Australian Aged Pension

[mcfish]

Center link have gone mad and this ridiculous law should be reviewed with Brides from 3rd world and developing countries that have no where near the earning capacity of western woman. Lets be honest the vast number of brides are just country girls with no chance of ever legitimately earning more then a few thousand BHT a month.

I would happily break the law on this one and get married and not tell because its grossly unfair and they know it but the problem is it will bite you on the bum down the track if you want her back in your home country.

[sceadugenga]

The Injustice of the Portability of the Australian Age Pension.

With the decision by many Australians to take early retirement or being affected by redundancy we find people moving overseas and living off savings or investments for their final working life years.

Most are not aware that this can cause problems when they reach the Age Pension age qualification and return home to claim this.
People who may have spent over 40 years in Australia working and paying taxes can find themselves in a position where although they are entitled to the pension, or part of if they have investments, it is not portable for 2 years.

Another person who stays in the country until he is 65, or whatever age he now needs for the Age Pension, can cheerfully leave the country the day he qualifies and be paid while overseas.

This is not a situation where people who have worked overseas for years can claim a full pension outside of Australia, the Australian Working Life Residency law makes sure of this, you must have spent 35 years in Australia at working age to take a full pension offshore for any length of time.

I can see no rhyme or reason to the 2 year portability law, a person who returns to Australia for a few years before he applies for the Age pension will qualify for portability while someone who does not wont, even though they may have worked longer in Australia in total.

To make it even more unfair, the decision whether the time spent overseas is too long to qualify for the pension portability is not in any legislation, it is made by Centrelink.
Someone who spends the final 12 months of his working life period can possibly be at the same risk of portability loss as someone who may have been away for 10 years.

Most people I know who have been forced into this situation have accepted it and returned to Australia for 2 years, often undergoing considerable hardship with partners or family left behind and finding themselves placed in a position of having to make a new home for a 2 year period while trying to spend as little as possible.

I think everyone effected should appeal and complain to the highest level, become a serial pest, write, ring and email the relevant ministers, camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY????

It is a law that benefits no one, self funded retirees are not restricted and the taxpayer support their pensions through tax breaks to the same extent as the Age Pension.

[Sayonarax]

7 year old thread.

[harrry]

7 year old thread.

And stilll of value....unlike your troll

[simple1]

The Injustice of the Portability of the Australian Age Pension.

With the decision by many Australians to take early retirement or being affected by redundancy we find people moving overseas and living off savings or investments for their final working life years.

Most are not aware that this can cause problems when they reach the Age Pension age qualification and return home to claim this.

People who may have spent over 40 years in Australia working and paying taxes can find themselves in a position where although they are entitled to the pension, or part of if they have investments, it is not portable for 2 years.

Another person who stays in the country until he is 65, or whatever age he now needs for the Age Pension, can cheerfully leave the country the day he qualifies and be paid while overseas.

This is not a situation where people who have worked overseas for years can claim a full pension outside of Australia, the Australian Working Life Residency law makes sure of this, you must have spent 35 years in Australia at working age to take a full pension offshore for any length of time.

I can see no rhyme or reason to the 2 year portability law, a person who returns to Australia for a few years before he applies for the Age pension will qualify for portability while someone who does not wont, even though they may have worked longer in Australia in total.

To make it even more unfair, the decision whether the time spent overseas is too long to qualify for the pension portability is not in any legislation, it is made by Centrelink.

Someone who spends the final 12 months of his working life period can possibly be at the same risk of portability loss as someone who may have been away for 10 years.

Most people I know who have been forced into this situation have accepted it and returned to Australia for 2 years, often undergoing considerable hardship with partners or family left behind and finding themselves placed in a position of having to make a new home for a 2 year period while trying to spend as little as possible.

I think everyone effected should appeal and complain to the highest level, become a serial pest, write, ring and email the relevant ministers, camp on your MP's doorstep and in particular ask WHY????

It is a law that benefits no one, self funded retirees are not restricted and the taxpayer support their pensions through tax breaks to the same extent as the Age Pension.

