TroubleandGrumpy

It is not about an election commitment. It is about the Government moving forward with a proposal/initiative. Prior to the Govt moving forward with any proposal/initiative, they seek input and opinions (from many sources), and that can include leaking the proposal/inititive to the media to see the reactions. The APA and other Pensioner groups will have issues and questions IMO, as will other groups - like those involved with the International Social Security Conventions, and many others I have no time to think about now, and dont know about. That is how Govt works (I was involved in that) - it is not about presenting everything at an election every years.

Yes indeed - it is banned (but as you said many do it). Can Foreigners Be Real Estate Agents in Thailand? - Integrity Legal - Law Firm in Bangkok | Bangkok Lawyer | Legal Services Thailand IMO Thai authorities 'look the other way' because of a simple fact - how will Thais sell property to foreigners and get their money, if they cannot speak their language.

You are being given plenty of notice boys - get in now and stock up (quietly). Do not tell anyone you have a stock of supply - especially after it is banned again - and certainly never sell it just because you could make a lot of money (Thai jails aint no fun place).

The tax mob/mafia will have something to say about this me thinks.

Not sure how much you know about Thailand, but if you think Thai 'realtors' are anything like those in the west, you are very much mistaken. They have no licences, no qualifications, no indemnities or insurances, and or financial obligations or requirements. Any Thai can setup themselves as a 'real estate agent' in Thailand - no Expat can though (reserved for Thais only). Having said that maybe someone knows one in Hua Hin who is OK - but there are a lot of them that are not OK. IMO do not buy anything 'off plan' - but up to you.

Everything you state above is predicated on your belief that once they change the rule regarding tax residency, that will automatically result in all pensioners overseas being taxed on their pension. That is IMO not the case - and it is not in the stated aims of the proposed change as per the documents, nor has it been stated as a stated aim of the Government. If you have a statement from the relevent Minister stating that the change will result in all Expats overseas being taxed on their pensions, or a stated aim within the documents, then please provide that. I am not saying that you are definitely 100% wrong - you could be right - but you are stating things above based on your opinion of the outcome from the rule change proposed for tax residency - that is a leap I do not think will happen.

That change was introduced to stop people eligible for the pension, returning to Australia and applying for the pensions and then leaving immediately it was approved. That was done a lot by people who had worked in Australia for decades and then returned to their home country - especially Italians and Greeks.

I will respond one at a time - both for ease of writing and for others reading. You could be right and yes many pensioners will not give a rat's rear about Expats overseas. But I was in the APA and they can be very 'active' if they think they are going to be 'next'.

I just posted my reply to your post on gifts from ealier today - before I read this post asking to stop commenting on gifts. I am happy to leave that/this as my last statement on the matter of gifts.

While I hear your point, I will firstly state that tax avoidance measures are legal, but tax evasion is illegal. Under the current rules and interpretations, as I read them and as stated by the TRD website info, sending income to Thailand as a gift is not tax evasion, because it is within the rules and it is therefore a loophole that can be exploited (until closed). This is very similar to the previous loophole that allowed 12 months 'seasoning' of income earned overseas to avoid income tax obligations, and is likely why there was no point in closing this loophole back then. As you say, the potential tax revenue will be lost if Thais (or Expats) can now just remit their income as a gift, instead of seasoning it for 12 months. I agree that means at some point TRD will also be looking at closing this loophole too. If the TRD ever rules (or interprets) that income cannot be gifted from overseas to avoid potential taxation obligations, then that changes things - and as you say it is likely that they will one day. But as it stands now it is IMO OK - just another loophole they have not closed yet. Many Expats, myself included, will be remitting part of our retirement savings to the wife's Thai bank account, purely because that bypasses the complications of dealing with the TRD if we remit that to our own Thai bank accounts. If the TRD asks an Expat's wife for details about where those remiitance/s to her bank account came from, it would be wise for all Expats doing this to keep all records and have an audit trail to show that the transfers were from savings.

Good points - but it is not about Expat's votes, it is about the votes of pensioners at home, because they would see any such move as a step towards their own pensions being taxed in the long run. They have been around a while and know how the Govt works - which means they know that you never let them get the thin end of any wedge in. If I recall it was the early 2000s - but it was a huge shock to them when they found out the financial downsides to 'forcing' most of the overseas pensioners to return home. The politicians will have maybe forgotten or not know that, but the public service has a very long memory. I agree that the tax non-resident rule will be changed, but I dont think that will result in pensions overseas being taxed. But as you say it is an opinion and we disagree - lets all hope I am right. Paul Hogan does not get the Age Pension - nor do any other very wealthy Aussies living overseas. Withg regards to the DTA, the provision exists for the taxpayer to decide which country they will pay taxes to based upon there own peronal fianncial situation, and that includes taking the best option for themselves. The DTA has many options and methods to avoid double taxation, and that inlcudes selecting one country or the other as your primary income tax location. There are several Scandinavians in Thailand who pay all their taxes in Thailand, because it is far less here than it is in the Scandinavia countries. Age Pensioners in Australia are the largest 'costing' demographic - and that is increasing year by year. The main cost of that demographic is not the pension payments - not by a long shot. Their main costs are the subsidised medical costs - everything from medications to doctors to hospitals to transportation. The more that leave the financially better off the Govt is actually. They will try to reduce payments and others things things as you say, but they will not IMO risk many of them suddenly coming back to the country and a resultant massive increase in the budget costs. Not sure how many in total (100K?) - but I think 50K would probably come back to Australia if the pension was slassed/cut - and that is a huge cost impost on the budget.

