Australian Aged Pension

[georgegeorgia]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Is this a increase in white blood cells?

 

I get my blood tested every month (bulk billed free in Australia as you know) and I noticed a increase too.

 

I'm always afraid of this leukaemia as my late father had it although he was 80 at the time .

Thanks for reminding me about that dreaded disease .

There is no cure unfortunately 

Edited yesterday at 09:22 PM by georgegeorgia

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Nemises said:

What about an unforeseen hospitalisation in which you were unable to fly back to Australia? You’re up for potentially millions of baht, correct?

That's a risk I take.

With my pre-existing conditions and age, no insurer in Thailand will cover me.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

Is this a increase in white blood cells?

 

I get my blood tested every month (bulk billed free in Australia as you know) and I noticed a increase too.

 

I'm always afraid of this leukaemia as my late father had it although he was 80 at the time .

Thanks for reminding me about that dreaded disease .

There is no cure unfortunately 

It's an increase in abnormal white blood cells.

 

While there is no cure, I have been in full remission for two years.

[georgegeorgia]

16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's an increase in abnormal white blood cells.

 

While there is no cure, I have been in full remission for two years.

It will get you eventually,my dad also had it for years 

Got him at 79yo

Gave up on the (paid private) Chemo eventually 

Once it didn't work,the chemo clinic stopped returning his calls 

(NSW Central Coast area) 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by georgegeorgia

[Lacessit]

50 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

It will get you eventually,my dad also had it for years 

Got him at 79yo

Gave up on the (paid private) Chemo eventually 

Once it didn't work,the chemo clinic stopped returning his calls 

(NSW Central Coast area) 

 

Something will get me eventually, my little ray of sunshine.

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Something will get me eventually, my little ray of sunshine.

My mums favourite saying, shame she kept it in reserve for use when I was a bad boy! 

[4MyEgo]

15 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

Have I got that wrong?

 

If the wording states that you must be an Australian Resident, "and lived in" Australia for 35 years, then you won't get the full age pension if you haven't "lived in" Australia for those 35 years.

 

It would be apportioned in my opinion, e.g. if you "lived in" Australia for 25 of those years, you would receive just under 3/4's of the Age Pension.

 

That's just my opinion, based on the wording, "lived in".

 

One important thing to remember, is that different government departments have different rules, e.g. the government has no problem with me gifting my daughter $300k at any given time, but Centrelink only allows $10k per year, with a maximum of $30k over 5 years from my understanding. 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

15 hours ago, CygnusX1 said:

Thanks so much for that, you’ve set my mind at rest, and convinced me to undergo the no doubt lengthy and complicated process of applying for the OAP. As a bonus, I don’t spend all of my 8 months overseas in Thailand, but spend nearly 3 months in Europe each year (just shy of the annoying 90 day limit of the Schengen zone). I realise I have to  be in Australia when applying. As for the question of whether someone in my rather comfortable financial position should get the OAP, that’s another topic for discussion!

 

I believe that is even better as it makes your case more solid, i.e. you have been on an extended holiday.

 

Don't not confuse residency and "life living in Australia, they are two separate matters.

 

You may live overseas as a resident of Australia, but I doubt that that will be added to your "living life in Australia" to qualify for the full age pension as mentioned above.

 

If you maintained your residency, I see no reason why you would considered as a Non Resident, so you shouldn't have to sit for the 2 year rule.

 

Again, these are my opinions, based on my interpretations, and I am told Centrelink Tasmania are great in providing solid answers to these types of questions, but no other Centrelink branches, so you might want to reach out to them.

 

If you are in a comfortable situation, other than owning your own place that isn't worth more than the XYZ threshold, and are earning some coins, if you haven't heard, there is a deeming rule which will reduce your pension amount.

 

If you've retired, 'deeming' is a calculation used by Centrelink to make an estimate of what income you'll earn from your assessable financial assets. This includes (but isn't limited to) interest on bank accounts, shares, managed funds, and super. It is used to work out your eligibility for the Government Age Pension.