Have a read of Cost–benefit analysis of portability policy:

http://www.dss.gov.au/about-fahcsia/publications-articles/research-publications/social-policy-research-paper-series/number-16-cost-benefit-analysis-of-portability-policy?HTML#sec1

[sceadugenga]

Thanks, I've seen it before but it's worth reading again.

I've seen a number of articles pointing out that considerably more money is brought into Australia by retirees from overseas than goes out with Australian Age Pensioners.

[gigman]

Although I am a couple of years away from the OAP I asked Centerlink the same question in November. I was told that they are happy to pay an OAP into an Australian a/c and that it did not matter where I was overseas. The 13 week time frame seems to be for those with Centerlink payments such as Disability, unemployment....etc.

Having said this...those of you who know Centerlink know that different answers come from different offices for the same question...

That's correct.

[gigman]

My advice to anyone with a Thai partner dealing with Centrelink is to declare yourself single. There is absolutely no benefit to you from declaring a foreign national as your partner, and you will open a can of worms you will wish you had never touched. All sorts of details will be required, some of which you may not have, and it is likely your SINGLE benefit will be reduced because of partner's income (they must be earning something, right? even if it's in another country?).

I was asked to send a C/L form to my wife in English as Thai not available, have her sign it, despite her being able to read English, and send it back for me to fill out. Yeah sure.

At one stage my payment was stopped because they didn't have HER tax file number, despite her having never been an Oz resident. Took a full day at the local office to sort out.

Thanks mate .. you saved my life in my future plans.

However, I am in Poland and only 11 months before my Australian retirement money but currently I'm trying to fight Polish Embassy in Bkk to grant short tourist visa to stay with me in Poland for just vacations.

Recently my G/f was refused with such visa even I am financing everything under suspicion that she will not return to Thailand....

My second thoughts was to go there and get married then bring her for vacation to Poland but it could be a huge mistake if Aussie got news that I am married with younger person under age of pension...

Probably Poland do not mind such relationship but because they are in agreement with Australia it may leak one day to them in case I will receive my age pension from Australia.

I think everyone should learn about it this days where we are became a "Modern Slaves"

[gigman]

I'm thinking we retired expats actually save the Australian government significant money from living overseas e.g. pension supplements, rent assistance etc.

With that in mind, I wrote to my Federal MP asking for quantitative information on cost savings, also the administrative costs to departmental budgets arising from the various rules they have in place for overseas retirees.

Even if I don't get a meaningful response, I may succeed in giving some public servants a good migraine.

It is perfect normal thinking..

But...

The Top fellas don't give a sh... about this money spent overseas....or going so often to the Aussie doctor ...

The key is that a lot of money we spend in Australia are going to the sector of pharmaceutical people who have a big influence everywhere...

If you are in Australia then this is a big business for them until you die.Subsidy are paid...if you are there.

Just imagine ...you're in LOS wasting Australian dollar...and no profit for Aussie pharmacy....

That's the main reason they hate us to be somewhere else...

But it should be our basic right to receive our age pension...not a favour.

All who worked and paid taxes should get what we were charged for our old days.

Unfortunately new world order make us "modern slaves" if everyone say nothing in their face.

To be honest I would rather prefered a huge war where everyone become on the same level on the judgment day.

[Bob9]

On ‎10‎/‎07‎/‎2015 at 9:39 AM, mcfish said:

Center link have gone mad and this ridiculous law should be reviewed with Brides from 3rd world and developing countries that have no where near the earning capacity of western woman. Lets be honest the vast number of brides are just country girls with no chance of ever legitimately earning more then a few thousand BHT a month.

I would happily break the law on this one and get married and not tell because its grossly unfair and they know it but the problem is it will bite you on the bum down the track if you want her back in your home country.

