Australian Aged Pension

[Olmate]

42 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Australians who could prove long periods abroad with approrpriate visa were exempt.

Exempt from what exactly? 

[scorecard]

18 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Exempt from what exactly? 

Exempt from what initially appeared to be a blanket ban on all Aussies leaving the country. 

Further checking revealed that there were situations which gained exemption from the ban. 

[ozfarang]

31 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Exempt from what initially appeared to be a blanket ban on all Aussies leaving the country. 

Further checking revealed that there were situations which gained exemption from the ban. 

That's correct, I was granted an exemption in March 2021 and left the country for Thailand soon after

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Exempt from what initially appeared to be a blanket ban on all Aussies leaving the country. 

Further checking revealed that there were situations which gained exemption from the ban. 

Reference was to being unable to return to Oz, to activate OAP.. 2yr qualifier... not leave.

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

wondering how many people were trapped by the 2-year rule, when Scotty locked us all out during COVID

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Olmate

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Reference was to being unable to return to Oz, to activate OAP.. 2yr qualifier... not leave.

 

OIC, my error, apologies.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, ozfarang said:

That's correct, I was granted an exemption in March 2021 and left the country for Thailand soon after

My error on this, I assumed the OP was meaning exiting from Oz.

He was meaning difficulty to enter Oz.  

[Olmate]

36 minutes ago, scorecard said:

OIC, my error, apologies.

Thats fine, cant have anyone believe Morrison gave a damn about us????

[Pink Mist]

Off topic comment and replies removed.

[scorecard]

On 4/5/2023 at 2:36 PM, Olmate said:

Thats fine, cant have anyone believe Morrison gave a damn about us????

Re Morrison, I hope he's never ever ever seen again. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Re Morrison, I hope he's never ever ever seen again. 

Morrison is fishing around for employment, just as Abbott did after quitting Parliament. Both duds.

I understand it was John Howard who changed the parliamentary pension rules to stop politicians of every stripe from reaping very lucrative lump sums.

 

Would that the OAP was as generous, any MP who has served two terms, including backbenchers, gets 50% of their salary. That's a pension of more than $100K, compared to  the OAP of about $26K.

 

It's difficult to convince me most have earned it.

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/5/2023 at 2:57 AM, LosLobo said:

Residency for tax purposes has got nothing to do with the AAP portability.

 

Possibility you are suffering from Mr 325 Posts fatigue .????

Did you read the information in your own link?

 

You have to qualify for the OAP first, before you can look at portability.  If you read the residency criteria in your link for determining one's residency status, you will see it's similar to residency for taxation purposes.

 

Here's an example from your link.

 

"Example 1: Derek is single, aged 56, and has spent the last 2 years in Thailand as he prefers the climate and cost of living. He initially went for a short holiday and when he came back he rented out his furnished property in Australia on an indefinite basis and took on a long term lease of an apartment in Thailand. He is not employed. He keeps in contact with extended family by phone and has a return trip booked to Australia for medical treatment. He has to renew his Thai visa every year and does not consider himself to be a resident of Thailand because he is not eligible for a permanent visa there. He plans to return to Australia one day and for this reason has not sold his house.

 

Derek's argument that he does not have a permanent visa to stay in Thailand does not override the fact that he spends the majority of his time living in Thailand. Based on the duration of his absence and the fact that his plans to return to live in Australia are vague, at this point in time he is considered to be residing in Thailand."

 

 

Does the above sound familiar? 

 

"at this point in time he is considered to be residing in Thailand."  This means non resident for OAP, and therefore non resident for taxation purposes as well. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/5/2023 at 3:21 AM, Lacessit said:

I mean, what is the contribution to the Aussie economy by people waiting for their pension during those two years, against the drag on the welfare budget by bureaucrats who are employed to keep the system operating?

It keeps the welfare money circulating in the Australian economy, which also creates employment, and employed people pay income tax. 

 

They want to get as much of that welfare money back in GST, excises, rates, fees, levies, tolls, licenses etc.  They do not want it going into another country's economy. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:07 AM, Olmate said:

That is called OAP,  yes thats what I decided  60+yrs ago????

Are you 125 years old? 

[Olmate]

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Are you 125 years old? 

Thats when I started work and paying tax.I have a lot to recoup!! 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/5/2023 at 2:41 AM, Lacessit said:

The link directs me to a disclaimer, no information of substance on the topic. Note the link says "former residents."

The devil is in the detail. If one has lived overseas for an extended period of time, AND is deemed non-resident for tax purposes, the two year rule applies.

If the applicant maintains an Australian residential address ( I did ) and is present in Australia on the day they become eligible for the OAP, they get the pension. Full or part, doesn't matter.  I did not have to wait for two years.

As I said before, an appointment with an FSO is what is needed.

 

You were overseas "in the gray area" still appearing like you were an Australian resident for taxation purposes?  Many have not maintained a "gray area" in Australia and are non residents which ever way you look at them.    They will have to do their 2 years.   

