Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

11 hours ago, ripstanley said:

Will this is a great post. I have heard of people who love to hear their own voice but here we someone who loves to read their own writings.

Just letting you know that the ATO is going to "rip" you a new one "stanley."  No need to take it personally. 

[KhunHeineken]

19 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

With respect, what I stated was not ad hominem and it was not intended. 

 

It was fact with a dash of humor!

 

 

Did you not see the humor in my reply? 

[Adumbration]

On 1/11/2008 at 5:56 PM, VOICEOVER said:

Many thanks to Nignoy and everyone for their info. Much appreciated and I'll attempt to phone Centrelink in Australia on Monday. Fully expect to be "put on hold" and/or have to select from a dozen "options" while trying to get a Real Live Public Servant to talk with.

Will let you know the results as it looks as though there are many other Aussie Expats in a similar situation. My first posting on Thaivisa.com and I'm overwhelmed at the response.

heers,

Voiceover.

So much mis information was provided in the wake of your first post.

 

Here are some bare facts:

 

1. Your working life must now be 35 years not 25 years to receive full pension. 

2. You must reside in Australia when applying for the OAP

3. You must remain in Australia for 2 years before portability is granted

4. The amount you receive if living outside Australia is the base fortnightly rate excluding any rental assistance or other add on benefits

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Did you not see the humor in my reply? 

Please educate me on the humor present in your Chicken Little chunterings.

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Please educate me on the humor present in your Chicken Little chunterings.

If you read more closely, you will see the humor egg-ists. 

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Adumbration said:

So much mis information was provided in the wake of your first post.

 

Here are some bare facts:

 

1. Your working life must now be 35 years not 25 years to receive full pension. 

2. You must reside in Australia when applying for the OAP

3. You must remain in Australia for 2 years before portability is granted

4. The amount you receive if living outside Australia is the base fortnightly rate excluding any rental assistance or other add on benefits

Was it misinformation, or things have changed since then? 

 

Retirement age went for 65 to 67.  As we are all living longer, I expect the retirement age to be raised again in the future. 

 

With the current economic conditions, many can't afford to retire at 67 anyway. 

[Artisi]

Can't see why this is so protracted, it seem the proposed legitation / rules will simply be:

If you're out of the country for more than 183 days you will be deemed as non-resident for tax purposes, that means any income recieved in Aust, either pension, bank interest, share dividends, rent from property will be taxed at something like 32%.

Now whether it comes to pass is another story - end of. 

 

My accountant made me aware of resident / non resident a few years back, apparently it has always been  applicable to any non-residents but a bit vague and not really chased up - seems the proposed regulation are going to address this and remove any grey areas. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Artisi

[Olmate]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Ok.... 

... 

 

The fortnightly aged pension is  $1026.50AUD.

 

200,000 x $1026.50 = $205,300,000 in aged pension a fortnight to Aussie expats.  Effectively, this money leaves Australian shores, and is gone from the Australia economy. 

 

$205,300,000 x 26 fortnights = $5,337,800,000 a year in aged pensions going to Aussie expats

Well your wrong on the one factual figure in that fanciful ramble.F/N expatamount is way below your figure. God knows re your calculation  re numbers etc.

[KhunHeineken]

18 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Can't see why this is so protracted, it seem the proposed legitation / rules will simply be:

If you're out of the country for more than 183 days you will be deemed as non-resident for tax purposes, that means any income recieved in Aust, either pension, bank interest, share dividends, rent from property will be taxed at something like 32%.

Yes, but the new law is only for guys like Paul Hogan, not for everyone, right? 

 

20 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Now whether it comes to pass is another story - end of. 

The Liberal Party commissioned the drafting, and the current Labor government is aware of it, so it hasn't gone away with a change of government. 

 

I posted a link to an article where the current assistant treasurer made comments that the government was looking into possibly adjusting the amount of days, but no mention of asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions.  It's these that will be so important to most retired expats.

 

22 minutes ago, Artisi said:

My accountant made me aware of resident / non resident a few years back, apparently it has always been  applicable to any non-residents but a bit vague and not really chased up - seems the proposed regulation are going to address this and remove any grey areas. 

Myself, and many of my Aussie friends in Thailand, and I dare say many Aussie expats all around the world, have been using that gray area to skirt around paying non resident tax.  All to do with maintaining a "domicile" in Australia.  Basically, appearing you are just on a long holiday, with every intention of returning to Australia, and not leaving Australia for good. 