My read is that the tax resident person in Thailand who receives the money, is the only person who has a potential taxation liability to Thailand. That person has to 'determine' if it is a gift or not (meets the rules) - and they must also have the necessary documents/information to later show why they determined it was not assesable (from husband, wife, etc etc), if they are ever questioned by the TRD. Example - If I was to transfer XYZ Baht from my home country bank account into my Wife's Thai bank account (single transfer or multiple), that could be a 'gift'. IMO that would especially 'qualify' as a gift/s, if I was to make 1 or more large transfers to enable her to buy a house or a car (in her name of course). If I was to regularly transfer say 50-100K per month, that could easily be 'questioned' by the TRD if that money was also being spent on myself - that is not to say it would not be viewed a sa gift, because that could be determined to be 'support'. IMO both circumstances are likely to be OK, but if she was to then transfer 50-100K to your bank account in Thailand, then that is unlikely to be accepted by TRD as a gift. However, even then, the taxation obligation would fall on the wife and not myself - although I am sure there is some 'rule or interpretation' that would allow TRD to charge me with 'conspiracy to avoid tax or tax evasion' - so I would not ever think that would be a wise thing to do - because the penalties are huge.

I hear you and your concerns are valid - the tax man winter is coming. But I do not think that there will ever be any taxes applied to the age pension - whether a recipient is in Australia or Overseas. To tax the pension for those living overseas would be political suicide, because the obvious next step is to tax those in Australia, because the total amount is over the tax free threshold. It is counted as taxable income, only for the purposes of taxing additional income earned above the pension amount, and for other Centrelink related issues. Yes I get the age pension, and I have savings in Super (fully taxed during accumulation) that is taxed at 15% growth which is AOK with me. And again, it would be political suicide to increase that 15% tax as it would affect millions. The bureaucrats and consultants only look at the 'hard' numbers when analysing any proposed change or initiative. The politician's advisers then look at things from the political impact perspective. Anything to do with 'politically active' and regularly 'complaining' pensioners with often nothing better to do, is something they know needs a very light touch and kid gloves. Many years ago the Govt (public service) did a study/report about the cost of pensioners living overseas. Even though the 'goal' was to justify big reduction in the amount paid to overseas pensioners, the conclusion of the study was that pensioners living overseas saved the Government millions, when all the costs and benefits were analysed - and that included those that return when in the late stage of life. What they did because of that was to change and add those 'non basic' payments (supplements), so that they could be denied to those living overseas.

That is why Exats cannot decide based on a community help group opinion - there are probably a few more too. What is clear though is that if you do not have to lodge a tax return, then you have no problems in that regards at this time. However, if the ATO was to start taxing pension payments for non-residents living overseas, as you suggest might happen, if they change the definition of what constitutes a non-resident for tax purposes, then we all have problems. I think that the definition will change, but I do not think that will result in ensions for Exats overseas being taxed - but fingers crossed that does not happen. But if it does, then I will change to being a tax resident in Thailand (under DTA) and stop paying income taxes in Australia. By my calculations the tax payable in Thailand, with wife etc., would be far less than the 32% in Aust.

Sometimes it is the OS and/or browser type and/or security settings ?

serious?

Go to the Sriphat Clinic which is art of the big University Hospital.

Thanks for the information - good to know. However, having looked into the issues regarding the proposed change to the tax residency rule, I dont see it as a problem for Exats living overseas on the pension. This advice from the ATO Community, although not a definitive fact, does indicate that it is not a problem. Tax on aged pension while living overseas. | ATO Community In summary that means if you do not need to lodge a tax return then it is definitely not an issue. This is the website to check if anyone wants to know if they need to lodge a tax return. It is available direct and annononymous so you can check out all the options. calculatorsandtools | Australian Taxation Office I do not recommend using MyGov to do this or any other online Govt assessment, because they will record your activity (for later use against you).

You clearly think it is OK to disagree with abuse and insults = sad athetic loser. I studied Economics at Uni in 70s when a Degree was an education - no gender studies khrapp back then.

I was quoting lefties who used the term Nazis to describe those who disagree with their views. But that was funny - you got me there.

LOL your logic thinking based on bias is astounding. Gaza voted in Hamas Germans voted in NAZIs Both were very bad decisions Isreal is as war with Gaza because of Hamas, we were at war with Germany because of the NAZIs. Same same - no sympathy for Germans and no sympathy for Gaza from many people - me included.

Like most liberal nutters they claim anyone disagreeing with them is like NAZIs, when the truth is that it is their side of the argument that is baseless proaganda and lies. More and more voters are seeing this truth it is the lefty liberals who act like NAZIs and spew out propaganda and shut down the opposition.

Well said and what is so hyocritical of those supporting palestine - they cannot understand the reality of war. WW2 was because of the NAZIs who ran Germany - not because of all Germans. In 1940s anyone protesting and claiming the Germans should not be attacked, because they are not all NAZIs, would have been arrested and jailed - and rightly so too. It is so funny when the overeducated ignorants stated that "elections have consequences" in 2020, but do not apply that same logic to the palestinians who voted out PLO and voted in Hamas in 2006. And just like the NAZIS who gave Germans no more elections after they took over, Hamas has adopted the same approach in GAZA.

More and more US voters are now realising that - and are forming the same opinion. The Dems with brains know it too and that is why they are desperate to stop Trump being relected.

The Grifter's Ad found by poster = which is what I was quoting in my post. Quote 1 = "If the money is transferred from overseas pensions, investments, roperty rent, or salary then due to the Thai Revenue Department changes to the rules for 224, it means you probably need to file a tax return". Quote 2 = "Dont stress we are here to help you with a simple stress free process" Perhaps you have not understood the first post and the response I made to it about the ad he found on a table.