. When the ATO contact you, be sure to tell them they have made an error because you ticked a box. ????

I would think that the country you are generating income in would be your country for taxation purposes, and should Australia be that country, and you are outside for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and taxed quite high. I would think in the future crypto may make things difficult for tax departments all around the world, but that's off topic. There's a reason why high net worth individuals, and companies, use tax havens. Some individuals get citizenship of the tax haven.

Come up with some content of your own. Seriously.

Yes, but should the pension be deemed "income" it could be on the chopping block for non resident taxation rates if the recipient is outside of Australia for more than 183 days.

Like I said, the noose is tightening. There's a reason why they are bringing this in, and it's all to do with scooping up more tax money off easy targets. Just on your point, I know of a few cases where guys have applied for Permanent Residency in Australia for they Thai missus. The government knew the Thai missus was outside of the country during the phone call. That's how easy it is.

Ok. The way I read it was the 183 days was the Primary Test, upon which the government will rely upon. I have no doubt there will be some test cases at court over the next few years, as wealthy individuals appeal their tax residency status. Those cases may do us all a favor. I think you are mixing up tax residency with citizenship. You will always remain a citizen of Australia, but you can be a non resident of Australia for taxation purposes. I don't think the 183 day law is about where you stay overseas, just about the fact you are overseas for more than 183 days.

Great. Why? The new laws haven't come in yet. I never said "any debt." I suggested tax debt. There's a reason why they are casting the non resident for taxation purposes net wider. They know they can scoop up a lot of people, possibly even pensioners. It's really easy, and hardly unworkable. You present at n Embassy for a passport renewal: Staff: "Sir, you must contact the ATO to resolve you tax debt matter before we can issue you a new passport." Expat: "But, but, but. I need a new passport so I can stay in Thailand." Staff: "Have a good day, Sir." Remember when embassies stopped issuing the income letters for expats? As simple as here one day, gone the next. Oh, and the Robodebt fiasco. Didn't stop them trying though, did it? You already have it. They had to pay, or make arrangements to pay back the debt.

Once again, you are disagreeing with me, which is perfectly fine, but offer no substance other than disagreeing with me. Once again, they are not going to bring in a taxation law, which is obviously designed to net them money, without implementing appropriate enforcement. Given expats are already outside of Australia, so it's not like they can stop them from leaving, they will have to have a plan on how to enforcement payment. What's the one thing an Australian needs overseas, a passport. Not a sim card, not a bank account, not a license, a passport. Guess who issues passports, the same entity that is owed money. That kinda puts them in the box seat, don't ya think? I would say the 183 day rule coming in is highly probable. What enforcement they have planned for after that, I don't know. You are correct, I only suggested it as a possibility. Do you have any suggestions on how they will make someone already overseas pay their tax liability? That future is near, not distant. I have posted links, and given factual examples. It's not <deleted>. You have posted nothing of substance to counter. No links, no examples. Just attacked the messenger, basically. Can you post why you think some, or none of all of this will happen, other than, it will be in the paper and there will be backlash? Ok. Why do you say that? Once again, you poke a joke at me, but offer no substance. Do you think the government is spending millions of dollars on changing the tax residency law just for fun?

It's because they paid, or made arrangements to pay.

The 183 days is going to be the "Primary Test." Does the primary test over rule secondary tests? I don't know. The term "bright light test" or something like that was used. You might be correct, and I hope you are. Maybe the little guys can slip through the net. I'm not sure how having an Australian address will get around the 183 day rule.

The ATO is the single biggest entity that puts companies, businesses, and individuals into insolvency and bankruptcy. The government is the creditor, and obviously also issues passports. Why would the government issue a debtor a new passport, when they own the government money? It's already happening with drivers licenses and speeding fines at a state level. No, I am not making that up. The 183 day law isn't just going to come in with zero enforcement. I am sure they have a plan. Once again, I am only suggesting this may be their plan. It's only my opinion. I am not saying it will come in or is already in. I would find it strange the government wants to have everyone outside of Australia for 183 days deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, without a plan on how to collect the money that they moved the goal post for, in order to collect the money.