 

All of this gray area will disappear with the 183 days "bright line test."

 

What remains to be seen when this law is passed, and I am sure it will be, because the current law with the, shall I say, abused gray area, is 90 years old, is if there will be any asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions.  We would all like to think so, because most are not as wealthy as Paul Hogan, but non resident tax brackets currently start at $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%, and I see nothing in the proposed changes to these non resident tax brackets, either. 

 

Given there's some good savings to Centrelink to be made, and some good tax collection to be made from everyone else, all with next to no votes lost, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they are passed by either party in government, and once they are passed, without some relief to pensioners, and some not so wealthy self funded retirees, many expats are going to have to make some tough decisions and / or take a big hit to their lifestyle. 

 

Members can personally attack me on this forum all they want, but at the end of the day, when the proposed changes are passed, and they will be passed, if they remain as they currently are, with no asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, then they will have an impact on every single Australian who is outside of Australia for 183 days who derives an income from Australia, which also includes a pension. because that's what these proposed changes were EXACTLY design to do.    

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Well your wrong on the one factual figure in that fanciful ramble.F/N expatamount is way below your figure. God knows re your calculation  re numbers etc.

I'm not on a pension.  I'm self funded.

 

I got that figure from the Services Australia website. 

 

Normal rates, single, total, per fortnight, is $1026.50.  Is this figure wrong?  If so, post the correct figure and I'll run the numbers.  I'm sure it will still be over $1 billion, which Lacessit disagreed with. 

 

The example is a pensioner, using an address in Australia, and not informing Centrelink they have left Australia. 

 

Sure, I believe it's a little less if you do tell them you have left Australia.  How much less is it?  What's the amount.  It's just a quick bit of math. 

 

It will not change the fact that the proposed changes, as they are, will apply to every expat, and make a nice savings for Centrelink, for the loss of next to zero votes.

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526

 

Normal rates

Per fortnight	Single	Couple each	Couple combined	Couple apart due to ill health
Maximum basic rate	$936.80	$706.20	$1412.40	$936.80
Maximum Pension Supplement	$75.60	$57.00	$114.00	$75.60
Energy Supplement	$14.10	$10.60	$21.20	$14.10
Total	$1026.50	$773.80	$1547.60	$1026.50

Edited February 26, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

If you read more closely, you will see the humor egg-ists. 

I would need a scanning electron microscope to read that closely.

[Lacessit]

42 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not on a pension.  I'm self funded.

 

I got that figure from the Services Australia website. 

 

Normal rates, single, total, per fortnight, is $1026.50.  Is this figure wrong?  If so, post the correct figure and I'll run the numbers.  I'm sure it will still be over $1 billion, which Lacessit disagreed with. 

 

The example is a pensioner, using an address in Australia, and not informing Centrelink they have left Australia. 

 

Sure, I believe it's a little less if you do tell them you have left Australia.  How much less is it?  What's the amount.  It's just a quick bit of math. 

 

It will not change the fact that the proposed changes, as they are, will apply to every expat, and make a nice savings for Centrelink, for the loss of next to zero votes.

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526

 

Normal rates

Per fortnight	Single	Couple each	Couple combined	Couple apart due to ill health
Maximum basic rate	$936.80	$706.20	$1412.40	$936.80
Maximum Pension Supplement	$75.60	$57.00	$114.00	$75.60
Energy Supplement	$14.10	$10.60	$21.20	$14.10
Total	$1026.50	$773.80	$1547.60	$1026.50

You've posted a figure of 200,000 pensioners living abroad, in your calculations. $5.3 billion in pensions going overseas.

 

Your figure of 200,000 assumes all of those pensioners get the full pension, many are on part pensions. As I am.

 

It also assumes none of those pensioners ever return to Australia, as I have recently for a indeterminate period.

 

Ignoring those deficiencies in logic, the real figure of pensioners living overseas is approximately 90,000. A 2016 figure, I doubt it has increased significantly since then.

 

Quote: "According to the Federal Department of Social Services, there are estimated to be about 90,000 Australians who live overseas whilst still receiving their Age Pension entitlements."

 

$5.3 billion X 90,000/ 200,000 X 0.32 = $760 million, a long way short of the billions you were claiming in a previous post. Even less counting the cost of administration, and the other variables I have mentioned.

 

There are 12,000 Australians with super balances of more than $5 million. That's $60 billion of funds getting tax concessions way over what they need for a comfortable retirement. No wonder the Treasurer is salivating.

