Sattahip Women Arrested for Playing Card Game Without Asking for Permission

[Artisi]

27 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Can you clarify your stance?  Do you think the proposed changes will be eventually passed?  If passed, do you think Centerlink will automatically withhold 30% of one's pension after 183 days, in the same way they cut off the supplements?  Or, if passed, do you think nothing will happen to pensions?

 

To that I cannot answer, and neither can anyone else, although many would like to think they know the answer. 

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, Artisi said:

To that I cannot answer, and neither can anyone else, although many would like to think they know the answer. 

Ok.  I'll make it more simple. 

 

What's stopping the government from doing it? 

 

There are no exemptions, means testing, asset testing, or tax free threshold changes in the proposed changes.  I don't see where pensions get a free pass.   

 

The DTA was put forward, but that is for government service pensions, and that's not an aged pension from Centerlink. 

Edited Sunday at 09:03 AM by KhunHeineken

[Artisi]

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

Ok.  I'll make it more simple. 

 

What's stopping the government from doing it? 

 

There are no exemptions, means testing, asset testing, or tax free threshold changes in the proposed changes.  I don't see where pensions get a free pass.   

Nothing is stopping the government from doing whatever they like. If they felt inclined, they could stop any pension for any Aussie who leaves the country and doesn't return within a given period. 

[Lacessit]

21 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Nothing is stopping the government from doing whatever they like. If they felt inclined, they could stop any pension for any Aussie who leaves the country and doesn't return within a given period. 

Not quite - the ballot box is a deterrent, and people of pension age are a reasonably large voting bloc.

 

IMO the measure you put forward hypothetically would result in considerable backlash.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree, but what the proposed changes seemed to be focusing on is enforcement.  It makes it sooooooo easy for them to enforce non resident tax. 

 

One should ask themself "why" focus on enforcement, if they are not going to chase dollars from non residents, including pensioners.

 

Interesting. 

 

So, in your view, an Aussie expat pensioner, who has not been back to Australia in, say, 5 years, who is clearly a non resident for tax purposes, has nothing to be concerned about.  Is this not the case with the majority of expats?  Many haven't back in years.  This is the demographic we are discussing, not people coming and going from Australia. 

 

I find it interesting that an Aussie pensioner can go to Thailand, not inform Centerlink they are leaving the country, and "automatically" have their supplements cut off after 6 weeks.  This tells me Centerlink is linked to Immigration, does it not?  We have read many account of it happening.  You use the word "automatically."  This is one case of "automatically" having money reduced, yet, many do not consider the same system could be used for non resident pensioners. 

 

Questions:  Are you at all concerned there are no exemptions for pensions mentioned in the proposed changes?  Why do you think pensioners will get a free pass? 

 

I see nothing in the proposed changes exempting any non resident, no matter the size of their income being derived in Australia.  

Right now a pensioner who has been away for 5 years is a non-resident and the pension is taxable. They are not a focus it seems. Same under the new rules - they are a non-resident and nothing new proposed - as far as I know - suggesting new enforcement rules to affect them as such. If there is a sudden appetite to deal with such taxpayers then that alters the situation. They are non-residents now and they'll be non-residents if and when there are new rules . 

An automatic reduction in payment for long term expats  is of course technically possible but that is possible now and not done. As has been pointed out to you they could not use automatic reductions in the first years away because  the rules are not clear cut e.g. you are not automatically a non-resident after 183 days outside Australia. You have suggested the latter - been corrected - but keep saying it for some reason or other. 

Edited Sunday at 10:31 AM by Fat is a type of crazy

[Artisi]

51 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Not quite - the ballot box is a deterrent, and people of pension age are a reasonably large voting bloc.

 

IMO the measure you put forward hypothetically would result in considerable backlash.

In theory maybe, but the number of expats  and the number that vote as expats is insignificant in the overall plan. 

Having said that, as an (ex) expat I would certainly vote against it, but that's just me, as I've been there etc and don't agree with that idea. 

Plus, the 99.9% of pensioners wouldn't even be aware of this tax ruling

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

Nothing is stopping the government from doing whatever they like.

Correct. 

 

As I said in a previous post, as per the letter of the current law, we should all be paying non resident tax right now, and that includes pensioners.  Another member has also pointed this out. 

 

The reason we haven't / don't is the loopholes in the current laws.  The proposed changes will close those loopholes. 

 

Thus, it's obvious to me, the proposed changes focus on enforcement.  The government wants the slice of non resident taxation that they have been missing out on for decades. 

 

If the proposed changes simply said:  "The aged pension is exempt" i wouldn't have even bothered posting the proposed changes all that time ago, but there is no exemption, so what does that tell you? 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Not quite - the ballot box is a deterrent, and people of pension age are a reasonably large voting bloc.

