All Aussie Related Stuff (excluding the old age pension)

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, giddyup said:

Oops, maybe I'm not! I just worked it out, I have a total income of about A$30,000, of which Centrelink is about 50% the other 50% is a super pension. The Tax free threshold is only about $18000, so maybe I'll get hit with back taxes. That could be substantial over 12 years.

There is an appeals process for this kind of situation.

IMO it is the job of the ATO to determine your tax residency status, not yours. Collecting back taxes on a taxpayer due to their own lack of action goes against natural justice. As does taxing age pensions.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[giddyup]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

There is an appeals process for this kind of situation.

IMO it is the job of the ATO to determine your tax residency status, not yours. Collecting back taxes on a taxpayer due to their own lack of action goes against natural justice. As does taxing age pensions.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

It may well be the ATO's job, but I guess the ANZ has to comply with any demands by them, that's why I got the form to fill out. Mind you the form only asks for name and address plus having to tick a box that asks whether I'm an Australian resident for tax purposes, which I ticked.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Frankly, I don't know how a smoker can afford to smoke in Oz.

It's why we are here, a pensioner in Australia that does not own the roof over their head is stuffed.

Just paid the registration on my car, 1600 baht = $65.

Probably ten times that in Oz.

I spent time some back in Oz, returned to LOS Dec last year.

 

Almost never saw anybody smoking (females more than male by gender) and the few that did smoke copping plenty of negative comments. 

 

Difficult to find a place/location where it's legal to smoke. One time I saw a lady smoking in the almost deserted massive car park of a big shopping complex about 15 metres away from any building. She was appraoched instantly by a complex official, and her cigarette out instantly. Officer gave her a small screw top jar with water to deposit what was left of the cigarettes (90% of same) and she had to put the waterlogged stub in the jar in her handbag. Friends mentioned it's illegal, in most/all? states to smoke when your on a footpath and illegal to smoke in any vehicle including your own & even if you're the only person in the vehicle. 

 

From idle chitchat now very expensive to  buy and fines etc., savage to very savage state by state. 

[scorecard]

8 hours ago, giddyup said:

Thanks for the info. Yes, I'm well over 60, in fact turn 80 in a couple of months, but that wouldn't stop the ATO trying to grab what they can.

Lots of comment re taxes, I'm guessing that the majority of OAP recipients are way under the taxable threshhold. 

[Lacessit]

32 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Lots of comment re taxes, I'm guessing that the majority of OAP recipients are way under the taxable threshhold. 

The age pension is included in taxable income. Basic single pension is $23,420. The tax free threshold is $18,000, so there's $5420 potentially taxable at 32.5%.

Then there's the Senior Australian's Tax Offset, which may only be applicable if one is deemed resident in Australia.

When I asked my regular accountant how much tax I would be paying if I was deemed non-resident, and whether the OAP component would be taxed, she said she would refer me to someone better equipped to give me advice. She's pretty good at her job, which shows how complicated it has become.

 

Bureaucrats delight in complexity, it's what keeps them in a job.

[giddyup]

57 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I spent time some back in Oz, returned to LOS Dec last year.

 

Almost never saw anybody smoking (females more than male by gender) and the few that did smoke copping plenty of negative comments. 

 

Difficult to find a place/location where it's legal to smoke. One time I saw a lady smoking in the almost deserted massive car park of a big shopping complex about 15 metres away from any building. She was appraoched instantly by a complex official, and her cigarette out instantly. Officer gave her a small screw top jar with water to deposit what was left of the cigarettes (90% of same) and she had to put the waterlogged stub in the jar in her handbag. Friends mentioned it's illegal, in most/all? states to smoke when your on a footpath and illegal to smoke in any vehicle including your own & even if you're the only person in the vehicle. 

 

From idle chitchat now very expensive to  buy and fines etc., savage to very savage state by state. 

After watching some of the disgracefull and heavy handed tactics by the Oz police (ie Gestapo) during the Covid lockdown, I have absolutely no desire to return.

[Will27]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

There is an appeals process for this kind of situation.

IMO it is the job of the ATO to determine your tax residency status, not yours. Collecting back taxes on a taxpayer due to their own lack of action goes against natural justice. As does taxing age pensions.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

It's not only his residency situation.

By the sounds of it, the OP was earning $30 000 per year. He should've been lodging tax returns for the past 12 years or so.

 

 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

After watching some of the disgracefull and heavy handed tactics by the Oz police (ie Gestapo) during the Covid lockdown, I have absolutely no desire to return.

