On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I'm wondering if it's worth working and salary sacrificing into Super and then retiring at say 64 with a million dollars

 

If you can afford salary sacrificing, then all and good, you save on the tax you would have otherwise paid if you didn't salary sacrifice, so you would want to work out how much tax you would have saved over the period you are looking to salary sacrifice. I don't imagine it would be that much in the short term, plus you have to ask yourself, how much will your Super grow during that period as well (crystal ball) required.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

Problem with that is you won't get the OAP pension at 67 ,am I correct?

 

Yes, If you have over the asset threshold you will get sweet FA, so a million $ is over the threshold amount.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

If that's the case ,is it worth salary sacrificing,saving into your super ?

 

Discussed above.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I'm thinking far better to retire at 60 take what you have in your Super and spend it ,but I'm thinking the government is not that stupid

 

 

Taxing your Super at 60 is tax free, you can spend it, up to you, as long as you can say where you spent it, shouldn't be a problem, as long as you don't have anymore, that said, if your Super is say $600k, I would suggest that you don't spend it, but live off of it on a budget and make sure you are just under the asset threshold, if applying for the Age Pension, that way you will be entitled to the Age Pension. 

 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

One guy at my work tells me is retiring at 66 with over a million dollars and will tell Centrelink he lost it at the casino so he can get the OAP

 

LoL, tell him that I said, good luck with that one.

 

On 2/7/2024 at 12:06 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I'm thinking better to retire at 60 with $600,000 live in Thailand on $40,000 a year come back at 67 for the OAP but...still won't get it because saved too much Super I believe??? 

 

If you do retire at 60 with $600k, you won't need as much as $40,000 a year to live on in Thailand, to then go back at 67 to claim the Age Pension, and you won't have too much in Super, because you will make sure that your Super is under the threshold amount, (see link below).

 

The link regarding the asset thresholds is simple, you just have to make sure that you plan well ahead, and be careful how you remit money here to Thailand because, if I am not mistaken, your Super will be taxable here, because it wasn't taxed in Australia, I say that because your residency status will change to a resident of Thailand after 180 days here. 

 

Whether Thailand enforces the residency rule here on expats is something to keep an eye on.

 

Also remember, if you retire at 60 and live here till your 67, you will have to do the 2 years when you return to Oz to claim the Age Pension.

 

A lot to consider, e.g. rent, cost of living for 2 years, and being away from Thailand, GF/BF miss you so muk, love you long time etc etc.

 

I retired at 55, now 63, no regrets, as for the Age Pension, my feasibility research tells me that it would take me 4 years to recoup the outlay, if I was to return for the 2 years to claim the Age Pension, so I would be 71 before I actually got back what I spent in those 2 years in Australia to claim the Age Pension, suffice to say it's a dead duck for me, exactly how the Oz government planned it to be, but most don't seem to do the math, that or they have accommodation and live on the very cheap, which would make it a possible break even scenario for them, which would then make it worth it for them. 

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/assets-test-for-age-pension?context=22526

 

EDIT: Once you do receive the Age Pension and do your 2 years, when you return here, you will not pay tax on the Age Pension here under the DTA, DO NOT pay any attention to someone who says otherwise, or you be, as you say, "up sh-t creek, you can look it up for yourself under Article 18 which has been thrashed about on the Australian Age Pension thread, but that individual still doesn't get it and will provide you with misleading information. If you don't understand Article 18, have someone explain it to you who does, and don't even go near Article 19, as that person believes it is part of Article 19, which is only for Government Employee Pensions, not Age Pensions and annuities which were Article 18 covers.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

 

 

 

I'd really like to know how this is going to effect expats that use agents because they don't have the funds to remit to Thailand, if the RD wants them to have a tax file number.

 

I hazzard a guess that immigration officers around the country would come up with some genius idea, like only target those with funds in their accounts when applying for extensions, e.g. hey Mr Money Bags, you need a TFN to declare where the money you remitted came from, so the RD can look at possibly taxing you.

 

As for those who use agents, they would get a free pass for the usual brown envelope via the agents.

 

Hmmm, if this does occur, I thinks me will see an agent. 

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am amazed how many people still go to Phuket, for holiday or to live there.

 

I was there last year for a week, Patong that is, been going there with the family for years, but since the last trip, I reckon it's been a good 3 years.