 

I guess when you're in a hole, you won't be able to resist keeping on digging.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I would need a scanning electron microscope to read that closely.

Egg-actly. 

[KhunHeineken]

21 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You've posted a figure of 200,000 pensioners living abroad, in your calculations. $5.3 billion in pensions going overseas.

 

Your figure of 200,000 assumes all of those pensioners get the full pension, many are on part pensions. As I am.

 

It also assumes none of those pensioners ever return to Australia, as I have recently for a indeterminate period.

I did say it was debatable.  I never put these figures forward as exact numbers. 

 

Only immigration and Centrelink know the exact numbers.

 

I do see one problem with your post.  

 

If someone is on a part pension, that means they have some other form income.  That other source of income is also up for 32.5% non resident taxation.  That puts them in the 200,000 pensioners category, and also puts them in the 200,000 self funded category, as per my example figures.

 

Either way, they are taxed, and if anything, part pensioners are more at risk, because if pensions are exempt, you can bet the other source of income will not be.  

 

As for returning to Australia, we are discussing "expats."  Those who have left Australia, and who may only return for emergency medical. or possibly a family event, but have made a life overseas.  Such people often post on here, "I have been in Thailand for 10 years" etc etc.

 

If an expat, pensioner or not, returns to Australia for 184 days every year, they will have absolutely nothing to worry about, but who wants to spend 6 months of the year in Australia?

 

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Ignoring those deficiencies in logic, the real figure of pensioners living overseas is approximately 90,000. A 2016 figure, I doubt it has increased significantly since then.

 

Quote: "According to the Federal Department of Social Services, there are estimated to be about 90,000 Australians who live overseas whilst still receiving their Age Pension entitlements."

It not a deficiency in logic, they were debatable figures.  The logic and math is sound, the figures are for example purposes, but may or may not be close to actual.  Like I said, the figures are debatable.

 

Seriously how relevant do you think is that figure from 7 years ago?  

 

Do you have a link to that quote?   

 

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

$5.3 billion X 90,000/ 200,000 X 0.32 = $760 million, a long way short of the billions you were claiming in a previous post. Even less counting the cost of administration, and the other variables I have mentioned.

 

There are 12,000 Australians with super balances of more than $5 million. That's $60 billion of funds getting tax concessions way over what they need for a comfortable retirement. No wonder the Treasurer is salivating.

 

I guess when you're in a hole, you won't be able to resist keeping on digging.

Even using your figures, which rely on people being part pensioners, which actually is flawed logic, because their other source of income will be taxed at non resident rates anyway, is $760,000,000 still not a nice, and ongoing savings for government? 

 

Why wouldn't the government scoop that up as well and / or bring it back into the Australian economy, by indirectly forcing some expats back to Australia?

 

We can can debate the figures, but with so many Aussie pensioners living abroad, the savings will still be substantial. 

 

Once again, you have a thing for the changes to tax concessions on super.  I have asked why, but you have not explained. 

 

I gather you seem to think that the government will be happy that it can raise X amount of billions from super tax concessions, thus, they will leave the 90 year old non resident tax legislation sitting on the shelf.  Why would they do that?  They can still bring it in and collect more money.  It looks even better come the next election when they can throw the extra cash around to buy votes. 

 

It's not about being in a "posting" hole.  When the proposed changes come in, and they eventually will, without asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, we will all be in the same taxation "hole."  As you said, a "one size fits all" tax.  

 

As I said, full pension, part pension, self funded, or even working, the proposed changes were designed to do away with the 90 year old big gray area, and scoop everyone up who is outside of Australia for 183 days and who derives an income from Australia.

 

You seem to contradict yourself because you argue that $760,000,000, which is your figure, not mine, is too small for the government to worry about, yet, you said it could be a "one size fits all" tax. 

 

Say there are no asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, does it really matter if it saves Centrelink $1, or $1 billion? 

 

The law will apply to all expats, equally.  The only difference will be the non resident tax brackets, but most expats will be in the first bracket, which is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%.  

 

[rhodie]

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

If you're out of the country for more than 183 days you will be deemed as non-resident for tax purposes

Can you link to that proposed legislation. I was under the belief that the proposal was the reverse. People who are resident in Australia for 183 days will not be able to claim non residence for tax purposes. I am not sure the reverse is true at this stage.

[ozfarang]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not on a pension.  I'm self funded.

 

I got that figure from the Services Australia website. 

