Australian Aged Pension

[HighPriority]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

The resident prophet of doom kept publishing links to the discussion paper.

Can't say if it was over 600 times, but I suspect it was a substantial percentage.

In this case, I think once should be enough.

Let me rephrase myself, you didn’t get off your ginger and find the link, dunno why you’re gloating. 

[LosLobo]

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Are you confused now? If so, about what?

Yes, I am confused by the amount of conflicting information coming from the ATO.

Not only this instance but in general.

I suggest My Ego's response will be the definitive answer.

Though if aged pensions are now taxable in Thailand under its Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, the exercise will be moot.

As Thai banks now require the Thai version of a tax file number (TIN) to open bank accounts, compliance will become compulsory.

Edited February 3 by LosLobo

[Lacessit]

29 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Yes, I am confused by the amount of conflicting information coming from the ATO.

Not only this instance but in general.

I suggest My Ego's response will be the definitive answer.

Though if aged pensions are now taxable in Thailand under its Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, the exercise will be moot.

As Thai banks now require the Thai version of a tax file number (TIN) to open bank accounts, compliance will become compulsory.

There are two get-out options with the Thai tax system, even assuming it comes to pass for pensions.

 

The first is you can only be taxed on income received and transferred after January 1, 2024. If you can prove what you are transferring is from savings prior to that date, no tax is payable. I've already got screenshots of my savings for that eventuality.

 

The second is to marry a thai. For someone solely on the OAP, the amount of tax payable after various allowances is fairly miniscule. IIRC, I calculated it as 5000 baht pa.

[Lacessit]

56 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Let me rephrase myself, you didn’t get off your ginger and find the link, dunno why you’re gloating. 

Because the guy I am referring to has posted over 600 times on this thread, and he has been wrong all along.

IIRC, I had you on ignore. I do make the mistake of responding to d!ckheads occasionally.

[LosLobo]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There are two get-out options with the Thai tax system, even assuming it comes to pass for pensions.

 

The first is you can only be taxed on income received and transferred after January 1, 2024. If you can prove what you are transferring is from savings prior to that date, no tax is payable. I've already got screenshots of my savings for that eventuality.

 

The second is to marry a thai. For someone solely on the OAP, the amount of tax payable after various allowances is fairly miniscule. IIRC, I calculated it as 5000 baht pa.

Neither of those options will be available to me.

Good to know about savings I assume that would also apply to my superannuation, though any ongoing investment returns may be taxable.

[HighPriority]

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Because the guy I am referring to has posted over 600 times on this thread, and he has been wrong all along.

IIRC, I had you on ignore. I do make the mistake of responding to d!ckheads occasionally

Thank you

🤣🤣

[Lacessit]

38 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Neither of those options will be available to me.

Good to know about savings I assume that would also apply to my superannuation, though any ongoing investment returns may be taxable.

Superannuation IMO would be counted as savings as well, you draw down on it just like any capital.

I don't know if the income of the fund would be taxed in Australia or Thailand. It can't be taxed in Thailand if it is not transferred there.

I am confident there will be some creative accounting in play.

 

[georgegeorgia]

42 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Superannuation IMO would be counted as savings as well, you draw down on it just like any capital.

I don't know if the income of the fund would be taxed in Australia or Thailand. It can't be taxed in Thailand if it is not transferred there.

I am confident there will be some creative accounting in play.

 

I have a million dollars in mine 

[4MyEgo]

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I suggest My Ego's response will be the definitive answer.

 

Naturally that will depend on whether you accept my interpretation of the findings and legislation provided to me and read here on this forum. 

 

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Yes, I am confused by the amount of conflicting information coming from the ATO.

 

I have always said, it always depends on who you talk to, because not everyone is up to speed on legislation, some are good readers and interpreters, others lazy and just buying their time.

 

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Not only this instance but in general.

 

It's a 50/50 mixed bag, that's why I always search for Legislative material because it's finale.

 

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Though if aged pensions are now taxable in Thailand under its Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, the exercise will be moot.