 

Good point - but it is not breaking the law.  The Aust Govt (inc Centrelink/ATO) does not legally recognise a Thai marriage. To be 'legally' married in Australian Law you have to have gone through all the paperwork and lodged it all officially. If you merely do the local Thai wedding and not the Aust Embassy stuff, then you are married in Thailand but you are not technically married in Australia.  But your point about taking your wife back to Australia is right - to do that you will need to officiallly lodge the paperwork and then you are officially married in Australia and the Thai wife can apply to come to Australian as your Partner. So unless you are going to take the Thai wife to Australia as more than a Visitor, then you do not need to advise the Aust Govt - because if you do, even if you are not officially married, the feminazis at CLink will reduce your pension/payments.   

 

[patongphil]

On Tuesday, November 08, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Bob9 said:

 

Good point - but it is not breaking the law.  The Aust Govt (inc Centrelink/ATO) does not legally recognise a Thai marriage. To be 'legally' married in Australian Law you have to have gone through all the paperwork and lodged it all officially. If you merely do the local Thai wedding and not the Aust Embassy stuff, then you are married in Thailand but you are not technically married in Australia.  But your point about taking your wife back to Australia is right - to do that you will need to officiallly lodge the paperwork and then you are officially married in Australia and the Thai wife can apply to come to Australian as your Partner. So unless you are going to take the Thai wife to Australia as more than a Visitor, then you do not need to advise the Aust Govt - because if you do, even if you are not officially married, the feminazis at CLink will reduce your pension/payments.   

 

 

 

Rubbish. You do not have to do anything at the Embassy. A Thai marriage registered at the Amphur is legally binding in Thailand and is fully recognised in Australia.

[opalred]

you have to get a stat declaration signed at Australian embassy you are not married and divorced show divorced papers

at embassy.  then marry at  amphur    and recognized  legal in world

[mark5335]

An update in the Australian news today regarding changes to the Aged Pension requirements under the May 2017 Federal Budget:

"Under changes to residency requirements for the age pension and disability support, people will now need to be in continuously Australia for 15 years – up from 10 years. The 10-year threshold will still be eligible for those who have spent more than five years in Australia below the pension age or have avoided welfare for five years as part of their application period." (Source: SBS News).

I'm unsure what to make of this, but I guess it's targeted mainly at migrants rather than Aussie expats.

[4MyEgo]

13 hours ago, mark5335 said:

An update in the Australian news today regarding changes to the Aged Pension requirements under the May 2017 Federal Budget:

"Under changes to residency requirements for the age pension and disability support, people will now need to be in continuously Australia for 15 years – up from 10 years. The 10-year threshold will still be eligible for those who have spent more than five years in Australia below the pension age or have avoided welfare for five years as part of their application period." (Source: SBS News).

I'm unsure what to make of this, but I guess it's targeted mainly at migrants rather than Aussie expats.

Yes, from my quick read over several articles, you were always required to have had to of worked in Oz for at least 10 years before you could get a part pension, i.e. 10 over 35 years of working life of the full aged pension, i.e. you would receive around a 3rd of the pension, now its moving to 15 years, so after 15 years of working continuously you will receive 15 over 35 years of a part pension.

 

So if you have worked 35 years your in, i.e. full pension, anything under that has to be above 15 years to be considered to get the part pension, but it has to be continuous.

 

Let's not forget if you are living abroad and under the pension entitlement age, you will have to return when you hit the magic age, i.e. 65, 67 depending when you were born, make your application, and once approved, remain in the land of slavery for 2 years before you can make it portable, i.e. take it with you, if you leave before hand, they will cut it and you will have to start the 2 years again, so I have heard.

 

 

[Salerno]

On 10/05/2017 at 10:45 AM, 4MyEgo said:

..., you were always required to have had to of worked in Oz for at least 10 years before you could get a part pension, i.e. 10 over 35 years of working life of the full aged pension, i.e. you would receive around a 3rd of the pension, now its moving to 15 years, so after 15 years of working continuously you will receive 15 over 35 years of a part pension.

 

I don't think that is quite right; you don't actually have to have worked. It's a measurement based on residency status not actual work history. 

[4MyEgo]

2 hours ago, Salerno said:

I don't think that is quite right; you don't actually have to have worked. It's a measurement based on residency status not actual work history. 

