KhunHeineken

Casuals pay tax.

Well said. They couldn't care less if the small fish are caught in the net for the big fish.

Say an Aussie had $2 million AUD in an Aussie bank earning 5%. That's $100,000AUD a year, and this was their only income. I would find it hard to believe they could ring their bank and give them an address in Thailand and go from being taxed as per the above table, to being taxed a flat 10%. Let's say that Aussie was still in Australia, using the "gray area" but in reverse, arguing that they actually live in Thailand, but are just on a long holiday in Australia visiting friends and family. I would be surprised if it was that easy to get out of paying all that tax. If there was other income involved, I would think as so as you give your bank an overseas address to claim your 10%, the ATO would be on you for their 32.5% as a non resident for tax purposes on your next tax return. Next time I am speaking with my accountant I will ask them about this as an option for when if / when the proposed changes to non resident tax comes in. One option I have was to liquidate every asset I have in Australia and move the money offshore, out of reach of the ATO. I would still be a non resident for tax purposes, being outside of Australia for 183 days, but I have nothing in Australia to tax. I could handle a flat 10% tax on interest, so leaving it in an Aussie bank, and telling them I am a non resident for tax purposes, could be an option.

Hardly.

Some were calling for a temporary rise in the GST. This would tax the actual people causing the inflation, the spenders. Basic foods are already exempt, they could extend this to things like white goods, in case your fridge blows up. This would net the government billions, which can then be used on hospitals, schools, roads etc. Another one, and my preferred one, was a temporary rise in super contributions, which lets the people keep their money. Say it went from 9% or 12% to 20%, this will slow down spending. Raising interest rates which target mortgage holders, who typically have less disposable income to spend, therefore, are not the ones causing inflation, on this occasion, will go beyond "unfair" and will cause social damage in the form of defaults, homelessness, divorce and suicide. Other options are available, but the government is not brave enough to try them. The problem is, the wealthy, those typically without mortgages, pay the inflated price anyway, so that leave the middle class paying through the nose, all the time while mortgage holders are the ones being punished. I am not saying raising interest rates doesn't work. I am suggesting there are better ways of lowering inflation in which the pain is evenly spread, and not carried by a minority who aren't even causing the problem. Interest rates couldn't stay low forever. They had to eventually rise and normalize again. The unemployment rate dropped recently, probably because mortgagees now have to get a second job, so this puts pressure on the RBA to raise rates again next month. It's a catch 22 for mortgagees. Work another job to keep your house, but you are causing another rate rise to push you closer to losing your house. The rot started decades ago when the housing market because an investment vehicle through tax perks, and the low supply of new housing which pushed house prices, and rents, through the roof. It turned what should have been homes for Aussie families into money making investments for the wealthy. Australia's housing market ponzi scheme may very well unravel in the next 12 to 18 months.

Why make a minority of Australians, mainly those with mortgages, carry the burden of Australia's high inflation? Particularly, as mortgagees typically have less money to spend, so are not the ones fueling inflation. The inflation burden should be carried by the broader population, not a minority.

What rights does this little book give you in Thailand? What does it allow you to do that a 30 day visa exemption stamp tourist can't do? It's nothing like Permanent Residency in a western country, and to suggest that it is comparable is laughable. On a side note, how can you argue you are a resident of Australia for taxation purposes, whilst holding this little book that says you are a resident of Thailand?

No shame in admitting you can't answer the question, so why personally attack me, when you don't even know yourself?

Ok, perhaps I read it was owner occupiers. Surely there's an amount of investment properties that are mortgaged for negative gearing purposes.

Provide a link showing that a Certificate of Residence means you are a Permanent Resident of Thailand.