 

Minimal damage, as Lacessit has stated below:

 

" The first is you can only be taxed on income received and transferred after January 1, 2024. If you can prove what you are transferring is from savings prior to that date, no tax is payable. I've already got screenshots of my savings for that eventuality".

 

"The second is to marry a thai. For someone solely on the OAP, the amount of tax payable after various allowances is fairly miniscule. IIRC, I calculated it as 5000 baht pa".

 

15 hours ago, LosLobo said:

As Thai banks now require the Thai version of a tax file number (TIN) to open bank accounts, compliance will become compulsory.

 

I have a Thai bank account and a Thai wife, but don't have a TFN and until they become compulsory, I won't have one.

 

The Age Pension is a few years away for me, and now that after reading the Article 18 and 19, I am of the opinion that the Age Pension is definitely not taxable in Australia and hasn't been taxable in Australia since the DTA came into existence, hence the reason Age Pensioners i.e. non residents of Australia living in Thailand haven't had to pay tax.

 

The above said, that may all change now with the Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2024 as LosLobo pointed out above.

 

If anyone reading this post who is in agreement with my interpretation, i.e. non resident of Australia i.e. Age Pensions for this topic, are subject to tax in Thailand only, (if enforced) by the Thai Government, give me the thumbs up, alternatively please reply with your reasons as to why you think Age Pensions are subject to the non resident tax of 32.5c to the $.

 

I have copied and pasted Articles 18 & 19 of the below Act, and have interpreted Article 18 2. to be relevant to Age Pensioners living in Thailand as non residents, i.e. are subject to paying tax in Thailand and not Australia.

 

 

Australian Treaty Series 1989 No 36

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

CANBERRA

 

                                                                             Article 18

 

 

Pensions and annuities

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

 

 

Article 19

Government service

 

1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who:

 

(a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or

 

(b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services.

 

2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State.

[4MyEgo]

On 2/3/2024 at 3:05 AM, KhunHeineken said:

Did your research extend past more than just one link?

 

Surely you researched more than just this one link. 

 

As for "seeing no reason why the ATO would stick it to a welfare recipient" this is just opinion, and not worth much.  Can you post a link showing that the ATO "does not stick it to a welfare recipient?" 

 

Every link I have posted you have said is "wrong."  Can you post some link/s from some credible sources that state "non resident pensioner pay no tax?"   

 

You asked, but can you accept it, I wait with bated breath for you to admit that you were WRONG, and to make it easy on you, i.e. that you don't read the whole legislation, Article 18 should make it easy for you.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

Come on, admit it........LoL

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

You asked, but can you accept it, I wait with bated breath for you to admit that you were WRONG, and to make it easy on you, i.e. that you don't read the whole legislation, Article 18 should make it easy for you.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

Come on, admit it........LoL

The silence from our usually voluble and prolific poster has been quite deafening over the last 48 hours.

Karma really is a bitch, isn't it?

[4MyEgo]

21 hours ago, Will27 said:

If they do bring in the proposed changes, there's nothing to stop the government saying it won't be applied to the OAP.

 

That wouldn't cost them much in the scheme of things and won't get negative publicity about hurting pensioners.

 

I believe that after reading the DTA, in particular Article 18, (see 3 posts back), that they would have to change that Legislation and I can't see that happening as they are not after Age Pensioners, and as such, they are protected under that piece of Legislation in my opinion.

[4MyEgo]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The silence from our usually voluble and prolific poster has been quite deafening over the last 48 hours.

Karma really is a bitch, isn't it?

 

Pretty big pill for him to swallow, oi....LoL

[scorecard]

• 4 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

  •  
  • You asked, but can you accept it, I wait with bated breath for you to admit that you were WRONG, and to make it easy on you, i.e. that you don't read the whole legislation, Article 18 should make it easy for you.
  •  
  • https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html
  •  
  • Come on, admit it........LoL

 

From above:

Article 18

Pensions and annuities

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

And it remains to be seen exactly how the Thai RD / legislation will handle such incoming funds.

