Australian Aged Pension

[Olmate]

11 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

This link might be of some interest for you.

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

The above said, I have a mate coming over in October once his pension is approved. I sent him the link saying, hey watch out for this space as a non resident you might be up for 32.5c in every $ as a non resident.

 

I asked him to contact the ATO and he did, they said, not interested in pensioners, no tax on pensions overseas, so that is from the horses mouth, suffice to say, I did say to him to keep an Oz address and to notify the motor registry, Medicare etc etc because you are a resident until you are not a resident.

 

Now personally I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners to slug them 1/3 of there pensions, that said, if those pensioners were earning an income and not declaring it on top of their old age pensions, then that would be a different story.

 

Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia, that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $.

 

Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO.

 

All of the above said, I am wondering of anyone knows how Centrelink reduces the OAP if your married to a younger chick, e.g. wife is an Aus citizen 21 years my junior, suffice to say, from what I have read, I can have $643,500 as combined assets with her and they will provide me with a single OAP, around 45,000 baht, does that sound right ? 

 

You will receive married single rate and if living in Thailand my est. would be approx  35k not 45k.

[KhunHeineken]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:01 PM, 4MyEgo said:

This link might be of some interest for you.

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

The above said, I have a mate coming over in October once his pension is approved. I sent him the link saying, hey watch out for this space as a non resident you might be up for 32.5c in every $ as a non resident.

 

I asked him to contact the ATO and he did, they said, not interested in pensioners, no tax on pensions overseas, so that is from the horses mouth, suffice to say, I did say to him to keep an Oz address and to notify the motor registry, Medicare etc etc because you are a resident until you are not a resident.

 

Now personally I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners to slug them 1/3 of there pensions, that said, if those pensioners were earning an income and not declaring it on top of their old age pensions, then that would be a different story.

 

Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia, that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $.

 

Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO.

 

All of the above said, I am wondering of anyone knows how Centrelink reduces the OAP if your married to a younger chick, e.g. wife is an Aus citizen 21 years my junior, suffice to say, from what I have read, I can have $643,500 as combined assets with her and they will provide me with a single OAP, around 45,000 baht, does that sound right ? 

 

So, you have Blake, from the ATO, replying to Bob, on an ATO forum, in which Blake clearly, in writing, informs Bob he will be a non resident for tax purposes, and will pay income tax at 32.5%.

 

Yes, a pension is deemed an "income" by the ATO.  See various links to this in previous posts.

 

Here's the relevant line in your link.

 

Blake from the ATO:

 

"As a foreign resident for tax purposes, you will pay income tax according to foreign resident rates. This means for all income under $180k, you'll pay 32.5c per dollar. You would only report and pay tax on your Australian-sourced income to us."

 

Now, your friend rings the ATO and is told by a staff member, "not interested in pensioners."  Did he get that staff member's name?  Did that staff member email your friend any links to relevant laws and regulations? 

 

What information do we rely on, Blake's, or the staff member over the phone?  One is right, and one is wrong. 

 

Did the call center staff member tell your friend don't worry about the 183 days, and don't worry about your pension being an income, because it's not relevant to you because these laws are "not interested in pensioners."  Perhaps it really is just "for guys like Paul Hogan."   

 

Did that call center staff member tell your friend "pensions will be exempt?"  Did that call center staff member tell your friend, "we are making changes to the non resident tax brackets and the first $35,000 will have a tax free threshold? 

 

On what basis did the call center staff member suggest your friend will be able to stand outside the law? 

 

Again, you are using words like "I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners."  They are not "going after" them.  It's a tax they should have already been paying, as Blake informed Bob in your link,  but outdated 90 year old non resident tax laws have seen them avoid paying it.  Then, there's people like myself, and part pensioners, that haven't been paying, either.  Then, I dare say, high net worth individuals have been avoiding paying it as well. 

 

It's not a new tax.  What is new will be the 183 days automatic deeming of non resident status for taxation purposes, and with a pension being deemed an "income" at law, I would really like to know what information the call center staff member is basing their advice on. 

 

Do you think if he rang again, he may get different advice?  Perhaps if he rang a third time, I would not be surprised if he got different advice from the first two calls.  This is why I put more weight on what is in writing. 

 

"Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia" - but the call center staff just told your friend he doesn't have to because they are "not interested in pensioners" and you said they are not "going after" pensioners, so why are you saying this?   Do we rely on the written word of the law, or your mate's telephone call and your opinion?

 

"that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $." - it's a pension, not a share portfolio.  How does this help pensioners with the proposed changes? 