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/5/2023 at 3:31 AM, scorecard said:

Perhaps Greece is one of the countries Australia has a reciprical pension agreement with. If true maybe there's a different agreed process.

https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/international/international-social-security-agreements/overview-international-social-security-agreements#:~:text=Australia's agreements with Austria%2C Belgium,also include provisions which regulate

 

"Australia's agreements with Austria, Belgium, Chile, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Latvia, the Republic of North Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the USA also include provisions which regulate the Superannuation Guarantee contributions and contributions to partners' countries social security systems for non-resident workers to avoid double-coverage. More information on the Superannuation Guarantee is available on the Australian Taxation Office(link is external) website.

Generally, Agreements allow Australian residents to maximise their income by helping them to claim payments from other countries where they have spent part of their working life."

 

 

[Lacessit]

38 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It keeps the welfare money circulating in the Australian economy, which also creates employment, and employed people pay income tax. 

 

They want to get as much of that welfare money back in GST, excises, rates, fees, levies, tolls, licenses etc.  They do not want it going into another country's economy. 

Missed my point entirely, as usual. I was asking how much the bureaucratic drones cost who administer the 2 year rule, compared to the benefit to the economy by forcing people into two years in the penal colony.

[Lacessit]

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Who is "us" exactly? 

Anyone who was not wealthy, or gave a damn about climate change.

[Lacessit]

34 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

You were overseas "in the gray area" still appearing like you were an Australian resident for taxation purposes?  Many have not maintained a "gray area" in Australia and are non residents which ever way you look at them.    They will have to do their 2 years.   

I am still an Australian resident for tax purposes, no gray area about it.

Your last sentence reeks of schadenfreude, no surprise there.

[KhunHeineken]

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am still an Australian resident for tax purposes, no gray area about it.

Which is my point.  This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed.

 

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Your last sentence reeks of schadenfreude, no surprise there.

How so? 

 

I am in Thailand for prolonged periods of time, only returning for major family events. 

 

I have admitted I have been living in Thailand "in the gray area."  Others have admitted the same.  It's not illegal, it's just pushing the boundaries of the tax laws.

 

How can one seriously claim to be a resident of Australia for tax purposes just because they have kept a house, car, utility account, bank account etc, when they haven't been back to Australia in over a year or more? 

 

In the past, it could have been argued that one was just on a long overseas holiday, with every intention of returning to Australia, hence maintaining ownership of a house, car etc, but the 183 day law will end that gray area and every Australian outside of Australia for 183 day will automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.    

 

Where's the schadenfreude?  We will all be impacted by the change in the non resident for taxation law, just some more than others, and I expect it will have a greater impact on myself than pensioners. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

28 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Missed my point entirely, as usual. I was asking how much the bureaucratic drones cost who administer the 2 year rule, compared to the benefit to the economy by forcing people into two years in the penal colony.

With over 1 million Australians living overseas, and a large percentage of them retirees, one member claiming Thailand having 20,000 Australians alone, I would say it's financially beneficial to have all that welfare money remaining in the Australian economy for 2 years. 

 

With computers doing most of the work, I don't think wages of staff to implement the policy is an issue. 

[KhunHeineken]

35 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Anyone who was not wealthy, or gave a damn about climate change.

"Wealthy" is a broad term. 

 

As a reference point, Australia's median personal income was $52,338 in 2019 - 20.

 

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/personal-income-australia/2015-16-2019-20

 

At what dollar value would you say someone is wealthy?    

Edited April 12, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[Olmate]

39 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

"Wealthy" is a broad term. 

 

As a reference point, Australia's median personal income was $52,338 in 2019 - 20.

 

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/personal-income-australia/2015-16-2019-20

 

At what dollar value would you say someone is wealthy?    

Given the poverty line is about OAP level! Not my problem! 

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Did you read the information in your own link?

 

You have to qualify for the OAP first, before you can look at portability.  If you read the residency criteria in your link for determining one's residency status, you will see it's similar to residency for taxation purposes.

 

Here's an example from your link.

 

"Example 1: Derek is single, aged 56, and has spent the last 2 years in Thailand as he prefers the climate and cost of living. He initially went for a short holiday and when he came back he rented out his furnished property in Australia on an indefinite basis and took on a long term lease of an apartment in Thailand. He is not employed. He keeps in contact with extended family by phone and has a return trip booked to Australia for medical treatment. He has to renew his Thai visa every year and does not consider himself to be a resident of Thailand because he is not eligible for a permanent visa there. He plans to return to Australia one day and for this reason has not sold his house.

 

Derek's argument that he does not have a permanent visa to stay in Thailand does not override the fact that he spends the majority of his time living in Thailand. Based on the duration of his absence and the fact that his plans to return to live in Australia are vague, at this point in time he is considered to be residing in Thailand."

 

 

Does the above sound familiar? 

 

"at this point in time he is considered to be residing in Thailand."  This means non resident for OAP, and therefore non resident for taxation purposes as well. 

 

With respect, as much as its pains me to not respond to support my post which was directed to another, I will desist in deference to the rest of the forum and their future suffering.

 

Financial planners have a motto "past results are not an indication of future performance" but in your case I am afraid the opposite is true.