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/deeming?context=22526

 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

15 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

Why, I'm an Australian citizen maintaining a property in Australia and I've been accepted by the ATO as an Australian resident for tax purposes those 6 years. Centrelink can't be counting my holidays away to overrule the ATO saying those years don't count as an Australian resident.

 

Or if you disagree based on must work 35 years that is simply not true. My mother stopped working when she was 25 with 4 kids to bring up and she got the full pension after only working 8 years of her life.

 

Again, it is time living in Australia, I mean that would be like me saying, I have lived in Australia for 30 years, 10 of those years in Thailand as a resident of Australia.

 

I am not physically present in Australia, therefore not "living" in Australia, but remain a resident of Australia.

 

Remember what I said about government departments, having separate rules.

 

They do this to keep there hands on our B...s, they know to squeeze them when they want, yes they have us by the short and curly's so to speak.

 

[Pattaya57]

23 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

If the wording states that you must be an Australian Resident, "and lived in" Australia for 35 years, then you won't get the full age pension if you haven't "lived in" Australia for those 35 years.

 

It would be apportioned in my opinion, e.g. if you "lived in" Australia for 25 of those years, you would receive just under 3/4's of the Age Pension.

 

That's just my opinion, based on the wording, "lived in".

 

But what does 'lived in Australia' really mean? I maintained a home in Australia where 'I lived' for 4-5 months a year since 2018. Where does it say you must have lived a full year in Australia for that year to qualify as a year in the 35?

 

I don't mean to be difficult but I just can't see how a year doesn't count when my home, car and personal effects are all in Australia and I lived there partially during the year (unlike your example of it's like counting 10 years living in Thailand as you had no home in Australia)

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Pattaya57

[4MyEgo]

14 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

So basically you post on a forum to say don't waste your time posting on a forum 😉

 

Some of us are up to speed, or at least think we are, we provide what information we can to assist, but any information on a forum, any forum, should be confirmed, whether by reading the actual legislation or as others, self included, suggested, one ring Centrelink Tasmania for the real deal.

[4MyEgo]

14 hours ago, scorecard said:

So how could the Centrelink staff be able to say things like "...but you only travel to one spot...".

 

I suppose that they could ask for your Passport ?

[4MyEgo]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Any major health issue in Thailand could cost me potentially millions of baht.

 

For the cost of a plane ticket to Melbourne, I get free hospital care and a specialist of my choice, very speedily.

 

Two years ago, I was treated for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I also had surgery for an inguinal hernia. A cystoscopy, colonoscopy and gastroscopy.

 

Three CT scans for the lymphoma, two CT scans for heart and back. Blood tests galore. All paid for by Medicare plus private cover.

 

It boggles my mind what that would have cost me in any hospital in Thailand, even assuming the drugs are available here.

 

 

I know it's a little off the topic, but my understanding is, that if you are a Non Resident of Australia, you cannot get private health cover, (fine print).

 

Did you retain your residency, or just haven't told anyone, which would be a gutsy move because if the insurer found out that you were or are a Non Resident at the time of surgery, decline you, and or seek to recoup any funds paid, same with Centrelink.

 

If your a Non Resident and got away with it, Kudos to you.

[CygnusX1]

4 MyEgo - Thanks once again for your help. Great to know that the 2 year rule shouldn’t apply to me. I’m back in Australia next week, so if I have any issues I will consider contacting Centrelink Tasmania - somewhat bizarre they apparently are the only helpful branch in Australia!

 

I’m well aware of the deeming rules that apply to financial assets. I also think that my Thai condo wouldn’t be classed as a financial asset since it’s property I don’t derive income from, and so would only be included in the assets test. I’ll lose most of any pension I do succeed in getting through the income test rather than the assets test, so any over valuation by Centrelink of the Thai condo based on the assumption it would have appreciated in value at the same rate as Sydney property wouldn’t matter.