I got numerous e.mails from of the so called Tax consultants resident in the UK (Carl xxxxxxx) ut claiming to be an expert on Thai personal taxes. I asked him about Thai personal tax on Oz OAP where it was the only incoming funds received by an individual.  He said he didn't Know (which shocked me), then said he would ask his contact, a anr officer at the Thai RD.  He went on to say his RD contact instantly said 'old age pension' where it's the only income from other countries will never be subject to Thai personal tax. 

[LosLobo]

28 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Naturally that will depend on whether you accept my interpretation of the findings and legislation provided to me and read here on this forum. 

 

 

I have always said, it always depends on who you talk to, because not everyone is up to speed on legislation, some are good readers and interpreters, others lazy and just buying their time.

 

 

It's a 50/50 mixed bag, that's why I always search for Legislative material because it's finale.

 

 

Minimal damage, as Lacessit has stated below:

 

" The first is you can only be taxed on income received and transferred after January 1, 2024. If you can prove what you are transferring is from savings prior to that date, no tax is payable. I've already got screenshots of my savings for that eventuality".

 

"The second is to marry a thai. For someone solely on the OAP, the amount of tax payable after various allowances is fairly miniscule. IIRC, I calculated it as 5000 baht pa".

 

 

I have a Thai bank account and a Thai wife, but don't have a TFN and until they become compulsory, I won't have one.

 

The Age Pension is a few years away for me, and now that after reading the Article 18 and 19, I am of the opinion that the Age Pension is definitely not taxable in Australia and hasn't been taxable in Australia since the DTA came into existence, hence the reason Age Pensioners i.e. non residents of Australia living in Thailand haven't had to pay tax.

 

The above said, that may all change now with the Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2024 as LosLobo pointed out above.

 

If anyone reading this post who is in agreement with my interpretation, i.e. non resident of Australia i.e. Age Pensions for this topic, are subject to tax in Thailand only, (if enforced) by the Thai Government, give me the thumbs up, alternatively please reply with your reasons as to why you think Age Pensions are subject to the non resident tax of 32.5c to the $.

 

I have copied and pasted Articles 18 & 19 of the below Act, and have interpreted Article 18 2. to be relevant to Age Pensioners living in Thailand as non residents, i.e. are subject to paying tax in Thailand and not Australia.

 

 

Australian Treaty Series 1989 No 36

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

CANBERRA

 

                                                                             Article 18

 

 

Pensions and annuities

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

 

 

Article 19

Government service

 

1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who:

 

(a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or

 

(b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services.

 

2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State.

Seems likely I may be wrong, and I will be the first one to admit it.

I will give you an apology at the appropriate time if required.

But as I said "My Ego's response will be the definitive answer", so I will wait.

It would be foolish for me to again pre-empt a 'definitive' contextual response from the ATO.

Though with respect, I do suggest that this discussion is not about who is wrong or right but getting the correct information for all to plan our future.

Though in the case of the other a good 'bollicking' may be well deserved.

 

Edited February 4 by LosLobo

[4MyEgo]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:44 AM, KhunHeineken said:

"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."  - what don't you understand about this????????  Are you suggesting the pension is not "Australian sourced income?" 

 

Come out, come out, to play, we are all waiting for your reply to my posts.

 

You did ask me to provide you with more links, and you did say:

 

"No confusion here". 

 

"Blake tells Bob he will have to pay 32.5% tax on his pension.  Seems clear to me". 

 

https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/relationship-between-the-new-thai-tax-law-retirement-visa-holders-and-long-term-residency/#:~:text=A Double Tax Agreement between,Article 18 of this DTA.

 

What do you say to Blake now ?

 

Edited February 4 by 4MyEgo

[KhunHeineken]

Well, well, well. 

 

It's great to see some credible links posted that deal with the actual legislation, and now the double tax treaty with Thailand. 

 

I would just like to take member's minds back to when the below were put forward as the reasons why expat retirees would NEVER have to pay non resident tax. 

 

They are all very funny, but it's good to see we have moved on from them.  Perhaps one day we can have a poll and vote for the funniest one. The Paul Hogan comment would get my vote.  

 

"the Government would never do that. " 

 

"that will never happen." 

 

"Centerlink told me 6 years ago..................."

 

"there would be too much bad publicity for the Government."

 

"there would be a big backlash by pensioners." 