You are 100% correct, I just had a quick look, and it makes sense that the Australian Government has money to throw at anyone who has been a resident for 10 years, but must have a minimum of 5 years continuous years without a break to qualify, suffice to say we Xpats, some of us who have paid tax for 39 years, get the middle finger, unless we return and stay for 2 years, prior to or after or qualifying age.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/age-pension

[halloween]

On 10/05/2017 at 10:45 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Yes, from my quick read over several articles, you were always required to have had to of worked in Oz for at least 10 years before you could get a part pension, i.e. 10 over 35 years of working life of the full aged pension, i.e. you would receive around a 3rd of the pension, now its moving to 15 years, so after 15 years of working continuously you will receive 15 over 35 years of a part pension.

 

So if you have worked 35 years your in, i.e. full pension, anything under that has to be above 15 years to be considered to get the part pension, but it has to be continuous.

 

Let's not forget if you are living abroad and under the pension entitlement age, you will have to return when you hit the magic age, i.e. 65, 67 depending when you were born, make your application, and once approved, remain in the land of slavery for 2 years before you can make it portable, i.e. take it with you, if you leave before hand, they will cut it and you will have to start the 2 years again, so I have heard.

 

 

As an alternative to the 2 year BS, I have been returning (and working) for at least 185 days each year for the last 3, with 1 to go. Tax office says that makes me a resident (with $18,200 tax concession) and by the time I claim pension will have spent 2+ years in country. Can't see how C/L can say I am not a resident when the Tax says I am, and I will have the 2 year actual residency if they want it.

I was lucky in that OAP entitlement begins 2 weeks after I normally come back here.

[4MyEgo]

16 minutes ago, halloween said:

As an alternative to the 2 year BS, I have been returning (and working) for at least 185 days each year for the last 3, with 1 to go. Tax office says that makes me a resident (with $18,200 tax concession) and by the time I claim pension will have spent 2+ years in country. Can't see how C/L can say I am not a resident when the Tax says I am, and I will have the 2 year actual residency if they want it.

I was lucky in that OAP entitlement begins 2 weeks after I normally come back here.

Now that is what I call a well thought out plan, others go back and claim NewStart which I think is the doll, so they get paid for doing nothing for 2 years....lol

 

I am also looking at going back 2 years before my OAP entitlement starts, but that's 10 years off and I will see how much you are allowed to have assets wise because I may not qualify and I know the Europeans used to get rid of them 5 years prior so that they could qualify.

[steven100]

20 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Now that is what I call a well thought out plan, others go back and claim NewStart which I think is the doll, so they get paid for doing nothing for 2 years....lol

 

I am also looking at going back 2 years before my OAP entitlement starts, but that's 10 years off and I will see how much you are allowed to have assets wise because I may not qualify and I know the Europeans used to get rid of them 5 years prior so that they could qualify.

so ... if I get this right ,   you have to stay there 2 yrs prior to filling out the application form ?     and if I have 2 rentals in Auss .. will I still get a part pension ... ?   say I was getting around $30k  a year  ....   thanks ...    I am totally lost on the pension .... it will be worth stuff all anyway in my 10 yrs time ...  

[steven100]

It may not even be worth going there for the 2 years to qualify  ??   imo

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, steven100 said:

so ... if I get this right ,   you have to stay there 2 yrs prior to filling out the application form ?     and if I have 2 rentals in Auss .. will I still get a part pension ... ?   say I was getting around $30k  a year  ....   thanks ...    I am totally lost on the pension .... it will be worth stuff all anyway in my 10 yrs time ...  

It goes like this, is you are a non resident, i.e. a person who lives overseas and is out of Australia for more than 183 days in a financial year, yes, you have to return either two years prior and take the pension when you hit the magic age. You can then you can leave and have it put in your account where ever you are living in the world, or you can return when you hit the old age pension age and collect it from then on, but you have to wait the 2 years, so its either before or after.

 

What concerns me is you having 2 rental properties, i.e. if you are a non resident, because you will be paying 32.5 cents in every dollar earned, and they will hit you with FULL capital gains tax from the day you departed Australia, that is, for every $ the properties increased, they get it when you sell.

