KhunHeineken

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?

I'm thinking it could be less than 2 years, if one was to create the appearance of being "domiciled" in Australia.

You have contradicted yourself. You have said 2 years prior to fly out soon after being granted. Now you are saying fly back "anytime" but you can't leave with portability for 2 years after, which we all know, if that's the case. one may as well fly back the day before their pension birthday. I would find this strange as well. Once again, after being outside Australia for some years, how long would Centerlink think acceptable, after producing some documents, to BS them about one's "intention" of remaining in Australia? We have always discussed the 2 years after the pension birthday. What about how long before the pension birthday to fly out immediately after being granted?

Yes, we all know this. Many expats have gone home and done the 2 years, BS'ing Centerlink that they have the "intention" of remaining in Australia. Well discussed on this forum in the past. What I am getting at is, what about prior to turning pension age? Could one go back to Australia, rent a little 1 bedroom unit somewhere, get the electricity / gas connected, maybe buy a cheap secondhand car, join the local bowlo etc etc, and BS Centerlink with these documents to only have to do 6 months to achieve portability, immediately on their pension birthday? Or, is there a define amount of time, like the 2 years, one must return to Australia BEFORE pension age, or could one BS their way with the above appearance of their "intention" to remain in Australia? As mentioned, 6 months before is a lot easier than 2 years after. Is it possible?

Yes, that was what I was referring to. The 35 years aside, as someone could have started working at 16, we have one member posting you can go back to Australia, and just be inside Australia at pension age, apply, and go. I found this surprising, if it's the case. You are posting one should go back to Australia 2 years before pension age, apply, so can fly straight out with portability. Other members are also saying different things. Does anyone actually know the answer? I used the 20 years as example, but it could be 15, 10, or even 5 years outside of Australia before pension age. How long must you be inside Australia before pension age, to apply on the day, be granted, and fly out with portability. I was thinking 6 months to re-establish residency, mainly because one could provide a 6 month lease on a property as documentary evidence of their "intention" to continue to reside in Australia. If so, 6 month prior would be a lot better than 2 years after for portability. You can see what I am getting at.

Go one further and set the DNS in the router. Cloudflare is ok. 1.1.1.1. It's reported as being the fastest.

They restrict the trade of the baht to artificially inflate its value.