Changing the tax residency laws is useless if it's not backed up by some means of enforcement, designed to ensure payment. What's the point of of making a black and white 183 day law, if everyone outside of Australia didn't have to pay their tax liabilities, with no fear of consequences? I put forward one simple method they may implement. The method is already being used in similar situations, and I have posted a link showing one. Will they implement it, I don't know. Will they allow Aussie expats to keep shifting money earned in Australia to Thailand, without any non resident taxation, despite them being outside of Australia for 183 days, without any enforcement, I highly doubt it. Is stating such a thing really scaremongering, or just expecting the inevitable? Blind Freddy can see they are tightening the noose.

Enlighten me.

Either have I, but I have provided a link where they are stopping people with HECS debts leaving the country at the airport. This red flag is obviously attached to their passport details. Do you think it's impossible they could tweak that system to scoop up tax debtors that are already outside of Australia? HECS debt, tax debt, it's all just money owed to them. Before you say, "You're just making stuff up" I am not. I am asking a question. If you say no, happy to listen to why, other than, "It will be in the papers." ????

Correct, and I never said it was. Debt to the government is a different story.

???? Keep borrowing, keep printing. Banana Republic here we come. ????

I have given the example where if you don't pay your speeding fines, your license is canceled. Good luck renewing your license when you haven't paid your fines. The government will not issue the document (license) to you until you have paid.. Did I make that up, or is it a fact? I have posted a link where travel was restricted for those with a HECS debt. Basically, they were not allowed out of Australia until the debt was paid, or arrangements were made to pay the debt. I posted a link. Did I make that up, or is it fact? What's stopping the federal government from doing something similar for tax debtors who are already overseas, with their passport? Remember, the Australia government owns your passport at all times. I'm suggesting it's a possibility. I am not saying it's going to happen. If I said, "It's happening now" then you can call me out on "making this stuff up." I think The Greens and Independents will get a lot of votes next month. Am I making that up? Is it an opinion? Is it a prediction? Is it likely? Could it happen? What if it does happen? Some of us live for the day, but cast an eye over tomorrow. If you don't, that's fine, but discussing "tomorrow" is not scaremongering. If you disagree, that's fine, and I am happy to listen to your argument, but just saying "You're making this stuff up" doesn't have a lot of substance.

Thanks for the link. That's good to know. It could take a little while to get the documents you need to re-enrol, but I think the documents they want are easy enough to get.

Doesn't Centerlink already withhold some pension if you are out of the country for more than 6 weeks, or you tell them you will be? If so, if you are outside Australia indefinitely, I guess they will just withhold the non resident amount. The 183 day rule takes away some of that self assessment, doesn't it? We want to remain residents of Australia for taxation purposes, not become non residents for taxation purposes. As the various links say, the changes simplify the system. 183 days in, resident, 183 days outside, non resident. I've posted a link where it sounds like they may already be in. Funny how when the changes were proposed there was nothing about it in the papers. Maybe it will be in the papers after they have passed, when it's too late. ????

What's mission impossible? You don't think the laws will pass? Pretty important topic for all Aussie expats, don't you think?

They'll take every dollar they can. You will be able to spend it how you please, but as a non resident for taxation purposes, you may just end up with less to spend. Why would they be exempt? It's still a government pension, and they are living outside of Australia for more than 183 days a year. There may be an appeal mechanism, but it's sure to be very bureaucratic.

Australia is broke. They will take that drop in the ocean, and anything else they can get.

Here's an interesting article. This account seems to say the changes are already through. The changes may already have been passed. https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/ Quote: "Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency. The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes."

That would be their savings they are spending, nothing the government can do about that. The pension on the other hand, that's a different story. The government controls that money.