 

We prefer driving around further south at other destinations during our road trips, like Hua Hin, Krabi, etc, cleaner and less touristy compared to Patong.

 

If your like me, you stay just out of Patong, e.g. within a 10 minute walk of Bangla Road, and travel to places like Nai Harn Beach, Kata Noi Beach and even Karon Beach for the day. There isn't really that much to do there, hence the reason we mostly enjoy the comforts of the hotel and it's facilities, after all  it's a holiday for relaxing isn't it.

 

But with the amount of money Patong brings in, they could do with wider pedestrian sidewalks and rainwater spill off into the gutters, because one downpour and it's game over, instant flooding. Less money lining their pockets, more into infrastructure and less development. 

 

 

8 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

So I was a gym rat for a lot of my adult life. 

Ate all the 'right stuff', went to the gym every day, you know the drill

 

But now as I'm in my mid 60's, it's kinda come to a 'Ah fu**k' it moment.

Not overweight, fairly healthy, happy with my life in general, my middle aged wife is OK with how I look, so yeah time to let go I think

 

 

Your body needs you to keep moving it, remember as we age, we lose muscle.

 

Lighter weights, more reps keeps your muscle from drooping.

 

Walk an hour a day to get the blood pumping, you'll feel better for it.

 

Eat the right foods, less sugar, alcohol consumption.

 

I am in my early 60's and do the above, and I get praised for my looks everywhere I go, most people say I am 50.

 

Friends the same age look weathered, smoke, drink, don't exercise and eat crap.

 

It all boils down to how you want to feel and how you want to look.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Dr Jon said:

How about stopping the illegal cigarette burning in bars and restaurants?

 

One of the main reasons I won't eat out, i.e. unless it's a smoke free environment.

7 hours ago, JoePai said:

Example just now near Khon Kaen

 

I would love to get to know where they are burning in my area, do you or can you provide a link of such ?

 

PM me if you like, appreciated.

On 2/7/2024 at 2:20 PM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

They cannot exchange information as easily as you imply - laws relating to privacy may not be 'strong' here in Thailand, but they are very much both strong and enforced in countries like Australia.  What you say applies in Thailand, but not so much in other countries - they cannot and will not easily give personal information out to another country.

 

I did provide you with some information ON PAGE 229 that I believe contradicts what you posted in my opinion, have you read it, as I note you have replied to other posts since, but not mine.

 

Legislation is in writing, and is law, words fly and can lead others to believe the misinformation at hand, i.e. if it is not supported by a credible link or actual legislation, suffice to say, it is important that we all do our best to provide correct information to other readers so we get it right the first time around, and I will be the 1st one to admit that I was wrong, if I ever am, the same courtesy should always be reciprocated from others, but is seldom forthcoming IMO, and this is were some people on the forum lose credibility.

 

Nothing personal.

 

International Tax Agreements Act 1953

 

ARTICLE 24   Exchange of information  

 

1.    
The competent authorities shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out this Agreement or of the domestic law of each of the territories concerning taxes to which this Agreement applies insofar as the taxation under that law is not contrary to this Agreement. Any information received by the competent authority of a territory shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that territory and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes to which this Agreement applies. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/fulldocument?filename=PAC19530082#PAC/19530082/Sch30old-repealed-1

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

They cannot exchange information as easily as you imply - laws relating to privacy may not be 'strong' here in Thailand, but they are very much both strong and enforced in countries like Australia.  What you say applies in Thailand, but not so much in other countries - they cannot and will not easily give personal information out to another country.

 

I knew I had this somewhere and now that I have found it and read it once again, disagree with your comments and propose you read this and then perhaps provide me with your interpretation (respectfully) if you disagree.

 

ARTICLE 24   Exchange of information  

1.    
The competent authorities shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out this Agreement or of the domestic law of each of the territories concerning taxes to which this Agreement applies insofar as the taxation under that law is not contrary to this Agreement. Any information received by the competent authority of a territory shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that territory and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes to which this Agreement applies. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/fulldocument?filename=PAC19530082#PAC/19530082/Sch30old-repealed-1

On 2/3/2024 at 12:39 AM, still kicking said:

So what? I buy 4 litres of wine for 9 bucks. 

Convert $74,114 per year to hourly salary | Talent.com

 

I wonder how high the sugar content is in your wine, great for diabetes. 

