KhunHeineken

Superannuation was designed to stop this. The next generation coming through will most likely be ineligible for any pension, even a part pension, due to having a large super balance. In the future, it will be only outgoing for workers, and never any dollars coming back to them the government.

A lot more "gradual" than past operating systems. in business terms, that tends to show it has failed to impress, or a "flop." Back flips tend to follow flops, and MS have already back flipped on the TPM installation. So Window 11 has "flopped" with you, and you are not alone. It has flopped with hundreds of millions of others, worldwide. I guess their big scare tactic of the TPM and devices not meeting minimum requirements just didn't work out.

Ahhh, the old, "I have an Australian bank account so I am still an Australian resident" argument. Australian immigration know you are outside of Australia, and for how long, thus, Centrelink know as well. There have been many posts and examples given about this. It has nothing to do with using an ATM overseas.

I've never been in denial about that. I don't care that they don't care about my posts on this issue, and with respect, I don't care about your personal attacks and trolling me. On many occasions I have requested them to put me on their ignore list. You should feel free to do the same. I couldn't care less. It's a serious issue that will effect all expats, including pensioners. The May budget is approaching, and whilst I think the proposed changes will not be put forward in the May budget, there's a chance they could be. I don't care if other people don't care about the issue.

That would be against forum rules, but unlike many on this thread who have reported me, i will not be reporting you. Still waiting for some credible links from you to rebut the links, yes links, not opinions, I have posted. No link from you in your last 26 posts. I gave up counting after that. I welcome any rebuttal links. Please post some. Does the word "living" mean "alive" and also refer to their geographic location, being in Australia? Your argument goes to lifestyle, which is irrelevant. How can a hypothesis be fact. A hypothesis is formed prior to fact. After all this time you still do not get it. I have posted links showing Jim Chalmers' hands are tied. The Australian economy is not in good shape, and he can't please everyone on the 9th May, and following budgets. He taxes wealthy expats, and expat pensioners will just be collateral damage. As another member put it, "a blanket tax." He's not targeting pensioners, but they may well be caught up in the net. The current laws are 90 years old, and have a big gray area, one that myself, and yourself, being on a part pension, have used to our advantage. They will put an end to the gray area, for everyone, and without any exemption or thresholds, that means pensioners are caught up as well. Your whole hope, opinion, or hypothesis is based on the notion of bad publicity for government, or lost votes from expat pensioners if these laws are passed, but the other 2.5 million pensioners in Australia will not give a rat's, and neither will any media outlets, for the, estimated 80,000 expat pensioners by your numbers, and the estimated 200,000 expat pensioners by my numbers. It will not be put to the public about the small cohort of expat pensioners as it will be insignificant to the public. No one will care, least of all the government, and there's next to no votes lost because expat pensions do not go to an Australian Embassy at election time. Look at all the information on the websites of financial advisors, investment houses, accounting firms etc. Many links to them have been posted. They are all aware something is in the wind, with some of them already offering some basic interpretations of the proposed changes. Are they forming a wrong hypothesis? Are they wasting their time? In my opinion, the laws will be passed at some stage in the future, regardless of which party is in government. The best we can hope for are exemptions or thresholds, but neither of these are mentioned in the proposed changes, so strap yourself in and get ready for the ride.

What about all that lost pension money to the Australian economy, and all that lost non resident tax revenue, for which I have admitted that I have escaped for some years. Don't you think that would outweigh some longer wait times for medical, and why would the government care what the returning expats do for accommodation. You are still stuck in denial that the Australia government actually cares about its citizens, it doesn't. I have posted links to the serious situation the Australian economy is in. They need the money, and will be chasing every dollar. They will not be held to ransom over some longer wait times for free medical, and returning pensioners living with friends and relatives.

Sure, but failing to plan means you are planning to fail. No gray area in this one, and at this stage, no free passes. This one's not going to go away.