 

I suggest the negative reputation on your avatar, i.e. a score less than posts, is a good indicator of your standing and of future performance.

 

Accordingly, I don't not wish to perpetuate another 333 posts of nonsense, from, I am sorry to say but must "call a spade a spade" our resident troll.

 

Any response, or any suggestion of me "blocking" is not necessary.

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

"Wealthy" is a broad term. 

 

As a reference point, Australia's median personal income was $52,338 in 2019 - 20.

 

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-working-conditions/personal-income-australia/2015-16-2019-20

 

At what dollar value would you say someone is wealthy?    

Income is fairly meaningless, it depends on how much expenditure is going on, Read David Copperfield.

A person is wealthy when their assets exceed what they can possibly spend in their lifetime.

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

With over 1 million Australians living overseas, and a large percentage of them retirees, one member claiming Thailand having 20,000 Australians alone, I would say it's financially beneficial to have all that welfare money remaining in the Australian economy for 2 years. 

 

With computers doing most of the work, I don't think wages of staff to implement the policy is an issue. 

Unless you quote actual figures with a credible link, your post is meaningless in terms of what proportion of 1 million Australians are retirees.

 

Parkinson's law is the observation that public administration, bureaucracy and officialdom expands, regardless of the amount of work to be done. This was attributed mainly to two factors: that officials want subordinates, not rivals, and that officials make work for each other.

 

If you think computers have changed that observation, I have a bridge in Sydney Harbour I'd like to sell you.

 

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Which is my point.  This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed.

 

How so? 

 

I am in Thailand for prolonged periods of time, only returning for major family events. 

 

I have admitted I have been living in Thailand "in the gray area."  Others have admitted the same.  It's not illegal, it's just pushing the boundaries of the tax laws.

 

How can one seriously claim to be a resident of Australia for tax purposes just because they have kept a house, car, utility account, bank account etc, when they haven't been back to Australia in over a year or more? 

 

In the past, it could have been argued that one was just on a long overseas holiday, with every intention of returning to Australia, hence maintaining ownership of a house, car etc, but the 183 day law will end that gray area and every Australian outside of Australia for 183 day will automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.    

 

Where's the schadenfreude?  We will all be impacted by the change in the non resident for taxation law, just some more than others, and I expect it will have a greater impact on myself than pensioners. 

IMO it is far more likely the BS stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy will be scrapped as unsustainable. Plus the tax rorts, which I have posted previously.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/inequality-on-steroids-as-rich-take-more-of-the-gains/102200878

 

You can beat the 183 day drum as much as you want, IMO any budget gains from that are small potatoes in comparison to the political risk of inflaming pensioners who do not even live overseas.

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

22 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Which is my point.  This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed.

 

How so? 

 

I am in Thailand for prolonged periods of time, only returning for major family events. 

 

I have admitted I have been living in Thailand "in the gray area."  Others have admitted the same.  It's not illegal, it's just pushing the boundaries of the tax laws.

 

How can one seriously claim to be a resident of Australia for tax purposes just because they have kept a house, car, utility account, bank account etc, when they haven't been back to Australia in over a year or more? 

 

In the past, it could have been argued that one was just on a long overseas holiday, with every intention of returning to Australia, hence maintaining ownership of a house, car etc, but the 183 day law will end that gray area and every Australian outside of Australia for 183 day will automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.    

 

Where's the schadenfreude?  We will all be impacted by the change in the non resident for taxation law, just some more than others, and I expect it will have a greater impact on myself than pensioners. 

At least acknowledge that your statement  'This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed.' is better put as 'I think it will eventually be passed'.

You say in the past it could be argued that someone was on a long holiday but now the 183 day rule will stop that. I don't think a blanket rule can be fairly or practically applied to retirees spending more than 6 months or 12 months overseas.  There are clear examples where people do have a long holiday, or there are other circumstances, and an objective fair review would indicate they are in fact a resident. Grey areas are grey for a reason and a new hard and fast rule needs to make sense. I say it won't happen but feel free to think otherwise. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:13 AM, LosLobo said:

With respect, as much as its pains me to not respond to support my post which was directed to another, I will desist in deference to the rest of the forum and their future suffering.

 

Financial planners have a motto "past results are not an indication of future performance" but in your case I am afraid the opposite is true.

 

I suggest the negative reputation on your avatar, i.e. a score less than posts, is a good indicator of your standing and of future performance.

 

Accordingly, I don't not wish to perpetuate another 333 posts of nonsense, from, I am sorry to say but must "call a spade a spade" our resident troll.

 

Any response, or any suggestion of me "blocking" is not necessary.

YOU posted the link.  It contradicts the point YOU made, and it's YOUR own link. 

 

The example in YOUR link, Derek, relates to a high percentage of expats.  I call you out on YOUR error, and YOU resort back to YOUR usual deflection and personal attack on me.  Not to mention, your post is off topic. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:09 AM, Lacessit said:

A person is wealthy when their assets exceed what they can possibly spend in their lifetime.

The human weakness called "greed" means people can never have enough assets in their lifetime.