 

Normal rates, single, total, per fortnight, is $1026.50.  Is this figure wrong?  If so, post the correct figure and I'll run the numbers.  I'm sure it will still be over $1 billion, which Lacessit disagreed with. 

 

The example is a pensioner, using an address in Australia, and not informing Centrelink they have left Australia. 

 

Sure, I believe it's a little less if you do tell them you have left Australia.  How much less is it?  What's the amount.  It's just a quick bit of math. 

 

Not informing Centrelink you are leaving Australia is not an option.

The minute your passport is scanned by Border Force Centrelink know you have exited the country.

 

After 6 weeks your pension reduces and after 26 weeks will reduce further depending how many years you are assessed under the Australian Working Life Residency (AWLR), if 35 years or more your pension is maintained at the post 6 weeks rate. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, rhodie said:

Can you link to that proposed legislation.

Here's one of many links already posted.

 

https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/

 

2 hours ago, rhodie said:

I was under the belief that the proposal was the reverse. People who are resident in Australia for 183 days will not be able to claim non residence for tax purposes.

That is not the circumstances of most retired expats living in Thailand, and elsewhere.

 

Most are pensioners, or self funded, or a combination of both, and are living in Thailand, or elsewhere, full time. 

 

2 hours ago, rhodie said:

I am not sure the reverse is true at this stage.

It can't be any other way. 

 

If you are inside Australia for 183 days, you are a resident for tax purposes. If you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you can not also be a resident for tax purposes.  You will be a non resident for tax purposes. 

 

Don't confuse citizenship or permanent residency with being a resident for tax purposes.  They are different things. 

[KhunHeineken]

41 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

Not informing Centrelink you are leaving Australia is not an option.

The minute your passport is scanned by Border Force Centrelink know you have exited the country.

Ok, which makes it easy for them to reduce pensions after 183 days, right?

 

42 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

After 6 weeks your pension reduces and after 26 weeks will reduce further depending how many years you are assessed under the Australian Working Life Residency (AWLR), if 35 years or more your pension is maintained at the post 6 weeks rate. 

Thanks for the info, but how does this help people when the new laws come in? 

 

Once again, does the government really care if it makes $1 or $1 billion out of pension savings with this new law? 

 

Without asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, they are putting every expat in the 183 day basket, which will save / make them billions of dollars. 

[Artisi]

8 hours ago, rhodie said:

Can you link to that proposed legislation. I was under the belief that the proposal was the reverse. People who are resident in Australia for 183 days will not be able to claim non residence for tax purposes. I am not sure the reverse is true at this stage.

See following  up post from KhunHeineken for answer. 

[Lacessit]

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I did say it was debatable.  I never put these figures forward as exact numbers. 

 

Only immigration and Centrelink know the exact numbers.

 

I do see one problem with your post.  

 

If someone is on a part pension, that means they have some other form income.  That other source of income is also up for 32.5% non resident taxation.  That puts them in the 200,000 pensioners category, and also puts them in the 200,000 self funded category, as per my example figures.

 

Either way, they are taxed, and if anything, part pensioners are more at risk, because if pensions are exempt, you can bet the other source of income will not be.  

 

As for returning to Australia, we are discussing "expats."  Those who have left Australia, and who may only return for emergency medical. or possibly a family event, but have made a life overseas.  Such people often post on here, "I have been in Thailand for 10 years" etc etc.

 

If an expat, pensioner or not, returns to Australia for 184 days every year, they will have absolutely nothing to worry about, but who wants to spend 6 months of the year in Australia?

 

It not a deficiency in logic, they were debatable figures.  The logic and math is sound, the figures are for example purposes, but may or may not be close to actual.  Like I said, the figures are debatable.

 

Seriously how relevant do you think is that figure from 7 years ago?  

 

Do you have a link to that quote?   

 

Even using your figures, which rely on people being part pensioners, which actually is flawed logic, because their other source of income will be taxed at non resident rates anyway, is $760,000,000 still not a nice, and ongoing savings for government? 

 

Why wouldn't the government scoop that up as well and / or bring it back into the Australian economy, by indirectly forcing some expats back to Australia?

 

We can can debate the figures, but with so many Aussie pensioners living abroad, the savings will still be substantial. 

 

Once again, you have a thing for the changes to tax concessions on super.  I have asked why, but you have not explained. 