I didn't mention the police and I didn't mention any disgraceful / heavy handed tactics by OZ police.

 

Further, the police don't make the rules about where you can/cannot smoke, these laws/regulations are made by the state legislatures and it's state by state.

 

Having had my Thai wife and her mother and her sister die from second hand cigarettes smoke (a terrible death - and none of them were smokers) I just wish it was made even harder to find places where it's not breaking a regulation to smoke and even more expensive.

 

If I observe the police appraoching a person smoking in a 'not allowed' area, and stop them smoking and fine them then I will applaud loudly. 

[Nemises]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Frankly, I don't know how a smoker can afford to smoke in Oz.

 

It’s now “more profitable in Oz to trade in illegally imported cigarettes than heroin”!

Yesterday’s Syd Tele:

[BaanOz]

21 hours ago, Nemises said:

Packet of red Marlboros now $A50 (apparently) in Aus. 

Ah yes, the “lucky country” indeed…

At least in the lucky country e-cigarettes aren't illegal.
Good the unlucky country can have it's cake and eat it.
 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, scorecard said:

I didn't mention the police and I didn't mention any disgraceful / heavy handed tactics by OZ police.

 

Further, the police don't make the rules about where you can/cannot smoke, these laws/regulations are made by the state legislatures and it's state by state.

 

Having had my Thai wife and her mother and her sister die from second hand cigarettes smoke (a terrible death - and none of them were smokers) I just wish it was made even harder to find places where it's not breaking a regulation to smoke and even more expensive.

 

If I observe the police appraoching a person smoking in a 'not allowed' area, and stop them smoking and fine them then I will applaud loudly. 

I gave up smoking in 1983. I would probably not be posting if I had not.

I don't care whether people smoke or not.  I tend to move away from any smoking source, or get upwind of it.

The statistics say a smoker is 20 times more likely to die of lung cancer than a non-smoker, which also ignores the excess deaths from emphysema, heart attack, and stroke. I'll take a bet smokers also influence the COVID death statistics.

It is difficult to give up smoking. If a smoker does, they will reduce their chances of getting lung cancer to that of a non-smoker in 5-10 years.

Their life, their choice.

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, Will27 said:

It's not only his residency situation.

By the sounds of it, the OP was earning $30 000 per year. He should've been lodging tax returns for the past 12 years or so.

 

 

When I worked in Port Hedland, there was a guy there who had not put in a tax return for 15 years. He earned pretty good coin too. He explained he was on PAYG tax, and if the ATO was going to tax his pay packet before he even got it, they could go whistle for more.

He was a surveyor, and moved around a lot. AFAIK the ATO never caught up with him.

[KhunHeineken]

14 hours ago, giddyup said:

It may well be the ATO's job, but I guess the ANZ has to comply with any demands by them, that's why I got the form to fill out. Mind you the form only asks for name and address plus having to tick a box that asks whether I'm an Australian resident for tax purposes, which I ticked.

I posted in another thread that this all may be changing soon.  They are proposing changes to the complex criteria that one has to meet to be deemed either a resident or non resident for taxation purposes for Australia.

 

Domicile, family ties, community ties, utility bills, intention of returning and so on may soon be replaced with, "Have you been outside of Australia for more than 183 days in the last calendar / financial year?"  Answer no, you are fine.  Answer yes, here's your non resident tax bill, from dollar number one, no tax free threshold. 

 

There will be no skirting around the 183 days as it will be linked to immigration's data base.  

 

It's going to be financially beneficial for the Australian government to do this, and given the majority of expats don't make their way to an Australian Embassy at election time, no votes are lost.  

 

There's discussion whether this change will affect expats on a pension.  It may come down to the legal definition of "income."  Is the pension an income?  If so, expat pensioners can expect around 30% less pension for being out of the country.  If not, carry on as before.

 

Australia is broke, and they will be chasing every dollar.  The 183 day rule will net them a lot of money from wealthy individuals, but pensioners may just be caught up in the same net and face the same consequences.  

[KhunHeineken]

52 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

When I worked in Port Hedland, there was a guy there who had not put in a tax return for 15 years. He earned pretty good coin too. He explained he was on PAYG tax, and if the ATO was going to tax his pay packet before he even got it, they could go whistle for more.

He was a surveyor, and moved around a lot. AFAIK the ATO never caught up with him.

The guy in Port Hedland was within Australia.

 

Expats have to front up for a new passport at least every 10 years, unless they go full overstay and off the grid, which is not recommended.