 

"I use a VPN when accessing the MyGov website." 

 

"that's only for people like Paul Hogan."  

 

"they can't tax a pension."

 

"I'm still a resident because I am using an address in Australia." 

 

"I didn't tick the box leaving permanently on the departure card."

 

"I told my Australian bank I am still a resident of Australia." 

 

"I'm on a veteran's pension. It's different." 

 

"I'm still a resident because I go back to Australia for a couple of weeks every year." 

 

"it would cost too many votes." 

 

"I still have a Medicare card so I am still a resident." 

 

"My mate told me................................"

 

Many members would defend the comments above with ZERO consideration for the legislation, and ridicule me along the way, without any links put forward supporting their position.  

 

Finally, it appears members are doing some research so the issue can be debated in a serious manner. 

 

I see one member continues to take the matter personally.  As another member rightly points out, there are no winners and losers in this debate. We all just need to find out where each of our individual tax liability circumstance lay within the Australian tax system, currently, and after the proposed changes are passed, and now the Thailand tax system, including the double taxation treaty.   It's strange this particular member takes it so personally, considering he is on a part pension, so his supplementary income is definitely on the chopping block for 32.5% non resident tax. 

 

I will now address each post aimed at me. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:35 PM, Nemises said:

Oxford dictionary:

the spreading of frightening or ominous reports or rumours.

 

 

It's tax legislation. 

 

How is discussing a country's tax law scaremongering?  

 

I have put forward many links.  I have given some opinion based on the content of those links, but have posted links to show how I had come to certain conclusions.  

 

If the tax law scares you so much, best to put me on your ignore list.   

[HighPriority]

What would be better is if the pissing competition ended.

We seem to have arrived at position of no tax on the pension, let’s enjoy that.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/2/2024 at 5:42 PM, Nemises said:

You mean link singular. And it was a link to a measly discussion paper  which meant nothing. 

Wrong. 

 

It was a Consultation Paper whereby the government allows submissions for stake holder, in this case, Aussie expats, about the impact the new legislation will have on them.

 

A Consultation Paper means the government is not too far from putting the new legislation to parliament, and given the Liberals drafted the legislation, it would be highly unlikely they would then vote it down. 

 

Just on this point of consultation, the current Labor government is examining the 45 days.  (link previously provided)  Some expats seem to think 45 days is not long enough and I tend o agree with them.  Examples were put forward in the link. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:46 AM, LosLobo said:

You seem to forget I am the one who first posted the link about Blake last year.

Do you remember Blake the guy you have dreamt of and fantasized about ever since.

I would post my contribution again so you could memorialize it, but it is too difficult to find in this monster of 620 reposts, that you have created, Herr Frankenstein.

Yes, you did post the Blake link, and members still refused to accept it, despite it being from the ATO.

 

I have since posted another similar link with the same information.  Here it is:

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245

 

What's your point? 

 

The other member was discussing a "Consultation Paper" that he wrongly called a "Discussion Paper." 

 

Of interest, some still hold onto the hope the proposed changes are dead in the water under Labor.  If that were the case, why is it Labor put forward the Discussion Paper in July 2023? 

 

This says to me the proposed changes are very much alive under Labor. 

 

Now, this is just my OPINION, but the submissions closed in September.  Historically, I don't know how long it usually takes a government to tweak legislation after submissions close, but given the proposed changes are very straight forward, relying on a mathematical formula, I can't see there being a lengthy time tweaking the proposed changes, so we might see them put to parliament this year, possibly to start for 1st July 2024.  

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, 4MyEgo said:

As you are aware, there is no link that states that Age Pensioners pay no tax, or that they pay tax.

Once again, the game changes when deemed a non resident.  You are still focused on the pension attracting no tax in Australia, and think it's the same for non resident pensioners, it's not.  

 

Here are two links, directly from ATO staff members stating the pension attracts non resident tax rates. 

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245

 

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

 

I know you have stated Blake is simply "wrong."  Is Caro also wrong?  Are the accounting firms, investment houses, solicitors firms, and everyone in youtube clips in all the links I have posted all wrong, but you are right?