I addressed this myth several pages ago. Briefly, every cent of pension money going to expats overseas is a total loss to the Australian government, and the Australian economy. In fact, it benefits another country's economy. Directly, or indirectly, force pensioners back to Australia and just about all that fortnightly pension circulates in the Australian economy, which creates jobs, and jobs create income tax, not to mention GST, taxes, excise, levies, council rates, fees, licenses, insurances etc that are all government revenue. Basically, the government gets a lot of that pension money back through various different sources. I agree there is currently a housing shortage at the moment, but this, and the myth that it will strain the medical system, is not enough for the government to care one bit about updating 90 year old non resident taxation laws. All it means is the waiting list gets a bit longer, so if pensioners have to wait 12 months instead of 9 months for medical treatment, why would they care? I don't think it will be in the 9th May budget, but in my opinion it will happen, possibly in Labor's current term. Labor are aware of the proposed changes and are reviewing the 45 day part of the law, but no mention of pensioners, pensions, exemptions, or thresholds. The assistance treasurer said the changes were in "the government's in-tray." https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v As it's a Liberal initiative, I doubt they will oppose it, so it will have the numbers to pass. Best to start planning a strategy for your own circumstances for when these laws come in.

Not as dumb as it sounds. There's not that many air conditioned live music venues around.

The Jungle Bar on Soi Yamoto, or Soi 31/1, has air conditioning and live music. They have a Filipino band, and drink prices are reasonable.

I have just done a quick scroll back of 3 pages. You have only posted one link in your last 25 poss, and that was a news link. You are the one always asking for a "credible link." How can you rebutt my posts with opinion, alone? In a previous post you said, "You are totally wrong on the 2.5 million OAP recipients." I posted a link showing there are 2.6 million people on the aged pension in Australia. The link was from a government website. I have no problem with you rebutting my posts and links, if you can supply a "credible link" of your own with more accurate or more recent figures. If you can, I will gladly retract and work off the new information, but you don't put forward any rebuttal links, just more derogatory remarks. I don't post, on any forum or platform, for likes, thumbs ups, points, or a positive rating. I'm too old for that. Is that the motivation behind your posts? In any case, we have discussed the psychology behind people shooting the messenger, especially those who are elderly, happy with their lifestyle and routine in Thailand, and who are being informed they might be facing a 32.5% reducing in their pension in the future. It was never going to be a popular message, and it was always going to make the messenger unpopular. Obviously, I then started rebutting replies like, "That's only for Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" with the harsh reality. This resulted in many personal attacks and trolling me. After a while, I started to fire back, even got sent on some short holidays, but alas, the proposed non resident tax changes didn't go away. As mentioned above, this sub-topic of a possible tax coming the way of expat pensioners, within the aged pension thread, has gone through several stages. Some of them psychological, such as denial and anger. I have posted link after link to back up some of my comments, but sometimes they need some foresight of the reader. An example of this is below. This link is hot off the press. It's only a short read, but paints the picture well of the difficult decisions the government facing in the May budget. I'll list some key points. Federal budget: Jim Chalmers’ choice – more deficit or higher taxes (smh.com.au) First, there's the headline: "more deficit or higher taxes." This is what the government is faced with on the 9th May. Now, an expat pensioner might view this as, "we'll, I don't pay any tax now, so how can I pay more tax." Whereas I view this as, "Anymore than $0 is more tax." Is that a pessimistic view, or a view the government may or may not adopt? I said way back there was going to have to be either higher taxes, or new taxes, or a combination of both. "But they would also cause havoc to a budget that, in case anyone has forgotten, has been in deficit since 2008 and is carrying record levels of debt." I have said before, the Australian economy is not in good shape. I have posted a link showing there will be 25 years of deficits, and debit is approaching $1 Trillion. I have consistently said "The money has to come from somewhere." "The biggest proposal, from the inclusion committee, is to increase JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the age pension. At present, it’s around 71 per cent." I have mentioned welfare is the Australian government's biggest expenditure and posted a link showing it, and is only going to get bigger. Who's going to pay for it? "That would also mean increasing tax on every person who earns more than $45,000 a year. And without those tax cuts, middle-income earners will pay a record share of their income to the taxman." Like I have said, someone has to pay for it, and the money has to come from somewhere. Now, when you read the article, do you consider it improper to form a hypothesis that the government clearly needs to collect more money so it doesn't have to keep borrowing? Couple that with the government sitting on draft legislation to changes to 90 year old non resident tax laws, which a previous government paid for, and loses next to no votes, and do you think it's "opinion" or probability that at some stage in the future, by either party, they will be eventually passed? Is that too long a bow to draw? If so, why? This is where some foresight is needed. Connect all the dots and one can see they lead to higher tax and / or new taxes in the near future. I disagree hypothesis only have power when they come to fruition. Many business decisions and investment decisions are made on hypothesis. For something as simple as reading a forum such as this, what's wrong with forming a hypothesis on the issue? Haven't people all around the world just gone through 3 years of forming hypothesis in relation to covid, and government policy? Of course you missed an important part of the math formula, that is "time." How long we have been members for. Yes, I have posted a lot on this topic. Anyone who has replied to me, I have given the courtesy of replying back. When I have been asked for a "credible link" (sound familiar) I have replied and posted one. After a while, anyone personally attacking me or trolling me, I fired back. In my opinion, yes, only my opinion on this one, the proposed changes to non resident tax is going to have big impact on EVERY Aussie expat, unless exemptions or thresholds are added, so I see it worthy of discussion, not trolling.