 

I remember them stopping those with HECS debt a few years ago.  I believe it's the same with child support.  Easy to add tax debt to the list, but with pensioners, they will just pay around 30% less a fortnight.  

 

https://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/what-you-need-to-know-about-your-student-debt-before-heading-overseas-20180430-p4zcf7.html

[KhunHeineken]

22 hours ago, Nemises said:

Packet of red Marlboros now $A50 (apparently) in Aus. 

Ah yes, the “lucky country” indeed…

Most of that $50 was supposed to go to health care, yet the hospital waiting lists for elective surgery are getting longer.

 

https://www.aihw.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2021/january-1/public-hospitals-worked-to-clear-elective-surgery#:~:text=There were 893%2C000 patients added,number added in 2018–19.

 

Where's the smoker's money going?  

[KhunHeineken]

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Frankly, I don't know how a smoker can afford to smoke in Oz.

It's why we are here, a pensioner in Australia that does not own the roof over their head is stuffed.

Just paid the registration on my car, 1600 baht = $65.

Probably ten times that in Oz.

Most of the cost of registration is the green slip, which is the insurance. 

 

Have a car accident in Oz and end up in a wheel chair, everything covered, even modifications to your house with ramps.

 

What happens if you end up in a wheel chair from a car accident in Thailand?  

[Will27]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The guy in Port Hedland was within Australia.

 

Expats have to front up for a new passport at least every 10 years, unless they go full overstay and off the grid, which is not recommended.

 

I remember them stopping those with HECS debt a few years ago.  I believe it's the same with child support.  Easy to add tax debt to the list, but with pensioners, they will just pay around 30% less a fortnight.  

 

https://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/what-you-need-to-know-about-your-student-debt-before-heading-overseas-20180430-p4zcf7.html

The only thing the guy was guilty of was not lodging tax returns.

I don't know what passports have got to do with anything.

 

I know you like to fear monger on here, but the ATO and CSA have been able to stop people

leaving the country for years.

 

They need to have a court order, it's not on every debt.

[tlcwaterfall]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I posted in another thread that this all may be changing soon.  They are proposing changes to the complex criteria that one has to meet to be deemed either a resident or non resident for taxation purposes for Australia.

 

Domicile, family ties, community ties, utility bills, intention of returning and so on may soon be replaced with, "Have you been outside of Australia for more than 183 days in the last calendar / financial year?"  Answer no, you are fine.  Answer yes, here's your non resident tax bill, from dollar number one, no tax free threshold. 

 

There will be no skirting around the 183 days as it will be linked to immigration's data base.  

 

It's going to be financially beneficial for the Australian government to do this, and given the majority of expats don't make their way to an Australian Embassy at election time, no votes are lost.  

 

There's discussion whether this change will affect expats on a pension.  It may come down to the legal definition of "income."  Is the pension an income?  If so, expat pensioners can expect around 30% less pension for being out of the country.  If not, carry on as before.

 

Australia is broke, and they will be chasing every dollar.  The 183 day rule will net them a lot of money from wealthy individuals, but pensioners may just be caught up in the same net and face the same consequences.  

https://www.holdingredlich.com/current-issues-and-changes-to-individual-tax-residency-rules

 

You may find this link interesting.

[scorecard]

26 minutes ago, tlcwaterfall said:

https://www.holdingredlich.com/current-issues-and-changes-to-individual-tax-residency-rules

 

You may find this link interesting.

Sure, discussions on these points will come up from time to time.

 

But is there another key point? Does the gov't (any gov't) really want to <deleted> off the pensioners and create more problems re pensioners living under the poverty line, etc?

 

Seems to me they will be very wary of this.  I hope so.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Sure, discussions on these points will come up from time to time.

 

But is there another key point? Does the gov't (any gov't) really want to <deleted> off the pensioners and create more problems re pensioners living under the poverty line, etc?

 

Seems to me they will be very wary of this.  I hope so.

 

Self-funded retirees get taxed at 15% on what the fund earns, and don't pay any tax at all on what the fund pays them. No matter where they are. I don't know what tax people on government pensions pay, or if it matters where they are either. I suspect it is not a level playing field for retirees.

 

The sensible thing to do would be to exempt the OAP from any taxation, no matter where anyone is, then tax whatever else is earned from investments at 32.5%. However, it is difficult to find governments that do sensible things, as witness the recent AUKUS pact, reneging on a contract with the French as well.

Or letting Murdoch get away with scamming shareholders and the ATO for decades.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:50 PM, Will27 said:

The only thing the guy was guilty of was not lodging tax returns.

I don't know what passports have got to do with anything.