 

Now if your paying 32.5 cents in every $ from rent, add agents fees, and all outgoings, like council/water/strata levies if a unit/villa/townhouse, insurance for the property or tenants insurance, then they are not worth keeping in my opinion.

 

On the other hand if your a resident for tax purposes, its worth it because you get the tax threshold of $18,200 before they start taxing you on every $ earned and the capital gains tax is the standard, that is, if you held the properties as investments for more than 12 months, you get the 50% capital gains discount applied when you sell, therefore the CGT payable isn't going to hurt anywhere near it would if you were a non resident.

 

So which one are you, that is, do or have you lived in Thailand for more than 183 days in a financial year and is Thailand your abode, main place of stay.

 

There are provisions for people who can claim residency, but its not as cut and dry as a lot of expats think it is, most just bury their heads in the sand and hope it will all go away when the time comes, and they might actually get away with it, I personally hope they do, because the legislation for expats sucks, however there are ways to avoid paying tax as an expat and its legal, i.e., if you buy shares in the Australian stock market, there is no capital gains tax payable, but if you not a big fan on shares, but have half a brain, you can make a good earn for over here, I make between 60,000 and 100,,000 baht on month and don't have to pay any tax, and its pretty much like that every month, I do my research, and I only invest as much as I am prepared to lose. So there are ways to stick it right back to the government by playing by their rules, and prior to 18 months ago I wouldn't have had a clue about the stock market. But if your a punter, its not for you, your doe will go, you have to be on top of your game and be prepared to hold when things drop, i.e. not panic.

 

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, steven100 said:

It may not even be worth going there for the 2 years to qualify  ??   imo

I look at it this way, its around $400 a week, now $400 a week over here is around 40,000 baht a month, now over here that's your monthly expenses paid for, and if you worked for the 39 years that I did and paid my taxes, why let Mustapha and the like take it, not being racist, but 1/3 or more of them are on welfare, however you and me are more entitled to the pension than they are the welfare IMO, and if your married, I believe it doubles, although I am not sure what age the Mrs has to be, but she will have to have been in Australia for 10 years, so mine will be an 80,000 baht pension a month, I believe, well hope, nothing wrongs with that oy !

[steven100]

10 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

It goes like this, is you are a non resident, i.e. a person who lives overseas and is out of Australia for more than 183 days in a financial year,

Thanks 4MyEgo ...  that's explains it in basic to me, now I understand.  One has to do everything possible to stay as an Australian resident,  however the way they could confirm or deny that is simply look at your exit and entry dates with Australian immigration.  As you said I assume most just think it's a matter of telling them ..'yes'  i'm a resident .. and they think all will be ok, but that won't be the case as they will check into it.

 

$400 pw is good, I didn't realize it was that much so definitely will pay all expenses and more in Thailand.  Anyway, for me it's still 10+ yrs away so plenty of time and things could change by then. I'll chat again on the rentals with you as things develop ...

cheers. I really hate the government more than you. lol

[halloween]

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

Thanks 4MyEgo ...  that's explains it in basic to me, now I understand.  One has to do everything possible to stay as an Australian resident,  however the way they could confirm or deny that is simply look at your exit and entry dates with Australian immigration.  As you said I assume most just think it's a matter of telling them ..'yes'  i'm a resident .. and they think all will be ok, but that won't be the case as they will check into it.

 

$400 pw is good, I didn't realize it was that much so definitely will pay all expenses and more in Thailand.  Anyway, for me it's still 10+ yrs away so plenty of time and things could change by then. I'll chat again on the rentals with you as things develop ...

cheers. I really hate the government more than you. lol

I had some thoughts about going back to Oz each year and working 5 or 6 weeks. You are allowed to earn $125/week on OAP without losing any payment, and this can accumulate for up to a year ($6500). The fly in the ointment is the 32.5c/$ tax as I would no longer be a tax resident.