There's some truth to your comment, however, is this publication lying? https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/05/08/microsoft-windows-10-last-windows/?sh=e49f6da3328c "First some context. The statement came from Microsoft employee Jerry Nixon, a self proclaimed ‘developer evangelist’ who stated: "Right now we’re releasing Windows 10, and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10. If this sounds strange, Microsoft didn't help. The company today stepped forward to defend Nixon’s comment to The Verge saying it was “reflective” of the company’s opinion." "The company stepped forward to defend Nixon's comment." Fast forward to Windows 11, and it's either a back flip / U-Turn, or the publication is lying and MS never defended Nixon's comment about Windows 10 being the last OS. The millions of notifications on Windows machines, all around the world, telling the owner their computer did not meet minimum requirements for Windows 11 is now great publicity for MS, is it? How many people were concerned about this notification? How many people with a reasonably new machine at the time felt ripped off after receiving this notification? How many negative posts of forums about Windows 11 and TPM and compatibility and minimum hardware requirements were there after the Windows 11 announcement? I would say Windows 11 created a lot of negative publicity. Surely MS would have known that ruling out hundreds of millions of machines, all around the world, for Windows 11 was going to create negative publicity for MS. My reasons for this are given above. It turns out MS have now made it easier for older machines to install Windows 11. From not meeting minimum requirements to making it easier to install seems to me to be a back flip. What would you call it?

Yes. Your constant personal attacks and trolling me show a lack of subjectivity and pessimism. Perhaps you should look upon this forum as an information source and self education tool. Knowledge is power. You have 19,000 posts and I have over 1,800 posts. What was that about kettles? https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/age-pension "As at 26 March 2021, around 2.6 million people received Age Pension, equating to over 3 in 5 (62%) of the population aged 65 and over." Are you going to say that's not a credible link? Once again, you think the 183 day law is "victimizing pensioners" as in, ALL pensioners. No, it's not. It would just be withholding non resident tax from those aged pensioners living overseas. Most of the 2.6 million aged pensioners living in Australia would not care less about non resident tax on pensioners living overseas. Why would they? Why do you think they would be vocal about the issue when there's nothing in it for them? You said in a previous post you believe there was only about 80,000 aged pensioners living overseas. Why would the other 2, 520, 000 care about what happens to the 80,000 overseas? Why would the government care about the 80,000, from whom it loses next to zero votes from, when compared to the other 2, 520, 000 pensioners in Australia. Do you really think 80,000 aged pensioners, scattered all around the world, most of whom do not vote in elections, are going to have an influence on non resident tax policy? Why will it not be easy for the government to pass these changes? Are you going to protest outside the Australian Embassy n Bangkok in opposition to them? Expat aged pensioners are the minority, not the majority. How do you propose small numbers will sway government? In my opinion, the laws will eventually be passed, and the best we can hope for is an exemption for pensions, or a dollar value threshold added to the non resident tax bracket table.