 

I know you like to fear monger on here, but the ATO and CSA have been able to stop people

leaving the country for years.

 

They need to have a court order, it's not on every debt.

I posted a link to an article about people being stopped at the airport over their HECS debt.  That student loan is obviously connected to your name and date of birth, therefore your passport also.

 

You can be making money in Australia, not submitting tax returns, racking up a huge bill to the ATO, and they can't serve papers on you because you are in Thailand somewhere. 

 

However, your passport expires one day, and you have to go to the Australian government for a new one.  Given what they have done for HECS debts, how easy would it be for them to say, "Sorry Sir, you have to contact the ATO and make arrangements for payment before we can give you another passport."  Instead of chasing you for your non resident tax bill, they just wait for you to come to them.  

 

I am not fear mongering.  Why do you think they are proposing the 183 day rule?  They can get their hands on big money, and easily, and lose no votes in the process. 

 

How do you serve a Court order on someone who is not in Australia?  See the passport connection now?    

 

It's nothing new.  They did it with speeding fines years ago.  Don't pay your fines, we cancel your license.  No license, no insurance.  

 

Don't pay a non resident tax bill, we don't issue a new passport until you do.  

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/30/2022 at 8:06 PM, tlcwaterfall said:

https://www.holdingredlich.com/current-issues-and-changes-to-individual-tax-residency-rules

 

You may find this link interesting.

I reposted that link of yours to another member who ask for a link about it.  Your link was only a few posts up.  He hadn't read the thread because there have been several links setting out the proposed changes.  

 

Accounting and law firms have been given notice.  I would say after the election the process of passing it through will start, and with a press of a button some data bases will talk to each other and anyone submitting tax returns in Australia, who are also outside of Australia for 183 days, will be getting a letter next year, and pensioners outside Australia for more than 183 days will probably be informed of a cut in their pension. 

 

I hope I am wrong about the way I think it will go, but if you follow the money, these changes are sure to come in.   

[Will27]

39 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I posted a link to an article about people being stopped at the airport over their HECS debt.  That student loan is obviously connected to your name and date of birth, therefore your passport also.

 

You can be making money in Australia, not submitting tax returns, racking up a huge bill to the ATO, and they can't serve papers on you because you are in Thailand somewhere. 

 

However, your passport expires one day, and you have to go to the Australian government for a new one.  Given what they have done for HECS debts, how easy would it be for them to say, "Sorry Sir, you have to contact the ATO and make arrangements for payment before we can give you another passport."  Instead of chasing you for your non resident tax bill, they just wait for you to come to them.  

 

I am not fear mongering.  Why do you think they are proposing the 183 day rule?  They can get their hands on big money, and easily, and lose no votes in the process. 

 

How do you serve a Court order on someone who is not in Australia?  See the passport connection now?    

 

It's nothing new.  They did it with speeding fines years ago.  Don't pay your fines, we cancel your license.  No license, no insurance.  

 

Don't pay a non resident tax bill, we don't issue a new passport until you do.  

Again, you're just making stuff up to suit your narrative.

 

You were taking about people leaving the country with debts.

Those were the court orders I was talking about.

 

If the ATO wants to chase a debt whilst someone is out of the country, who as you said

is making money, it's easy for them to garnish wages and bank accounts etc.

 

Now you're making stuff about the possibility of the government refusing  passports.

There is nothing about the government refusing Australians passport.

Stop making this nonsense up.

 

You're fear mongering.

[KhunHeineken]

9 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Again, you're just making stuff up to suit your narrative.

Again, have you read the proposed changes?

 

Please tell me why you think they will not come in, and why you think the pension (income) will be exempt? 

 

What about those receiving a part pension because they have a rental property, savings, shares, and the like, back in Australia?  Will that income be exempt also?

 

I didn't make up the proposed changes.  I, and other members, have posted several links to them, yet you only address my opinions on the changes, not the changes themselves.

 

I have no problem listening to your argument, but I am not making it up and I am not scare mongering.  

 

What will your comment be if the legislation is passed?

 

15 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You were taking about people leaving the country with debts.

Those were the court orders I was talking about.

No.  I was using the HECS debt as a restriction of travel leaving Australia as a example.

 

What I am talking about is the expat living in Thailand with income generated in Australia who is now racking up a non resident tax bill.  They can't stop him leaving Australia because he's already left.  What they can do is not issue him a new passport in the Embassy until the ATO has taken the flag off his renewal.  

 

Point being, the ATO isn't going to miss out just because the debtor is overseas.