 

The $37.51 per hour for a 38 hour week is a little misleading in my opinion, as it doesn't take into consideration the Medicare Levy of 2% and it could be using an old taxation table ?

 

From my calculations using the ATO 2023 calculator for a single bloke with no claims, it works out to be $29.37 per hour for a 38 hour week.

 

That works out to be $1,116 a week, now take out at least $500 a week for rent, then electricity, groceries, car running costs etc etc and I reckon you'd be just making drinking cheap wine alright.

 

Each to their own.

 

 

 

 

On 2/2/2024 at 7:27 PM, KhunHeineken said:

This post contradicts what you have been posting in the other thread. 

 

"From my reading, they can take $0.32.5c in every $, no threshold as you are deemed a non resident" - why are you now saying otherwise in the other thread?  What has changed?  

 

We all know why, except you, i.e. we stumbled upon new information, e.g. Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement between Australia and Thailand, of which you have since been made aware of in the other thread, but are still reluctant to say you were WRONG "from your reading, above.....LoL

12 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Fair enough - lets respectfully agree to disagree.

 

One point - the ATO will not and cannot provide financial details of Aust Citizens to another country - without an Aust Court order.  The banks can but only with due authority and approval under the rules/regulations. 

 

Your incorrect on that, they have an agreement to communicate information about citizens of each others countries that reside in each others countries for the purposes of ascertaining if they have lodged tax returns regarding residency clarification. 

 

No court orders required, however what I read was, that if it was not in the interest of public policy, then no such information would be transmitted.

 

At the end of the day, they write the legislation and agreements, and can basically do whatever they want.

 

We on the other have to educate ourselves on the legislation and agreements and find ways around them, if we can, after all, sitting on bar stools doesn't provide us with loopholes, only other holes.

2 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Anyone who stay in the country for more than 180 days in the same calendar year, is resident for tax purposes and is obliged to pay tax, regardless of their visa type. There is no if and or but about this, unless you want to provide a conclusive link to a reliable well established source, confirming otherwise. Calling somebody a tourist, a resident,  a holiday maker or any other name, doesn't change the fact of the matter. 

 

As he has mentioned that he is an Australian, Australia and Thailand has a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA), and if he states that he is a resident of Australia and pays taxes in Australia, i.e. lodges a tax return annually, then Thailand cannot touch him, so to speak, but if he doesn't lodge a tax return in Australia as a resident, then the Thai Revenue department can ask the Australian Taxation Office, as they have an agreement to communicate with each other, and they will have him for breakfast.

 

He can think he's a tourist and argue his case in front of a Thai Judge, we all know what the outcome of that would be, 180 days, go straight to jail, do not collect $200 (Monopoly) LoL.

20 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

but the one that has 'precedent' is the one where you have most 'legal and social and financial' involvement - which for most Expats in Thailand who keep their money in their home country and also keep in contact with family/friuends there, means their home country would 'win' if the matter went to a Court - especially in their home country - especially if they are paying taxes (even if zero or very small) in their home country. 

 

I tend to disagree with you (respectfully), you see I am a resident here in Thailand whether I like it or not, and have been so for nearly a decade.

 

I have family back in Oz, bank accounts, a drivers license which I renew every 5 years, and I maintain a Medicare card and renew it before it expires. I also have club memberships, but all of that doesn't make me a resident of Australia.

 

Having kids here that go to school, can make it all that harder to say I am a resident of Australia, that said, the only tax I pay in Australia as a non resident is 10% withholding tax of the bank interest that I earn.

 

That said, there are pluses and there are minuses being a resident of Thailand, and of course you might ask, how do I get to keep my Medicare card, well, if you read the legislation, it says if you are out of the country for more than 5 years at a time, it lapses, so I make sure I return before the 5 years is up, and no, you don't have to pay a Medicare levy if you don't work, think about that for a minute, how many Ozzies are on the dole or pension etc etc and don't pay anything for Medicare, so yes, I am special. The system is there for a purpose, i.e. for me to find ways to get a round it, where I can....LoL

 

20 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

TH will have a great deal of trouble proving they have a greater involvement in my life - when technically and legally I am just a tourist here and could be made to leave at any time.  Sure I am a tax resident after 180 days - but I am still a tax resident in Aust - and good luck Thailand trying to convince Aust ATO (their IRS) and CLink (Social Werlfare) and Politicians to pay over part of their age pension money sent to all ther Expats in Thailand, to the Thai Revenue Department in the form of income taxes.  I heard there are about 30K Aussie Expats in Thailand and many of them are on the Pension - that is a big chunck of Australian tacxpayers money going to the Thai Govt.  Two chances of that being alloowed - none and buckleys.  IMO the same situation applies to most retired/married Expats recieving a Pension from their home country. 