There was no deflection. I called you out on wealthy Australians being able to "easily conform" to the 183 day law. When asked how, your reply was move back to Australia for 6 months of the year. If they wanted to do this, they would already be doing it. In fact, many Aussie expat retirees are capable of this anyway, as seen by how they move back for their 2 year qualifying period. Aussie expats, wealthy or pensioners, simply don't want to spend 6 months of the year, every year, for tax minimization or pension maximization purposes. Simply concept, really. Winning the lottery was an example. It could be the sale of an asset/s, an inheritance, a compensation payout or whatever. My point being, we are all in Thailand because we don't want to be in Australia. If we wanted to be in Australia, we can be, because we have a birth right to reside in Australia via citizenship. The argument of "I can't afford to live in Australia on a pension" is not true because there are about 2.5 million people on the aged pension doing it. The debate is in the quality of lifestyle, not the capability. It is true, I am not on the aged pension, but that's not to say that if /when the 183 day law is passed I will not restructure my finances and go onto the aged pension in the future. You still don't get it, do you? If / when the 183 day law comes in, we are all looking at paying 32.5% tax. In the case of pensioners, I would suggest the government simply withholds 32.5% of their pension. It's not me versus you versus pensioners. It's expats versus government, because the 183 day law, as it currently reads, doesn't discriminate. There are no exemptions, means / assets tests, or thresholds in the proposed changes. Interesting you mention psychology. Remember this list of reasons why people chose to ignore the proposed changes? Some were quite humorous. The psychology behind it is, if I tell myself enough reasons why it will not happen, then it won't happen, and if I tell myself enough reasons why it should not not apply to me, then it will not apply to me. If I shoot the messenger then I didn't receive the message and ignorance is bliss. "the Government would never do that. " "that will never happen." "Centerlink told me 6 years ago..................." "there would be too much bad publicity for the Government." "there would be a big backlash by pensioners." "I use a VPN when accessing the MyGov website." "that's only for people like Paul Hogan." "they can't tax a pension." "I'm still a resident because I am using an address in Australia." "I didn't tick the box leaving permanently on the departure card." "I told my Australian bank I am still a resident of Australia." "I'm on a veteran's pension. It's different." "I'm still a resident because I go back to Australia for a couple of weeks every year." "it would cost too many votes." "I still have a Medicare card so I am still a resident." "My mate told me................................" How does any of the above get around the fact that an Australian individual, pensioner or not, is outside of Australia for 183 days? The UK do not pass on CPI increases to British pensioners living overseas. This has been the case for years. I am not surprised the Australian government would be looking at making some savings in this area as well. You call it sharing misery around, probably because of your pessimistic view on things, but I call it spreading information, so people can prepare. Te current law is 90 years old and viewed as no longer fit for purpose. Times are changing. The ground is shifting beneath Aussie expats. The Australian economy is not in good shape and looking at 25 years of deficits. (already posted the link) The government has to get the money from somewhere, and whilst pensioners in Australia may get a free pass, like UK pensioners, I am not so sure Aussie expat pensions will be left untouched. Certainly self funded expats will be impacted. The previous Liberal government commissioned the draft legislation. It's already been paid for. The current Labor government is aware of it and reviewing it. This tells me it's not dead in the water or been thrown in the bin. It hasn't gone away with the election result as some on this forum had hoped. The Labor government can smell a dollar in it just like Liberal did. You're on a part pension. Have you at all considered, even for a moment, the 183 day law? if so, would you have even known about the proposed changes it if it wasn't posted on this forum? Ignore the propose changes at your peril.

I had a Google around and any slight advantage seem not relevant to the majority of users. No wonder you are staying with Windows 10.