 

I gather you seem to think that the government will be happy that it can raise X amount of billions from super tax concessions, thus, they will leave the 90 year old non resident tax legislation sitting on the shelf.  Why would they do that?  They can still bring it in and collect more money.  It looks even better come the next election when they can throw the extra cash around to buy votes. 

 

It's not about being in a "posting" hole.  When the proposed changes come in, and they eventually will, without asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, we will all be in the same taxation "hole."  As you said, a "one size fits all" tax.  

 

As I said, full pension, part pension, self funded, or even working, the proposed changes were designed to do away with the 90 year old big gray area, and scoop everyone up who is outside of Australia for 183 days and who derives an income from Australia.

 

You seem to contradict yourself because you argue that $760,000,000, which is your figure, not mine, is too small for the government to worry about, yet, you said it could be a "one size fits all" tax. 

 

Say there are no asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, does it really matter if it saves Centrelink $1, or $1 billion? 

 

The law will apply to all expats, equally.  The only difference will be the non resident tax brackets, but most expats will be in the first bracket, which is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%.  

 

You state you are a self-funded retiree. AFAIK you don't state your nationality, or your location. Why are you so interested in an age pension you don't get?

Is your lifestyle funded from an SMSF, and threatened by removal of the generous tax concessions? Misery loves company?

Figures of 200,000 pensioners and $5.3 billion seem pretty exact to me. As does your prediction the proposed changes will take place without modifications such as thresholds or grandfathering.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Lacessit

[ozfarang]

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Ok, which makes it easy for them to reduce pensions after 183 days, right?

 

Thanks for the info, but how does this help people when the new laws come in? 

 

Once again, does the government really care if it makes $1 or $1 billion out of pension savings with this new law? 

 

Without asset / means testing, thresholds, or exemptions, they are putting every expat in the 183 day basket, which will save / make them billions of dollars. 

The legislation has not been passed by the lower house yet, so a long way to go before it becomes law

[rhodie]

5 hours ago, Artisi said:

See following  up post from KhunHeineken for answer. 

Have you got an answer? The poster you refer to does not post any facts, only possibilities for scaremongering. I quote you again

"If you're out of the country for more than 183 days you will be deemed as non-resident for tax purposes"

 

Where has this legislation been proposed? There is a very specific reason why the the reverse is proposed and that is to stop all the very wealthy using it as a tax loophole.

[LosLobo]

On 2/26/2023 at 12:49 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Did you not see the humor in my reply? 

Sorry it was not evident!

 

May I suggest it may be appropriate to change the nomenclature of this forum now that you exceeded your 250th post of your epic saga of "Taxing Forum Pensioners".

 

I have a few new names to offer:

 

1) War and Peace on Forum Pensioners.

 

2) There's More Than One Way to Skin a Cat Forum Pensioner.

 

3) 50 250 Shades of Grey Taxation Posts to Flog a Forum Pensioner with and Make Him Suffer.

[RJRS1301]

On 2/11/2023 at 12:27 PM, KhunHeineken said:

What has Centerlink being privatized or not have to do with this issue?  The government doesn't care, nor does a big company. 

 

The government was the one that gave us Robodebt.   

Specifically the LNP Government

The RC is interesting watching the relevant MInisters including Bulldozer were squirming and bleeding incompetence and lack of regard for rulings from AAT and others

 

[Olmate]

On 2/26/2023 at 2:57 PM, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not on a pension.  I'm self funded.

 

I got that figure from the Services Australia website. 

 

Normal rates, single, total, per fortnight, is $1026.50.  Is this figure wrong?  If so, post the correct figure and I'll run the numbers.  I'm sure it will still be over $1 billion, which Lacessit disagreed with. 

 

The example is a pensioner, using an address in Australia, and not informing Centrelink they have left Australia. 

 

Sure, I believe it's a little less if you do tell them you have left Australia.  I

$1026.50

Why figure on this amount if its less for the expats that your on about will be effected.? "Clink" knows the day of departure so clearly the address and bank in Oz is irrelevant.The current amount is $963.00  per FN.

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, Olmate said:

Why figure on this amount if its less for the expats that your on about will be effected.? "Clink" knows the day of departure so clearly the address and bank in Oz is irrelevant.The current amount is $963.00  per FN.

Like I said, I'm not on a pension.  I looked it up, it said $1026.50 per fortnight, I posted the link, and ran the numbers. 

 

At $963 per fortnight, the annual savings to Centrelink, based on 200,000 Aussie expats, all around the world, would be $1, 627, 470, 000. 