 

On 2/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, 4MyEgo said:

I have posted links before and I have stated my opinion/s, and as it stands, as far as I am aware, Age Pensioners are not taxed on their pensions, i.e. unless they have additional income sources.

You have contradicted yourself.  

 

You have just sid that are no link, and then say you have posted links. 

 

I remember reading one link, which was irrelevant to the issue.  

 

If I am mistaken, please repost the links that show non resident pensioner still pay no tax.

 

On 2/3/2024 at 1:55 AM, 4MyEgo said:

When I do find such a link that states that Age Pensioners do not pay tax on their Age Pension as non residents, unless they have additional income sources, the same as Australian Residents for tax purposes, you will be the 1st to know, but will you accept it then LoL

And now you are back to saying there are no links.  Which is it?  

 

Have you posted relevant links, or not?

 

Of course I will accept a credible link, but without one, I disagree with your interpretation and opinion because it's not backed up by anything. 

 

You'd have to say that's fair enough, wouldn't you?  

 

 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

As another member rightly points out, there are no winners and losers in this debate.

 

So you won't admit that you were WRONG, considering that there are no winners or losers, your words.

 

I don't see you gloating anymore, your tune has changed, but you have still not admitted that you were WRONG, a key word you used to throw in our faces, come on now, be a man, own up to the fact that you were WRONG, trying to deflect it, doesn't help you grow.

 

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

We all just need to find out where each of our individual tax liability circumstance lay within the Australian tax system, currently, and after the proposed changes are passed, and now the Thailand tax system, including the double taxation treaty.  

 

I just point out to you, that Age Pensioners don't pay non residents tax, that is what you asked for, but you haven't said you were wrong, deflecting again, nice try, there is only 5 letters in the word.

 

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's strange this particular member takes it so personally, considering he is on a part pension, so his supplementary income is definitely on the chopping block for 32.5% non resident tax. 

 

Deflecting again.

 

Do you now agree or disagree that Age Pensioners that are non residents to a country with a DTA don't pay the 32.5c foreign resident tax in Australia, even though the Age Pension is deemed as an income.

 

I am waiting.....LoL

 

Edited February 4 by 4MyEgo

[Lacessit]

35 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

What would be better is if the pissing competition ended.

We seem to have arrived at position of no tax on the pension, let’s enjoy that.

I would like to point out KH has made over 600 posts on this thread, virtually all of which have caused mental distress to readers of this thread.

I have called him out repeatedly, and also reported him for repetitive posting.

 

Joseph Goebbels:  If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

 

The fact he is back posting without admitting he was wrong, or apologizing to people for causing them distress, tells me everything I need to know about his character.

 

You make a fair point. However, some things need to be said.

 

 

[4MyEgo]

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

And now you are back to saying there are no links.  Which is it?  

 

Have you posted relevant links, or not?

 

Of course I will accept a credible link, but without one, I disagree with your interpretation and opinion because it's not backed up by anything. 

 

You'd have to say that's fair enough, wouldn't you?  

 

Now lets put it in simple terms, when I have the evidence, and share that evidence (links) to the person at question and know that, that person just wants to go around in circles, i.e. is full of it, e.g. not prepared to back down and admit that they were WRONG on the information provided to them, then there is nothing more to discuss.

[LosLobo]

19 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

What's your point? 

 

My point with all my posts to you has been your obsessive posting.
 

With respect, have you ever considered possibly becoming a valuable member of this forum.
 

Your past behaviour has had negative consequences for both you and this forum community, it:
 

Wastes time, energy, and resources.

Is obviously damaging your reputation, credibility, and relationships here.

Violates the rules of the forum.

Is annoying, offending, and alienating other users.

And, is disrupting, derailing, and dominating the forum discussion where we should be focussing on the topic of the forum, at a time of potential considerable change.
 

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

My point with all my posts to you has been your obsessive posting.
 

With respect, have you ever considered possibly becoming a valuable member of this forum.
 

Your past behaviour has had negative consequences for both you and this forum community, it:
 

Wastes time, energy, and resources.

Is obviously damaging your reputation, credibility, and relationships here.

Violates the rules of the forum.