 

"Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO. - where's the "chasing?" Immigration inform Centrelink and the ATO that John Smith, the Aussie old age pensioner, has been outside Australia for 183 days, therefore, he's now deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes.  If he's on a part pension, the ATO bill him for 32.5%, and if he's only on a pension, Centrelink reduce his pension by 32.5% the first fortnight after the 183 days.  Simple.  All this is taking place while they are still "going after" guys like Paul Hogan.  These changes simply get everyone outside of Australia for 183 days.  No gray area, nothing to review, nothing to appeal.  It's a numbers game, and the magic number is 183.  

 

You, and others, make it sound like the ATO and Centrelink have to employ 200 extra staff, with office space, to implement this.  They don't.  Computer data bases will do all the heavy lifting. 

 

Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do?  Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court?  Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok?  No.  He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.  

[Will27]

Thought it was too good to be true........

[Olmate]

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, you have Blake, from the ATO, replying to Bob, on an ATO forum, in which Blake clearly, in writing, informs Bob he will be a non resident for tax purposes, and will pay income tax at 32.5%.

 

Yes, a pension is deemed an "income" by the ATO.  See various links to this in previous posts.

 

Here's the relevant line in your link.

 

Blake from the ATO:

 

"As a foreign resident for tax purposes, you will pay income tax according to foreign resident rates. This means for all income under $180k, you'll pay 32.5c per dollar. You would only report and pay tax on your Australian-sourced income to us."

 

Now, your friend rings the ATO and is told by a staff member, "not interested in pensioners."  Did he get that staff member's name?  Did that staff member email your friend any links to relevant laws and regulations? 

 

What information do we rely on, Blake's, or the staff member over the phone?  One is right, and one is wrong. 

 

Did the call center staff member tell your friend don't worry about the 183 days, and don't worry about your pension being an income, because it's not relevant to you because these laws are "not interested in pensioners."  Perhaps it really is just "for guys like Paul Hogan."   

 

Did that call center staff member tell your friend "pensions will be exempt?"  Did that call center staff member tell your friend, "we are making changes to the non resident tax brackets and the first $35,000 will have a tax free threshold? 

 

On what basis did the call center staff member suggest your friend will be able to stand outside the law? 

 

Again, you are using words like "I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners."  They are not "going after" them.  It's a tax they should have already been paying, as Blake informed Bob in your link,  but outdated 90 year old non resident tax laws have seen them avoid paying it.  Then, there's people like myself, and part pensioners, that haven't been paying, either.  Then, I dare say, high net worth individuals have been avoiding paying it as well. 

 

It's not a new tax.  What is new will be the 183 days automatic deeming of non resident status for taxation purposes, and with a pension being deemed an "income" at law, I would really like to know what information the call center staff member is basing their advice on. 

 

Do you think if he rang again, he may get different advice?  Perhaps if he rang a third time, I would not be surprised if he got different advice from the first two calls.  This is why I put more weight on what is in writing. 

 

"Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia" - but the call center staff just told your friend he doesn't have to because they are "not interested in pensioners" and you said they are not "going after" pensioners, so why are you saying this?   Do we rely on the written word of the law, or your mate's telephone call and your opinion?

 

"that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $." - it's a pension, not a share portfolio.  How does this help pensioners with the proposed changes? 

 

"Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO. - where's the "chasing?" Immigration inform Centrelink and the ATO that John Smith, the Aussie old age pensioner, has been outside Australia for 183 days, therefore, he's now deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes.  If he's on a part pension, the ATO bill him for 32.5%, and if he's only on a pension, Centrelink reduce his pension by 32.5% the first fortnight after the 183 days.  Simple.  All this is taking place while they are still "going after" guys like Paul Hogan.  These changes simply get everyone outside of Australia for 183 days.  No gray area, nothing to review, nothing to appeal.  It's a numbers game, and the magic number is 183.  

 

You, and others, make it sound like the ATO and Centrelink have to employ 200 extra staff, with office space, to implement this.  They don't.  Computer data bases will do all the heavy lifting. 

 

Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do?  Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court?  Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok?  No.  He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.  

Nothing new, you just keep on keeping on. PWC has a spot for you.????

[4MyEgo]

16 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do?  Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court?  Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok?  No.  He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.  

Sorry, I don't have John's number, otherwise I'd pass it on to you.

 

The above said, you can't dispute that there are no OAP that I know of, that are paying the 32.5c in the $ as non residents, e.g. ATO isn't chasing small fish, but when they do start catching them, please do let me and others know, in the meantime, we will continue enjoying life paying no tax.

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/1/2023 at 6:50 AM, Will27 said:

Thought it was too good to be true........