Have I? What advice have I offered? Have I told anyone what they should be doing with their money, no? I have informed people of the proposed changes to tax residency laws, and have posted link after link after link. When I have offered my opinion, I have said, "In my opinion" which makes it an opinion, not advice. You have obviously misunderstood. I am self funded, like thousands of others, and many part pensioners. I don't receive an aged pension, and I have said this. Once again, I have not offered advice. It's been a sub topic within the aged pension forum that very well may have an impact on pensions, and pensioners. How does personally attacking me change the proposed changes to tax residency laws? Do you feel better after shooting the messenger? Does it make the proposed changes disappear for you?

It's just a piece of paper that should be free, although many have to pay 300 baht, that simply states, officially, that you live at a certain address. They are commonly used for drivers / riders licenses and registering vehicles, where a proper address for a foreigner must be established. They have nothing to do with Citizenship, Permanent Residency, and visas.

Pensioners living overseas are not welfare cheats, well, some might be get a few dollars on the side, but that's for another threat. The proposed changes to non resident taxation is nothing like Robodebt. There are some very wealthy people that have been using the gray area for years. The gray area is in law that is over 90 years old. It had to come to an end one day. The former Liberal government made a start, and the current Labor government are aware of the proposed changes. Common sense says if they pass the proposed changes, they add another non resident tax bracket that would be a tax free threshold that would see pensioners under the threshold, but I have not read such a proposal. I really don't see the link between Robodebt and closing a 90 year old gray area tax loop hole.

There's been too many people hiding in the "room for argument" for decades. It had to end. That said, I never thought it would be so black and white as the 183 days, but you have read the proposed changes, and they are what they are. They may very well be passed, despite the hardship they will cause to many, such is the way government operates. I haven't mixed it up. 183 days inside Australia, resident. 1Therefore, 83 days outside Australia, non resident. Where's the mix up? Not about appetite to go after people. It's about the passing of a law that sees ANY Australian citizen outside of Australia for more than 183 days a year, who derives an "income" from Australia being deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, no gray area, no wiggle room, no room for argument. Simple as this, really. Please post a link to a proposed 365 days or 730 days rule. Even if this was the case, how does this help Aussie expats living overseas full time? Even at 730 days, they eventually get scooped up, so, no real difference between 183 days and 730 days for expats. No, Robodebt was wrong because of the method the government used. I have no problem with the government going after welfare cheats. Aussie expat pensioners are not welfare cheats, but they are non residents for taxation purposes. Sure, they are not the focus of these proposed changes, but without an exemption, they will be scooped up by them as well. As for the government being shy to repeat this mistake, immigration know all the Aussies that are outside of Australia. Centerlink know all the Aussies that are on a welfare payment. As incompetent as the Australian government is, not even they could mess this up with things being made so simple. Simple chain of events with data bases. Eg. Aussie John Smith has been outside of Australia for 183 days. Immigration inform the ATO and Centerlink. If John Smith is self funded, next tax return his bill goes up by 32.5%. If John Smith is a pensioner, Centerlink start reducing his pension by 32.5% per fortnight. Where's the Robodebt scenario in this simple example?

If Australia's intelligence agencies were smart, they would buy some Chinese CCTV systems, and build a mock military base/s in the middle of nowhere. A bit of fencing and signage, some makeshift buildings, have a few people coming and going, but essentially, nothing there of any importance. Use a bit of scrub as bait.

Google "Rimmer Pornhub." Ahhhh, then again, maybe you better not.

Something like 30% of property owners in Australia have a mortgage. Sadly, that minority is being left to carry the inflation burden of the nation, which is crazy, because typically, a mortgagee has less money to spend, therefore, they are not the ones fueling inflation.

I kept an eye on the robodebt fiasco. The suicides it caused were particularly tragic. Didn't some members of this forum suggest "the government would never go after pensioners" yet, robodebt happened.