BUT my accountant suggests I put a submission to the ATO that I am planning to do a lot of travelling (in excess of 185 days/year) but still want to remain a tax resident. In his view the ATO prefers to keep you a resident so they have a claim over offshore earnings and are likely to grant this. Once granted, unless stated otherwise, you remain a tax resident until they inform you that your status is revoked, which could be years as hardly a high attention matter.

You would have to convince them that you are maintaining residency with an address, phone number, bank a/c, licence, even club memberships.

[steven100]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

I had some thoughts about going back to Oz each year and working 5 or 6 weeks. You are allowed to earn $125/week on OAP without losing any payment, and this can accumulate for up to a year ($6500). The fly in the ointment is the 32.5c/$ tax as I would no longer be a tax resident.

BUT my accountant suggests I put a submission to the ATO that I am planning to do a lot of travelling (in excess of 185 days/year) but still want to remain a tax resident. In his view the ATO prefers to keep you a resident so they have a claim over offshore earnings and are likely to grant this. Once granted, unless stated otherwise, you remain a tax resident until they inform you that your status is revoked, which could be years as hardly a high attention matter.

You would have to convince them that you are maintaining residency with an address, phone number, bank a/c, licence, even club memberships.

yes ... I think it is crucial to remain a tax resident ...  32.5c /$  is just to damn much.

[4MyEgo]

6 hours ago, steven100 said:

Thanks 4MyEgo ...  that's explains it in basic to me, now I understand.  One has to do everything possible to stay as an Australian resident,  however the way they could confirm or deny that is simply look at your exit and entry dates with Australian immigration.  As you said I assume most just think it's a matter of telling them ..'yes'  i'm a resident .. and they think all will be ok, but that won't be the case as they will check into it.

 

$400 pw is good, I didn't realize it was that much so definitely will pay all expenses and more in Thailand.  Anyway, for me it's still 10+ yrs away so plenty of time and things could change by then. I'll chat again on the rentals with you as things develop ...

cheers. I really hate the government more than you. lol

Absolutely mate, as soon as you exit the country and don't re-enter in 6 weeks, they send a notice to all the relevant government agencies and if you are out for more than 183 days and submit your tax return as an Australian resident, you will come up at the ATO with a query next to your name on resident status, then you might just get a please explain your residency letter.

 

If you ever need some up to speed stuff on this, PM me and I will be glad to try and help, but I am not a qualified accountant, but have done the research and confirmed a lot of the stuff with my accountant.

 

Cheers

[ELVIS123456]

There is a web page tool on ATO that determines if you are a resident for tax purposes. 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=DORSLA&anchor=DORSLA/questions#DORSLA/questions

 

You can click and change your answers and get different results. With the right answers you can be overseas for up to 5 years, rent your home out while away, return once a year, etc., and you remain a resident for tax purposes. Once you go over 5 years the tool cannot give a definitive answer - but you can apply to the ATO for a separate individual ruling (I did). Basically the ruling was as long as I had an Australian address/abode and all the associated 'evidence' as stated in others posts (licence, voting roll, bank, family, friends, etc) then I remained a resident for tax purposes.

 

However, remaining a resident for CLink purposes (such as Pensions) is not the same - and there is no tool available - it is a case by case system. As others have said, once you are away for more than 6 months CLink can decide that you are a non-resident - whether you are a resident for tax purposes or not. Yep - that is right - you can be a non-resident to CLink and a resident to ATO at the same time. 

 

And it is likely in the future that the 2 year 'rule' will be more and more ignored by CLink if they decide you only came back for 2 years in order to get the pension and that you always planned to leave once approved. Likewise, they can decide not to give you 'portability' of your pension (able to receive it after leaving the country) even after you have been back for 2 years, because they decide you were always going to leave once made portable.