 

Still over $1 billion, which an other member denied it would be, which I also addressed in another post, after he claimed many pensioners were on a part pension. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/26/2023 at 6:56 PM, Artisi said:

See following  up post from KhunHeineken for answer. 

There are none so blind, than those who refuse to see. 

[KhunHeineken]

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You state you are a self-funded retiree. AFAIK you don't state your nationality, or your location.

Yes, self funded, so even if pensions are exempt, I am still screwed when these laws are passed. 

 

This has been discussed at an appointment with my accountant on this visit back to Australia, and some strategies discussed.   Until the laws are passed, and the devil in the detail is known, it's continue on as normal.

 

I'm Australian.  If I wasn't, why would I be posting in this thread? 

 

Location is Thailand, but currently back in Oz.  Heading back shortly. 

 

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

s your lifestyle funded from an SMSF, and threatened by removal of the generous tax concessions?

No. 

 

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Figures of 200,000 pensioners and $5.3 billion seem pretty exact to me. As does your prediction the proposed changes will take place without modifications such as thresholds or grandfathering.

Are you being sarcastic? 

 

In a previous post you disagreed. 

 

Of course the figure of 200,000 is not exact, but I explained how I arrived at that figure.  It's only 2 out of 10 Aussie expats. 

 

There's around 10,000 Australians living in Bali, and you said 20,000 are living in Thailand.  It's interesting that 15% of the 200,000 only live in two countries. 

 

As for why am I so interested in the pension I don't get, that is a good question. 

 

I originally posted to give a "heads up" to expats on this thread about the proposed changes and was shocked by many of the replies. 

 

There were gems such as, "Those laws are only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" that had me shaking my head. 

 

These were just two of many reasons put forward by members as to why they thought the new laws would not apply to them, and despite being outside of Australia for 183 days, they would still remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes. 

 

Using these two examples, being outside of Australia for 183 days would not apply to you, because you are not Paul Hogan, and / or you still have a Medicare Card cause me to post that I disagreed, and you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  

 

So, after posting how I don't think holding a Medicare Card will exempt you from these laws, and how the laws may be for everyone, and not just guys like Paul Hogan, I was ridiculed, personally attacked, and even called a "scaremonger" despite posting links to accounting firms, lawyers, and wealth manager websites that explained the proposed changes. 

 

It then became clear to me that many members were posting based on emotion.  As I said in another post, it's normal to resist change, even fear it, especially change that can effect lifestyle, and especially in those that are older.  Not to mention, anything that takes some money out of our hands raises some anger. 

 

I replied to every post that addressed me, saying why I either agreed, or disagreed.

 

So, while I have no financial interests in pensions, as in, I don't receive one, the thought process, emotion, denial, abuse and intimidation, much of which was directed at me, personally, much of which still continues to this day, kept me posting on the matter.

 

Despite all of the posts, as I did back then, and still do, I wish all expats, pensioner or not, the best of luck in dealing with these new laws if / when they come in.

Edited February 27, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

22 hours ago, ozfarang said:

The legislation has not been passed by the lower house yet, so a long way to go before it becomes law

Sure, but does that mean one should totally disregard it? 

[KhunHeineken]

21 hours ago, rhodie said:

Have you got an answer? The poster you refer to does not post any facts, only possibilities for scaremongering.

And it still continues. 

 

The "facts" are in the proposed changes.  Have you read them?  I posted a link for you.  I did not write them.  That is not my website. 

 

21 hours ago, rhodie said:

I quote you again

"If you're out of the country for more than 183 days you will be deemed as non-resident for tax purposes"

If you read the proposed changes, you will see if you are inside Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a resident of Australia for tax purposes. 

 

Therefore, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days you also CAN NOT be a resident of Australia for tax purposes. 

 

Is this being a "scaremonger" or does this make sense to you? 

 

21 hours ago, rhodie said:

Where has this legislation been proposed? There is a very specific reason why the the reverse is proposed and that is to stop all the very wealthy using it as a tax loophole.

It has not been put through parliament yet, but it hasn't gone away.  The current Labor government is away of it, and I posted a link for that also. 

 

Yes, it stops the big gray area loophole many have been using, including myself.  Have you considered, the reverse, of the reverse, is what's going to catch out many expats who are not "very wealthy?" 

 

How do you propose to still be a resident of Australia, when immigration knows you have been outside of Australia for 183 days? I would be interested in your answer.  

Edited February 27, 2023 by KhunHeineken