 

Regardless of what you think, Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) between Australia and Thailand, grants Thailand the right to tax your age pension if you are considered a resident of Thailand.

 

The above said, if you consider yourself a tax resident of Australia and lodge a tax return every year, as you should, then it is highly unlikely that they can't touch you.

 

However if the Thai Revenue Department asks the ATO if TroubleandGrumpy lodges his tax return annually and the ATO says nope, then you are up S Creek and will be asked to cough up.

2 hours ago, toofarnorth said:

Why creature , why not say snake ?

 

Click bait....got us all.

On 2/2/2024 at 2:16 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Still, some, the youth, are obsessed with zombies, these days, and, I am not that far into zombies as they.

 

I know when I finish up, I provide many ladies with the Zombie, now that's another story not for this forum.

On 1/28/2024 at 12:04 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I think you might be talking thru yours,

Please reread my post I agreed with you 🙄

 

You are correct, I stand correct after re-reading your post, albeit it that I believe that it could have been worded a little better though.

 

 

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Not a slight, just a fact, and didn't mean to offend any of you delicate Aussies.

 

You forgot to add, oi, oi, oi, LoL.

 

I remember an Italian once asked me where I was from, and I replied Australia, ah yes he replied with a smile on his face, "The Land of the Delicatoes. 

On 1/27/2024 at 2:45 PM, georgegeorgia said:

I always find people like you are hypocrites, you tell others there racist yet you would be the first to complain about Australian Aboriginals getting Government benefits or handouts you don't get such as free medical prescription

 

I guess though ....that's why your calling yaself Oxymoron !

 

Your talking through your uneducated rear end again Phil.

 

The reason the indigenous people of Australia receive Government benefits or handouts as you put it, is because that suites the governments agenda.

 

The traditional land owners don't want to assimilate to the ways of the Australian people, they would prefer to live off of their land, as they did in the old days, providing Aborigine's with Government benefits or hands out is a way or encouraging a lot of them in, for example Alice Springs, I believe it is, to drink themselves to oblivion, problem sorted.

 

Whilst I don't like either of the mainstream parties, I do like how Hawke and Rudd, previous Prime Minister made things better for them, with Land Rights, so at least the traditional land tribes receive royalties from the miners who have been pilfering the minerals from their land.

 

You can't help feel sorry for the Aborigine's, and or the Indians of the USA. One could go on and one about other countries, but that is a whole new story, so will stick with the topic at hand.

 

Who is the hypocrite here georgegeorgia, Australia Day/Xmas were all invented for a reason and if you can't work out why, then your dummer than dummer I suppose.    

43 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I'm 75 my wife is 58 so if I had to pick again, I'd go for a 20yo.

 

All the way with you there Old Croc, even 18, or 19 the younger (legal) the better.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Patong – A young German man was arrested after he stole 86,000 baht from a hotel in Patong.

 

Is this really newsworthy ?

18 hours ago, webfact said:

Additionally, it is inappropriate to transport the lion, regardless of it being a cub or on a leash, in a convertible vehicle because the lion can still pose danger to people in the vicinity and requires controlled containment and transportation, Mr. Kongkiat added.

 

So now that she has broken the law, I would suggest the lion cub be taken away from her and she be banned from owning such pets here in the future as we don't want to read 2 years down the track that she was up to it again, this time the lion got out of the car and mauled someone to death.

 

But no doubt money will exchange hands and the said posing of danger to the public will go away, until, perhaps one day ?

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

How do you know none of them is the father of the Girl friend [Ann] - the article is extremely vague about this point.

 

I would love to know how old Ann is, one would assume she is under 20 if the father wanted her back home, as under 20 they are still class as a kid here, so I'm lead to believe.

 

An unfortunate ending for the lad, his life over at 25, we should all keep our anger under control, especially then the cops show up.