[Will27]

14 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I know it's a little off the topic, but my understanding is, that if you are a Non Resident of Australia, you cannot get private health cover, (fine print).

 

Did you retain your residency, or just haven't told anyone, which would be a gutsy move because if the insurer found out that you were or are a Non Resident at the time of surgery, decline you, and or seek to recoup any funds paid, same with Centrelink.

 

If your a Non Resident and got away with it, Kudos to you.

Cannot see how a health insurer would know anything about his residency status TBH.

[4MyEgo]

22 minutes ago, Pattaya57 said:

 

But what does 'lived in Australia' really mean? I maintained a home in Australia where 'I lived' for 4-5 months a year since 2018. Where does it say you must have lived a full year in Australia for that year to qualify as a year in the 35?

 

I don't mean to be difficult but I just can't see how a year doesn't count when my home, car and personal effects are all in Australia and I lived there partially during the year (unlike your example of it's like counting 10 years living in Thailand as you had no home in Australia)

 

 

If you read my post again, I said, "if the wording states" "lived in", I did not say the wording says "lived in", so it's a matter of finding out if it's residency or lived in.

 

This extract says residency, but another might, say lived in, so it's a matter of finding out 110% by contacting Centrelink Hobart. 

 

They know, then you can let us know, your contribution 🙂

 

https://guides.dss.gov.au/social-security-guide/3/4/1/10

 

 

[4MyEgo]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Cannot see how a health insurer would know anything about his residency status TBH.

 

Agree, however if he falsified his application, e.g. said that he lives in Australia or didn't advise them of his residency status changing while he continued to be covered, that's fraud and they could sue him, trying to get back their outlay, but that's anther matter.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:17 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Any link for the 2 years prior to pension age? 

 

We know about the 2 years after, just wondering about the 2 years prior.  

 

Link please. 

Google it yourself - I did - and I did my research. Pay me 20K Baht or do it yourself.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:20 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, but my question is, how long prior do you have to go back and start "pretending?" 

There is no 'rule' - but 2-3 years seems to be the period of time before they start to question things closely.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 9/25/2024 at 8:04 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your experience in contracts would normally mean you would not have an opinion positive or negative - based on the agreement itself - unless you can point to a paragraph that suggests it is excluded. You say other tax lawyers think it is excluded  - but apparently none of them put it to writing. So your opinion appears to be based on heresay which is fine but keep in mind that is based on past experience and we are talking about proposed new laws.

I am not saying it is or not but I can't see anything to exclude it and apparently you can't either. 

Read my post - the 'argument' is there - so is the details of tax 'experts' that have said the Aust Govt Pension is not taxable. 

 

Obviously you dont know how Contract Law works - it is what is agreed by both parties as to what anything means. If not agreed, then resolution can be sought by either party through an independent arbitration or the courts. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

9 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Read my post - the 'argument' is there - so is the details of tax 'experts' that have said the Aust Govt Pension is not taxable. 

 

Obviously you dont know how Contract Law works - it is what is agreed by both parties as to what anything means. If not agreed, then resolution can be sought by either party through an independent arbitration or the courts. 

Your style of posting irks me. You have made a vague opinion with no specific reference to the terms of the Double Tax Agreement. You simply post it without a reference to items that indicate the age pension - that is clearly a form of taxable income - is excluded.  What contract law skills are on exhibition in your post? You make a vague comment that many tax professionals agree with you and some don't. What is one supposed to make of that but it's simply unhelpful words. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Fat is a type of crazy

[scorecard]

19 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

There is no 'rule' - but 2-3 years seems to be the period of time before they start to question things closely.

'pretending' - why are so unpleasant?

 

The laws / regulations are clear, logical, sensible and not difficult to understand.

 

Move on please, perhaps start a knitting website for folks stationed in Antarctica.