Another baiting and off topic post from you, yet, not reported by myself. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/1/2023 at 6:50 AM, Olmate said:

Nothing new, you just keep on keeping on. PWC has a spot for you.????

You didn't even know who PWC was until I mentioned them. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/1/2023 at 6:52 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Sorry, I don't have John's number, otherwise I'd pass it on to you.

 

The above said, you can't dispute that there are no OAP that I know of, that are paying the 32.5c in the $ as non residents, e.g. ATO isn't chasing small fish, but when they do start catching them, please do let me and others know, in the meantime, we will continue enjoying life paying no tax.

You do realize, you contradicted yourself several times in your previous post. 

 

Here's just one example.

 

"Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights,"  - you see, it's not about being in their rights, it's the law, therefore, it's not really about what you personally think, is it?

 

What makes you think pensioners will be able to stand outside of the 183 day net, and non immigration tax brackets? 

 

Yeah, expat pensioners, and myself, have not been paying non resident tax rates for decades.  Why would it be soooooooooooo surprizing to YOU that a goverment, of either party, would seek to stop that loophole, not just for pensioners, but for everyone, including Paul Hogan?  

 

Is it really rocket science? 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Another baiting and off topic post from you, yet, not reported by myself. 

I have to admit when the worst baiter and troller on this thread makes a post like that, they have the hide of a rhinoceros.

It would be interesting to know how many times your posts have been removed as off-topic or inflammatory.

[Olmate]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You didn't even know who PWC was until I mentioned them. 

Did you mention them,? Oh god.what have I just done????

[Will27]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Another baiting and off topic post from you, yet, not reported by myself. 

I guess I shouldn't have read too much into one of your last posts saying you wouldn't be making make any further posts.

 

I was going to quote it, but wow it's been removed.

Fancy that.

 

BTW, no need to reply with a Leo Tolstoy length reply.

If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore.

 

Is that how it works?

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

 

BTW, no need to reply with a Leo Tolstoy length reply.

If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore.

 

Is that how it works?

Not going to happen. If KH ignored other posters, he would run out of people to reply to a la Tolstoy.

IIRC I once challenged him to produce a post shorter than mine, even then he couldn't count sentences.

[4MyEgo]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Is it really rocket science? 

You sound like one of those guys who keeps saying the world is going to end, starting 90 years ago, but keeps repeating yourself annually and maybe, just maybe, you will get it right one day when the world ends, in 2,000 years time ????

 

I see why others on this forum have given up.

 

Do us all a favour and beat your chest when the ATO does start taxing expats the foreign resident tax, but until then, please .....

 

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

You sound like one of those guys who keeps saying the world is going to end, starting 90 years ago, but keeps repeating yourself annually and maybe, just maybe, you will get it right one day when the world ends, in 2,000 years time ????

 

I see why others on this forum have given up.

 

Do us all a favour and beat your chest when the ATO does start taxing expats the foreign resident tax, but until then, please .....

 

 

In other words never post again. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/3/2023 at 1:20 AM, Lacessit said:

Not going to happen. If KH ignored other posters, he would run out of people to reply to a la Tolstoy.

IIRC I once challenged him to produce a post shorter than mine, even then he couldn't count sentences.

At least my posts contain links. 

 

No links from you in over 30 posts, yet YOU continually say you post links showing I am incorrect. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/3/2023 at 2:03 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Do us all a favour and beat your chest when the ATO does start taxing expats the foreign resident tax

If / when that does happen, what will your comment be on this forum? 

 

Once again, it's a tax they should already be paying.  Do you understand that?  It's not a new tax.  The proposed changes are focused on  enforcement.  Do you know the difference?  It's not about "starting" to tax them.  It's about changing laws in order to be able to start collecting taxes that have been avoided for decades. 

[Pink Mist]

Reported Troll post has been removed 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/2/2023 at 8:23 PM, Lacessit said:

I have to admit when the worst baiter and troller on this thread makes a post like that, they have the hide of a rhinoceros.

It would be interesting to know how many times your posts have been removed as off-topic or inflammatory.

The reason my posts are removed is because a small minority of "haters" constantly report them to admin and have them removed, despite their own baiting, off topic, and personal attacks on the same thread. 

 

I'm still waiting for some links from you showing my posts are incorrect.  You are not hiding behind personal attacks now, are you?

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

The reason my posts are removed is because a small minority of "haters" constantly report them to admin and have them removed, despite their own baiting, off topic, and personal attacks on the same thread. 

 

I'm still waiting for some links from you showing my posts are incorrect.  You are not hiding behind personal attacks now, are you?