Microsoft told the world Windows 10 was to be the last operating system. There should be no Windows 11 to market. Negative publicity is still publicity. Not true. Plenty on the net about it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/05/08/microsoft-windows-10-last-windows/?sh=261fe35b3328 "The Internet woke up to a shock this morning. Microsoft has used its Ignite 2015 conference to declare Windows 10 will be "the last version of Windows" I posted a quick Youtube clip on how Microsoft have made it a lot easier to install Windows 11 than previously. There is even a choice at install now. I would say that somewhat of a back flip on their "flop" or publicity stunt.

I posted that link because I found it interesting that in 2018 - 19 more people left Australia than returned. No other reason. It was not about the amounts of people. Obviously, should that trend continue, and it very well might, due to the increasing higher cost of living in Australia, more and more retirees make seek to retire abroad, thus creating a bigger incentive to tax them. I posted the other link for you because you said you couldn't be bother to scroll back, so yes, I posted it for your benefit. What is so shaky and hypothetical about the proposed changes to non resident tax law? It's in black and white. Do you see any exemptions, thresholds, or means and assets test in them?

Talk about changing the narrative to suit your argument. Now you are banging on about living in Australia for 6 months for the purposes of tax minimization and how there are nice climates to chose from in Australia. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many wealthy expats chose to live in Thailand for things other than the climate. Eg. personal freedoms. I could win the lottery tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to stay in Australia for 6 months of the year, for every year. The bleeding obvious, which you fail to see as relevant, is if / when these proposed changes are passed into law, every expat, including pensioners, will be impacted financially. The impact may be so great that many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand. There could very well be a 32.5% reduction in pensions, because they are an "income" and the pensioner is overseas for more than 183 days a year. I know one pensioner who is preparing for it buy looking into caravan parks in Australia with decent locations, but with cheap rent. He will have to do the 6 months in Australia if his pension is reduced by 32.5% and will need cheap accommodation whilst serving his time. Would you like me to tell him none of this is relevant to him?

Can you give some examples?

Whilst posting the link for Lacessit, I came across this statistic from a credible source. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australias-population-over-75-million-born-overseas "In addition, in 2018-19 there were 75,000 Australian citizens who returned to Australia after living overseas but in the same year there were nearly 87,000 who decided to emigrate." It shows more leaving than returning. I wonder how many retirees were in the 87,000.

Support, by way of security updates, would be the main reason. Support for Windows 10 doesn't end until October 2025, so I see no rush to move from 10 to 11, which is another reason Windows 11 has not been widely adopted to date.

No sour grapes. Any operating system that would not work on a high percentage of machines, all around the world, was not going to be widely adopted in a short time frame. If it wasn't a publicity stunt, how important is the TPM anyway? Microsoft said Windows 10 was going to be their last operating system, yet they bought out Windows 11. Why is Microsoft still sending the notification that a machine does not meet the minimum requirements for Windows 11 when they have allowed people with older machines to install Windows 11?

I disagree that I am practicing sophistry. I have backed up my comments with links, and when I have posted my opinion, I have said so. I simply disagree with you that cost will be higher than the reward in this matter. As another member said, at this stage, it appears the 183 day law is a "blanket" law that covers everyone. Such a blanket law is bound to be profitable for government, otherwise it would be scrapped. Given the Labor party are aware of the proposed changes, and I have posted a link showing this, as they are possibly going to change the 45 day part of the law, it may be the case Labor pick up what Liberal started. Here's another link. Don't know if it's the same one I posted before. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040 "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." Services Australia would have credible data. In relation to cost, all of the current infrastructure would be used. I believe some pensions are already reduced when outside Australia for something like 6 weeks, I would see the 183 day law as operating not much differently to what is already happening. Actually, the 183 day law would probably be cheaper to implement and enforce because there is no gray area. There would be nothing to review, nothing to appeal. It's there in black and white and can not be refuted by the tax payer because immigration has it documented, and we have already established that a pension is deemed an "income" at law.

How so? Take a reasonably wealthy expat retiree in Thailand. Maybe a good sum in cash at bank or super, or a large share portfolio, or a small portfolio of rental properties. How will they "easily conform" to the 183 day law?

For me, health is wealth. Nothing more important than your health. The insurance is expensive though.