 

We are talking about The Australian Tax Office, not American Express.  

 

21 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If the ATO wants to chase a debt whilst someone is out of the country, who as you said

is making money, it's easy for them to garnish wages and bank accounts etc.

How does a creditor get a judgement when a summons can't even be served because the debtor is outside of the country? 

 

23 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Now you're making stuff about the possibility of the government refusing  passports.

There is nothing about the government refusing Australians passport.

You saw with the HECS debt article, they used the Centerlink debt to restrict travel.  That's immigration at an airport.  Pretty easy to put the same information on the Embassy data base.  

 

You are correct, there is nothing in the proposed legislation about passports, but I somehow can't see the Australian government just giving a free pass to non residents because they are outside of Australian.  This is an interesting point though, because once someone walks into the Australian Embassy, that is as good as being on Australian soil.  Interesting, but off topic. 

 

Point being, the days of your geographical location relieving you of your debt to the Australian government are coming to an end, as seen with the HECS debt article.  They are already restricting travel over debt.  Passport renewal for someone already outside of Australia would be a logical step, but this is my opinion, and I have no link to support it.  

 

[Will27]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Again, have you read the proposed changes?

 

Please tell me why you think they will not come in, and why you think the pension (income) will be exempt? 

 

What about those receiving a part pension because they have a rental property, savings, shares, and the like, back in Australia?  Will that income be exempt also?

 

I didn't make up the proposed changes.  I, and other members, have posted several links to them, yet you only address my opinions on the changes, not the changes themselves.

 

I have no problem listening to your argument, but I am not making it up and I am not scare mongering.  

 

What will your comment be if the legislation is passed?

 

No.  I was using the HECS debt as a restriction of travel leaving Australia as a example.

 

What I am talking about is the expat living in Thailand with income generated in Australia who is now racking up a non resident tax bill.  They can't stop him leaving Australia because he's already left.  What they can do is not issue him a new passport in the Embassy until the ATO has taken the flag off his renewal.  

 

Point being, the ATO isn't going to miss out just because the debtor is overseas.

 

We are talking about The Australian Tax Office, not American Express.  

 

How does a creditor get a judgement when a summons can't even be served because the debtor is outside of the country? 

 

You saw with the HECS debt article, they used the Centerlink debt to restrict travel.  That's immigration at an airport.  Pretty easy to put the same information on the Embassy data base.  

 

You are correct, there is nothing in the proposed legislation about passports, but I somehow can't see the Australian government just giving a free pass to non residents because they are outside of Australian.  This is an interesting point though, because once someone walks into the Australian Embassy, that is as good as being on Australian soil.  Interesting, but off topic. 

 

Point being, the days of your geographical location relieving you of your debt to the Australian government are coming to an end, as seen with the HECS debt article.  They are already restricting travel over debt.  Passport renewal for someone already outside of Australia would be a logical step, but this is my opinion, and I have no link to support it.  

 

Don't tell me you're not scare mongering when you're pretty much saying the government will refuse you a passport if you have an outstanding debt.

 

You're making this stuff up.

[scorecard]

9 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Don't tell me you're not scare mongering when you're pretty much saying the government will refuse you a passport if you have an outstanding debt.

 

You're making this stuff up.

Basic debt (e.g. credit card well overdue), is not and never has been within the pervue of government. 

[Will27]

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Basic debt (e.g. credit card well overdue), is not and never has been within the pervue of government. 

We were talking about government debt.

A debt to the ATO.

[scorecard]

36 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Don't tell me you're not scare mongering when you're pretty much saying the government will refuse you a passport if you have an outstanding debt.

 

You're making this stuff up.

If it's a debt which was originally funded by taxtion derived funds (all gov't funding for everything), then perhaps that's a bit different, in that the gov't has a responsibility to recover that money.

 

But private debt (credit card, private hopital bill - perhaps cosmetic surgery, car repairs, house furniture, etc.,) is a very different area of debt and gov't resources should never be used to recover this debt. 

[scorecard]

25 minutes ago, Will27 said:

We were talking about government debt.

A debt to the ATO.

Thank you.

[Will27]

12 minutes ago, scorecard said:

If it's a debt which was originally funded by taxtion derived funds (all gov't funding for everything), then perhaps that's a bit different, in that the gov't has a responsibility to recover that money.

 

But private debt (credit card, private hopital bill - perhaps cosmetic surgery, car repairs, house furniture, etc.,) is a very different area of debt and gov't resources should never be used to recover this debt. 

I still haven't heard of the government refusing someone a passport for a tax debt.