 

[Olmate]

Old 57 Pattaya, only wants what suits his case , same as my old 57Chev, she didnt like the bad days either! 

[gearbox]

On 9/15/2024 at 12:11 AM, georgegeorgia said:

So you pay tax ,you get no OAP

 

That's a bit silly when you paid taxes all your life and public servants are pissing up ya money 

I will be doing everything planning to get the OAP if /when I turn 67 

The government owe me !!

 

 

The gubement should do what is right and abolish the OAP...or make it proportional to the total taxes paid. Too many parasites.

[Pattaya57]

27 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Old 57 Pattaya, only wants what suits his case , same as my old 57Chev, she didnt like the bad days either! 

I'm doing just fine out of the discussion thank you 😀 The last reply also gave me the definition of resident in regards to OAP

 

 (2) Australian resident is a person who:

 (a) resides in Australia; and

 (b) is one of the following:

 (i) an Australian citizen

 

Regardless of how long I spent in Thailand I have 6 years of car rego and continuous electricity account at my apartment. The Elec bill is a primary document for proving a residence address for those 6 years (still only gets me to 33 years residence but that's ok)

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Pattaya57

[4MyEgo]

19 minutes ago, Pattaya57 said:

I'm doing just fine out of the discussion thank you 😀 The last reply also gave me the definition of resident in regards to OAP

 

 (2) Australian resident is a person who:

 (a) resides in Australia; and

 (b) is one of the following:

 (i) an Australian citizen

 

Regardless of how long I spent in Thailand I have 6 years of car rego and continuous electricity account at my apartment. The Elec bill is a primary document for proving residence for those 6 years (still only gets me to 33 years residence but that's ok)

 

No disrespect, or seeking to burst your bubble, but your own answered your question:

(a) resides in Australia

 

The last two words in that sentence says it all in my opinion, i.e. "in Australia".

 

You cannot reside in Australia if you are not physically present in the country for 8 months of the year, e.g. you can say you are a resident, but that is for tax purposes and they will accept that, but Centrelink on the other hand, won't in my opinion.

 

Go in with the attitude that you will qualify for 26 years, if you get 33 years, your laughing.

 

I hope to be proven wrong, because if it was that easy I will change my residency status ass-up.

 

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by 4MyEgo

[georgegeorgia]

37 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Old 57 Pattaya, only wants what suits his case , same as my old 57Chev, she didnt like the bad days either! 

A bit like old you eh 😉 

[georgegeorgia]

28 minutes ago, gearbox said:

The gubement should do what is right and abolish the OAP...or make it proportional to the total taxes paid. Too many parasites.

I will have my hand out at 67 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I know it's a little off the topic, but my understanding is, that if you are a Non Resident of Australia, you cannot get private health cover, (fine print).

 

Did you retain your residency, or just haven't told anyone, which would be a gutsy move because if the insurer found out that you were or are a Non Resident at the time of surgery, decline you, and or seek to recoup any funds paid, same with Centrelink.

 

If your a Non Resident and got away with it, Kudos to you.

At the time of my treatment, I was in Australia for 6 months.

 

I have not said anything to my insurer, and they have not asked. AFAIK there is nothing in the fine print of my fund. YMMV.

 

As far as I am concerned, I have shelled out to the fund for decades. If they want to decline me, I would be asking for a return of the premiums I pay.

 

Likewise, I know nothing about Medicare refusing cover to an Australian citizen as non-resident. A Medicare card is current for 5 years.

[4MyEgo]

30 minutes ago, gearbox said:

The gubement should do what is right and abolish the OAP...or make it proportional to the total taxes paid. Too many parasites.

 

OAP is those who didn't make it in the system, taxes have nothing to do with it, because you don't need to have worked to qualify.

 

The reason the introduced Super is to take the burden off of the government paying out the OAP, compliments of those employers, 11% annually at the moment.