 

The pension id definitely worth getting (for many) and the DHS website provides all you need to know about who can get it and the payments and asset and income limits. But I would advise anyone thinking about going back beforehand, or when they get to the age and to wait for portability, to put together a strong and believable story. You cannot 'claim' it as a right - you will have to prove your are 'deserving'.  You need to make CLink believe you are staying in Aust forever (more than exactly 2 years is a start).  Things like visits for 4-6 weeks to Thailand (or elsewhere) are OK, but going back for 6 months at a time will draw their attention. The days are soon going to end when a Expat can come back at pension age, rent a cheap place and sit out the two years, and then go back overseas with the pension (or do the same 2 years beforehand). 

 

I agree that it is wrong - that Expats save the Govt - but we are an easy political target - and CLink is full of feminazis that cannot abide blokes enjoying themselves (90% Expats on pension in Thailand are men).  But it is what it is - you gotta be smart/clever/cunning - slowly slowly.

 

 

 

[moojar]

Some good advice there Elvis.  Ah Elvis, Australian pension, in the ghetto.

 

I think there may be some confusion over 'resident' though, in the posts on this page.  ( I haven't read this thread for a while, so I might have missed something).   But resident for ATO is not the same as resident for Centrelink.  ATO's rules are black and white, Centrelink's are not defined - the "Feminazi" processing your application just makes a judgement call.  I called their international section late last year and posted this in another forum at the time: 

====================

I just called Centrelink International Services. After enjoying the on-hold music for 15 or 20 minutes I got to speak to someone. 

Firstly, there is no defined 'residency' period. It is at the discretion of the local Centrelink officer processing your application. 

For people like us, already retired and spending time out of the country, they look at:
- Family Ties (Some mention of ".. and with your wife being from Thailand ...")
- Assets
- Travel history. 

And it is the travel history that carries the most weight. The Centrelink officer couldn't give me a firm answer on how long you would have to spend in the country each year to be deemed resident - as she said, "there is no cut and dried answer". She did say six weeks would not be enough, that is just a visit, it is not classed as spending time at home.

She also could not tell me how many years they go back to look at your travel history. 

The suggestion was that I speak to someone in the 'aged pension' section to try and get more information. 

====================

 

I've finally gotten around to calling the charmingly named 'older Australians' section at Centrelink, I'm on hold now.  If they answer within the next hour I'll post an update (I've been on hold 29 minutes).

 

I'm in Oz, so don't panic over the phone bill.     It's a lovely 16C in Sydney today - we just had a coldest May night in 18 years.  7C in the CBD,  -0.9C at Camden.   

 

 

[4MyEgo]

On 2017-5-18 at 8:23 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

There is a web page tool on ATO that determines if you are a resident for tax purposes. 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Host/?anchor=DORSLA&anchor=DORSLA/questions#DORSLA/questions

 

You can click and change your answers and get different results. With the right answers you can be overseas for up to 5 years, rent your home out while away, return once a year, etc., and you remain a resident for tax purposes. Once you go over 5 years the tool cannot give a definitive answer - but you can apply to the ATO for a separate individual ruling (I did). Basically the ruling was as long as I had an Australian address/abode and all the associated 'evidence' as stated in others posts (licence, voting roll, bank, family, friends, etc) then I remained a resident for tax purposes.

 

However, remaining a resident for CLink purposes (such as Pensions) is not the same - and there is no tool available - it is a case by case system. As others have said, once you are away for more than 6 months CLink can decide that you are a non-resident - whether you are a resident for tax purposes or not. Yep - that is right - you can be a non-resident to CLink and a resident to ATO at the same time. 

 

And it is likely in the future that the 2 year 'rule' will be more and more ignored by CLink if they decide you only came back for 2 years in order to get the pension and that you always planned to leave once approved. Likewise, they can decide not to give you 'portability' of your pension (able to receive it after leaving the country) even after you have been back for 2 years, because they decide you were always going to leave once made portable.

 

The pension id definitely worth getting (for many) and the DHS website provides all you need to know about who can get it and the payments and asset and income limits. But I would advise anyone thinking about going back beforehand, or when they get to the age and to wait for portability, to put together a strong and believable story. You cannot 'claim' it as a right - you will have to prove your are 'deserving'.  You need to make CLink believe you are staying in Aust forever (more than exactly 2 years is a start).  Things like visits for 4-6 weeks to Thailand (or elsewhere) are OK, but going back for 6 months at a time will draw their attention. The days are soon going to end when a Expat can come back at pension age, rent a cheap place and sit out the two years, and then go back overseas with the pension (or do the same 2 years beforehand). 