Perhaps it has not occurred to you moderators do not remove your posts for no reason. Presumably they agree with the posters who report them.

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/1/2023 at 6:52 AM, 4MyEgo said:

in the meantime, we will continue enjoying life paying no tax.

For how much longer do you think this will be possible?  The government is aware of the loopholes, as we are.  Would it be so surprising to you they make changes to close the loopholes?

 

On the point of paying no tax, here's an interesting article.   

 

https://www.9news.com.au/finance/australia-millionaires-ato-data-rich-people-paying-no-tax/726563bf-9fd7-4da4-ae18-498308aac038

 

"Highly skilled accountants were able to get their clients out of over $400 million in tax."

 

No matter how "highly skilled" accountants are, they will not be able to get around the immigration data base, and the 45 / 183 days. 

[Olmate]

12 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

For how much longer do you think this will be possible?  The government is aware of the loopholes, as we are.  Would it be so surprising to you they make changes to close the loopholes?

 

On the point of paying no tax, here's an interesting article.   

 

https://www.9news.com.au/finance/australia-millionaires-ato-data-rich-people-paying-no-tax/726563bf-9fd7-4da4-ae18-498308aac038

 

"Highly skilled accountants were able to get their clients out of over $400 million in tax."

 

No matter how "highly skilled" accountants are, they will not be able to get around the immigration data base, and the 45 / 183 days. 

Interesting said article  failed to mention the huge  amount of expat OAP who are evading  their taxliabilities! 

[KhunHeineken]

21 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Interesting said article  failed to mention the huge  amount of expat OAP who are evading  their taxliabilities! 

Yourself, and many others, took the stance that expat OAP's have never been liable to pay non resident tax, and will never be liable for non resident tax, and anyone who suggested they should have been paying it, and may have to pay it in the future, was labeled a scaremonger.  The Paul Hogan Syndrome. 

 

Are you now saying expat OAP's are in fact liable to pay non resident tax, but have been evading it for many for decades?   

 

Can you clarify your stance?  At law, should expat OAP's be paying non resident tax?  Yes, or no? 

[Yeah rightio]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:33 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do?  Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court?  Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok?  No.  He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.  

Shock horror; yes I've edited your post; so as not to subject anyone else having to read your version of 'War&Peace' to get to your supposition of what others may or may not do.

John Smith may not just let it end at whatever Centrelink tells him and do some of the other options you've given.

If John's brother James gets his pension paid direct into a Thai bank account from the RBA and they try to pull the rubbish you're spouting, he may very well turn his personal situation into a nightmare for the bureaucracy; just through short irregular travel movements back to Oz. 

Unless of course your vision of 183 days must be in one single block.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow Australians if you believe your John Smith analogy re the High Court & MP letter option and wholly accepting what Centrelink will tell them and are being quite disingenuous regarding protesting in Bangkok. Or is that simply a poor attempt at baiting?

 

[Lacessit]

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that yourself, and a small group of "haters" continually report my posts, when I have never reported a post, on any thread, ever.  If I did, I am sure many of your posts, including this one, and theirs, would be deleted also, but for what purpose?

 

Reminds me of "the dobber" at school, all those years ago. 

 

Your post is another example.  It's off topic, and should be a PM, but you post it on the thread as a "hater" and to further gain the acceptance of the core "hater" group on here.  

 

I have openly requested members to put me on their ignore list, which they refuse to do so.  It may be more beneficial for the thread that I request any "hater" style post they wish to post in the open forum that they PM it to me instead.  I have no problem with this.  Feel free to be abusive, offensive, and insulting, no problem.  I will never report you.  However, I doubt this will happen because there's no herd mentality in PM's, and they can't run crying to a moderator when they receive what they dished out back at them.

Oh, so you are a victim? Have you heard of the term "self-inflicted wounds"?

Your posts probably get reported because they are inflammatory, which is outside forum rules.

Smack me down with a feather, are you claiming you are never off topic?

Please explain why corresponding with you by PM would be any more enlightening than in an open forum. Why would I want to be bored twice?

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

Clarify your stance on this.  It's a yes or no answer. 

 

 

 

IME there are no binomial attributes in government policy.

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

For how much longer do you think this will be possible?  The government is aware of the loopholes, as we are.  Would it be so surprising to you they make changes to close the loopholes?

 

On the point of paying no tax, here's an interesting article.   

 

https://www.9news.com.au/finance/australia-millionaires-ato-data-rich-people-paying-no-tax/726563bf-9fd7-4da4-ae18-498308aac038

 

"Highly skilled accountants were able to get their clients out of over $400 million in tax."