Is annoying, offending, and alienating other users.

And, is disrupting, derailing, and dominating the forum discussion where we should be focussing on the topic of the forum, at a time of potential considerable change.
 

Well said.

[4MyEgo]

20 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I know you have stated Blake is simply "wrong."  Is Caro also wrong?  Are the accounting firms, investment houses, solicitors firms, and everyone in youtube clips in all the links I have posted all wrong, but you are right?

 

Is the DTA wrong, it's legislation (law), all of the above are WRONG if they have spoken outside of the DTA when it comes to simple terms relating to Article 18 when it boils down to Age Pensioners residing in Thailand as non residents.

 

In simple terms for the layman, there is no tax payable to the Australian Government from the Age Pension if you are a tax resident of Thailand.

 

Do you not understand this.

 

I am not talking about anything else, strictly Age Pensioners as non residents living in Thailand, that pay ZERO tax to the ATO, e.g. no 32.5c in the $.

 

It's game over, admit it, you have nowhere to hide...LoL

 

I will say it again, YOU ARE WRONG !!!

 

LOSER LoL

Edited February 4 by 4MyEgo

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 2:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

I have said it till I have turned blue, Age Pensioners do not pay tax if their only source of income is the Age Pension.

 

Do you accept this or not ?

I accept it for resident aged pensioners.

 

I do not accept it for non resident aged pensioners.

 

I have given my reason why.

 

Blue, purple, pink, whatever.  It's only you interpretation and opinion, which does not hold any weight, without any links to show how you formed your opinion. 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 2:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/superannuation/2022/06/05/pension-taxable-income

Once again, you are focusing on resident for tax purposes information, and think it also applies to non residents for tax purposes.  It doesn't. 

 

Quote from your link:

 

"Question 1: Do people on the Centrelink aged pension have to pay tax? 

The age pension is taxable.

But if that is your only source of taxable income, then you end up paying no income tax, as age pensioners are also entitled to the Senior Australian Pension Tax Offset (SAPTO).

Combined with other offsets, this gives single age pensioners an effective tax-free threshold of almost $33,900.

When you consider that superannuation income payments are paid tax free from age 60 (unless coming from an untaxed source, which would be unusual), then this is very generous.

It’s only when older Australians have considerable other taxable income, say dividends, interest from shares, managed funds or other non-super investments, or rent from an investment property, that some tax becomes payable."

 

Can you show me where this is directed at non residents for taxation purposes? 

On 2/3/2024 at 2:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Nowhere on the ATO website does it state that Age Pensioners have to pay tax when living overseas, do you agree ?

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/coming-to-australia-or-going-overseas/australians-living-overseas

No, I don't agree, 

 

The Blank and Caro links clearly show this not to be the case, as well as links from accounting firms, investment houses, solicitor firms, youtube clips etc.  I have posted many links, from many sources, saying otherwise.    You have posted two links that are irrelevant. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 4:15 AM, LosLobo said:

 

With respect, you are trying to use a logical fallacy called an “Argument from Ignorance” or “Ad Ignorantiam.” commonly known as 'trying to prove a negative', to prove your argument.

This fallacy occurs when it’s assumed that a claim is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or it’s assumed that a claim is false because it hasn’t been proven true.

In this case, you are suggesting that because there is no link stating that Age Pensioners pay tax, it must mean that Age Pensioners do not pay tax.

Nevertheless, I suggest that there are links that say the aged pension is taxable income.

'Taxable government payments, pensions and allowances include age pension'

 

Government payments and allowances | Australian Taxation Office (ato.gov.au)
 

I can see where you are coming from there is a perception that if your aged pension payment is your only source of income, then you do not need to pay tax.

But the aged pension is still taxable and the reason for not paying tax in this case is only because of thresholds and offsets.

 

 

Ergo, according to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Australian non-residents who receive the Australian Age Pension are also subject to taxation but without the threshold.

 

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’ll likely be eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset (SAPTO), meaning you’ll get a tax offset to help counter the tax payable.
 

Good post. 

 

I agree with everything you have said.

 

I will now wait for the member to post that you are WRONG, and a loser also.