 

I agree that it is wrong - that Expats save the Govt - but we are an easy political target - and CLink is full of feminazis that cannot abide blokes enjoying themselves (90% Expats on pension in Thailand are men).  But it is what it is - you gotta be smart/clever/cunning - slowly slowly.

 

 

 

I hear what your saying but TOTALLY disagree with what your saying about the ATO, as you said, the tool is the tool and it is useless.

 

Your property will be subject to capital gains tax from the date you left the country, until the time you returned, your accountant would tell you that if he had half a brain. You would also be subject to the 32.5% income tax from the rent as well. (See below).

 

I covered all of this with my accountant and the ATO prior to retiring in Thailand, and on top off that read many articles and legislation and court rulings on determinations.

 

The response in writing was cut and dry from both, i.e. if you maintain a residence in Australia, keep your drivers license current along with memberships, vehicle etc etc, but reside overseas for more than 183 days in any financial year, you are deemed a non-resident and will pay tax and capital gains tax as stated above from the date you departed, however if you return and reside in Australia for more than 183 days in a financial year, you will be deemed a resident for tax purposes and be taxed under the system and be provided with the $18,200 threshold and no capital gains tax payable on your property is you apply for the 6 year rule (and approved).

 

I urge anyone who has a property in Australia to seriously consider the consequences of paying full capital gains tax and rent as a non resident before moving to Thailand, or living in Thailand as its not as simply as everyone makes it out to be, sure, if you want to try it on the ATO and just flick it in time or not pay the right tax, "up to you" as they say in Thailand, and hope they don't come looking for you, always worth a try if your not returning and don't have any money in any accounts, because if they froze those accounts, you would be up S creek as the saying goes.

[4MyEgo]

On 2017-5-30 at 3:05 PM, moojar said:

Some good advice there Elvis.  Ah Elvis, Australian pension, in the ghetto.

 

I think there may be some confusion over 'resident' though, in the posts on this page.  ( I haven't read this thread for a while, so I might have missed something).   But resident for ATO is not the same as resident for Centrelink.  ATO's rules are black and white, Centrelink's are not defined - the "Feminazi" processing your application just makes a judgement call.  I called their international section late last year and posted this in another forum at the time: 

====================

I just called Centrelink International Services. After enjoying the on-hold music for 15 or 20 minutes I got to speak to someone. 

Firstly, there is no defined 'residency' period. It is at the discretion of the local Centrelink officer processing your application. 

For people like us, already retired and spending time out of the country, they look at:
- Family Ties (Some mention of ".. and with your wife being from Thailand ...")
- Assets
- Travel history. 

And it is the travel history that carries the most weight. The Centrelink officer couldn't give me a firm answer on how long you would have to spend in the country each year to be deemed resident - as she said, "there is no cut and dried answer". She did say six weeks would not be enough, that is just a visit, it is not classed as spending time at home.

She also could not tell me how many years they go back to look at your travel history. 

The suggestion was that I speak to someone in the 'aged pension' section to try and get more information. 

====================

 

I've finally gotten around to calling the charmingly named 'older Australians' section at Centrelink, I'm on hold now.  If they answer within the next hour I'll post an update (I've been on hold 29 minutes).

 

I'm in Oz, so don't panic over the phone bill.     It's a lovely 16C in Sydney today - we just had a coldest May night in 18 years.  7C in the CBD,  -0.9C at Camden.   

 

 

My plan is to go when my wife's twin boys now 13, turn 21, our two daughter now 8 and 3, turn 16 and 11.

 

I will be 65 at the time, the girls will be going to school, the boys working and making some coin, and as soon as I turn 67 God willing I will make my claim, if they push the age to 70 which I believe will happen, I will probably change my mind, unless I am in great shape.

 

The lucky country my A..