 

No matter how "highly skilled" accountants are, they will not be able to get around the immigration data base, and the 45 / 183 days. 

Sixty-six millionaires earning almost a billion dollars put together paid no tax last year, according to new data from the ATO.

 

I would like to think that the ATO would go after the loopholes of millionaires and other large corporations vs going after the little battlers who worked all of their lives.

 

So take a deep breathe and like I said, when they do come after the little battler, then come on down and beat your chest, but until then, ZIP, it ti do dah, Zip it tee day, my oh my have a wonderful day ????

 

 

[Yeah rightio]

22 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I couldn't care less what others may or may not do.

 

I only care about what the government may nor may not do, and when.

 

This is the old "the government would never do that because it would cost them more money then they would make in revenue" argument. 

 

I'm sure the immigration, ATO, and Centerlink data bases will be able to handle it.  This will all be computer generated and automated. 

 

There is a reason why the proposed changes were drafted, and it wasn't because they are going to make a loss.

 

I've never suggested it must be in a single block.  My understanding is the 183 days are per year, not consecutive.  if you have a link showing otherwise, please post it. 

 

My point is, some pages back, I posted a list of about twenty reasons members put forward as to why the proposed changes will NEVER effect them, despite being told time and time and time again that they should already be paying non resident tax, and the proposed changes are only focused on the government being finally able to collect such taxes because the current 90 year old non resident tax laws have such a huge gray area that, basically, very few non residents were paying the tax. 

 

Are you one of the ones still in denial that Aussie expats, deriving an income from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an income, should be already paying non resident tax? 

 

Clarify your stance on this.  It's a yes or no answer. 

 

 

 

I'll treat that question with the contempt in which it was asked.

 

In the meantime, here's what's happening regarding your argument. It's as clear as mud...... 

https://neoskosmos.com/en/2023/06/11/dialogue/opinion/new-ato-ruling-can-you-be-a-tax-resident-of-australia-if-working-temporarily-in-greece/

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 6/11/2023 at 1:05 PM, Yeah rightio said:

Shock horror; yes I've edited your post; so as not to subject anyone else having to read your version of 'War&Peace' to get to your supposition of what others may or may not do.

John Smith may not just let it end at whatever Centrelink tells him and do some of the other options you've given.

If John's brother James gets his pension paid direct into a Thai bank account from the RBA and they try to pull the rubbish you're spouting, he may very well turn his personal situation into a nightmare for the bureaucracy; just through short irregular travel movements back to Oz. 

Unless of course your vision of 183 days must be in one single block.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

You have a very low opinion of your fellow Australians if you believe your John Smith analogy re the High Court & MP letter option and wholly accepting what Centrelink will tell them and are being quite disingenuous regarding protesting in Bangkok. Or is that simply a poor attempt at baiting?

 

A cornerstone of your argument is that the 183 day rule is workable and can make sense and could be applied without discretion. I have said this before but your 10 posts make me want to say it one more time. So Bill retires, keeps his home in Australia, likes to spend time with his family, is a member of the local bowls club, but finally lives his dream of travelling around the world with his wife. They travel to 6 countries for 184 days and returns to his normal life. It makes no sense for him to be treated as a non-resident. There are many other scenarios of a similar nature. Therefore a 183 hard and fast rule is most unlikely for this situation.

 

[Artisi]

7 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A cornerstone of your argument is that the 183 day rule is workable and can make sense and could be applied without discretion. I have said this before but your 10 posts make me want to say it one more time. So Bill retires, keeps his home in Australia, likes to spend time with his family, is a member of the local bowls club, but finally lives his dream of travelling around the world with his wife. They travel to 6 countries for 184 days and returns to his normal life. It makes no sense for him to be treated as a non-resident. There are many other scenarios of a similar nature. Therefore a 183 hard and fast rule is most unlikely for this situation.

 

You are right and it's a complex matter for people working and travelling, however as this is a forum mainly for expats living in Thailand and who are probably here fulltime, there is no argument, if you are out of the country for more than 183 days in any year, you will be classed as a non-resident for tax purposes - end of story irrespective of how much you cry about it, ignore it, or think differently - - end of story. 

 

As I've said previously, I doesn't affect me now - but I'm dead against it for the average pensioner who lives overseas. 

[chalawaan]

The first posts on this thread are from 2008.

Most of those posters names are never seen on current threads, and their post counts are extremely low.

 

I think every one of them may have long since passed.

 

May they all rest in peace. 

 

Australia's pension rules continue to perplex most expats.