A few things stand out for me in your post. Firstly, the guy you met, the decision maker, will be made redundant if/when the new laws come in. There will be no need to pay "decision makers" and lawyers and courts. There will be nothing to appeal. The proposed changes are black and white. Thus, further savings to government. I agree with you the proposed changes are more focused on the bigger fish, but many of these bigger fish have been using the same gray area as I, and hundreds of thousands of others have been using for several years. So, whilst the whole idea of these changes may be to scoop up the bigger fish, without any means / assets testing, thresholds, or exemptions, the little fish get caught up in the same net that was designed to catch the bigger fish. Quoting you below, this is exactly the gray area many have been hiding in, for many years, and exactly what the proposed changes were designed to stop. "the way residency works in practical terms means it is highly unlikely that proving someone is a non resident would be done by a 183 day rule. That is because there are clearly a range of factors such as links to Australia, property ownership, friends, families, what you are doing overseas, plans to come back, that cannot be ignored. What if you simply have a long holiday once retired ... " Basically, they don't want Aussies living abroad, who derive an income from Australia, paying resident tax, when in fact they are non residents, just because they have a property in their name, an electricity bill, maintain their membership of a local bowlo, have some mates back there they call occasionally, and some relatives. In the past, this has been enough to argue your case with a "decision maker" but that will no doubt change, one way or another, in the future. In any case, how would one argue that they "plan to come back" to Australia when they have been living in Thailand for years, or, have spent all of 6 months in Australia over the last 10 years, with their son or daughter living in their property, or, they rent out their property? This is where the guy you met contradicts himself. He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument. The whole idea of the proposed changes is to make it black, or white, NO GRAY, for the ATO, and the tax payer. The gray area is 90 years old. It couldn't last forever. If the 183 day rule is "problematic" then why was it commissioned to be drafted by the former Liberal government? Could it be they saw the 183 day law as less problematic, and lucrative? Perhaps you can explain how an Aussie expat, living in Thailand full time, can still be a resident for taxation purposes.

There are many in the same boat, including myself. I've been cruising along in the big gray area for some years, and I am sure the government know of hundreds of thousands of Aussie abroad who have been doing the same, hence, the gray area had to go, eventually.

In relation to 10% tax on interest earned in Australian bank accounts, maybe you are referring to this: Bank accounts held by foreign residents Financial institutions automatically withhold tax from interest earned on accounts held by foreign residents. If you've given the financial institution your overseas address, the tax will be withheld at the rate of 10%. Without your overseas address, tax is withheld at 47%. You don't include this interest as income on your Australian tax return. I was under the belief this was for foreign residents who do not hold Australian citizenship, or Permanent Residency, and who do not live in Australia. If you do not declare your Tax File Number (TFN) to your bank, the interest is taxed at the highest marginal rate, which is around 47%. If you do declare your tax file number, but are a non resident for taxation purposes, tax starts at 32.5% from $0 to $120,000. Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23 Foreign resident tax rates 2022–23 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $120,000 32.5 cents for each $1 $120,001 – $180,000 $39,000 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $61,200 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000 If you are a resident, and declare your TFN, your interest is taxed at resident rates, along with other income. Resident tax rates 2022–23 Resident tax rates 2022–23 Taxable income Tax on this income 0 – $18,200 Nil $18,201 – $45,000 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200 $45,001 – $120,000 $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000 $120,001 – $180,000 $29,467 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000 $180,001 and over $51,667 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000

You are correct, and no one has suggested they are law. They are proposed changes to the law. They were drafted by the former Liberal government, and I have posted a link showing the current Labor is aware of them, and may tweak the amount of days, but from memory, that was just in relation to the 45 days. I have no doubt that the current laws, which are over 90 years old, will eventually be overhauled, probably with something that has no gray area, such as these proposed changes with the 183 days. So until then, continue on as normal, but consider a plan for remaining overseas with 32.5% less income from Australia, if you can.

As I have said, I m not on an OAP, but maybe a member can explain to me why some of you are receiving different amounts? I can understand with the part pension, but why are members receiving different amount for the full pension?

Well it's a "hot" topic, which is sure to get a few "fired" up.

I didn't assume anything. Did you see I used the word "many" and not "all?" Do you deny there are many Thai ladies, note, I used the word "many" and not "all" that have never worked in Australia, yet by marriage, qualify for a pension in Australia?