 

IMO the measure you put forward hypothetically would result in considerable backlash.

Old argument, discussed before. 

 

When put to the forum, not one member said they went to The Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote at election time.  So, no lost votes from expats.

 

Why would pensioners living in a Australia vote down a law that doesn't effect them?  What makes you think it even will be an election issue?

 

Liberal proposed them, and Labor didn't bin them, so they will most likely not be an election issue.  They will probably sail through parliament one day with bipartisan support. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Right now a pensioner who has been away for 5 years is a non-resident and the pension is taxable.

You are correct, but some members would disagree with you. 

 

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

They are not a focus it seems. Same under the new rules - they are a non-resident and nothing new proposed - as far as I know - suggesting new enforcement rules to affect them as such. If there is a sudden appetite to deal with such taxpayers then that alters the situation. They are non-residents now and they'll be non-residents if and when there are new rules . 

If they are not focused on collection / enforcement, why did they draft the proposed changes in the first place?

 

It seems to me they know there's some money there for the taking, they just haven't been able to take it dues to the current 90 year old laws.  

 

Why would they propose and pass the changes, and then do nothing different? 

 

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

An automatic reduction in payment for long term expats  is of course technically possible but that is possible now and not done.

Correct. 

 

This is because one can claim they are still "domiciled" in Australia, and have the "intention" to return to live in Australia. 

 

The proposed changes take that away.  183 days outside Australia = non resident.  No reviews, no appeals. 

 

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

As has been pointed out to you they could not use automatic reductions in the first years away because  the rules are not clear cut e.g. you are not automatically a non-resident after 183 days outside Australia. You have suggested the latter - been corrected - but keep saying it for some reason or other. 

Once again, I am talking about the majority of expats who have not been back to Australia for years. 

 

They have been outside Australia for more than the 46 days in the last 3 year rule. 

 

What argument do you think they can put to the ATO on their first 30% reduced pension after the 1st July 202x after the proposed changes have been passed?  The government knows they have been outside Australia for years. 

 

Slightly off topic, but the British government freeze pensions when the pensioner is outside the UK.  That means, no CPI increases, which, in a way, can be looked upon as a tax, or punitive measure. 

 

Is it not possible the Australian government will start collecting their 30%, whilst still giving annual CPI rises, as normal? 

 

I mentioned the cutting of supplements after 6 weeks outside Australia, despite the pension not informing Centerlink, just to show how "automatic" the system already is.  It would only be a small tweak to also cut the 30%, in the same way the supplements are cut. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

In theory maybe, but the number of expats  and the number that vote as expats is insignificant in the overall plan. 

Having said that, as an (ex) expat I would certainly vote against it, but that's just me, as I've been there etc and don't agree with that idea. 

Plus, the 99.9% of pensioners wouldn't even be aware of this tax ruling

I agree. 

 

Did you go to The Australian Embassy to vote in the last election? 

 

Why would pensioners in Australia care about a policy that doesn't effect them? 

 

This will most likely not even be an election issue anyway. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

In theory maybe, but the number of expats  and the number that vote as expats is insignificant in the overall plan. 

Having said that, as an (ex) expat I would certainly vote against it, but that's just me, as I've been there etc and don't agree with that idea. 

Plus, the 99.9% of pensioners wouldn't even be aware of this tax ruling

You are correct in saying the number of expat pensioners is insignificant.

 

However, IMO the bulk of pensioners would certainly disagree with that restriction on their liberty IF they were made aware of the issue, given no other Western nations would do so.

 

Social media such as Facebook, Twitter etc. is something politicians of every stripe are increasingly wary of.

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are correct in saying the number of expat pensioners is insignificant.

The proposed changes do not differentiate between expat pensions, and "guys like Paul Hogan" do they?

 

"Insignificant numbers" will still have the same classification as those in "significant numbers" under the law.  

 

There's nothing in the proposed changes that give any exemptions, or allowances. 

 

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

However, IMO the bulk of pensioners would certainly disagree with that restriction on their liberty IF they were made aware of the issue, given no other Western nations would do so.

Why would the bulk of Australian pensioners, with absolutely no intention of ever retiring abroad, give a damn?

 

You still post like you believe it will be an election issue.  Where do you get that from? 

 

I posted what the British government do.  Australia may tax, rather than freeze.  Same same, but different. 

 

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Social media such as Facebook, Twitter etc. is something politicians of every stripe are increasingly wary of.

How many in their mid to late 60's, which is pension age, are that into social media, enough to protest about it, and if they did, it's a small minority who may even be contemplating retiring abroad.  For most, they wouldn't care, because this change to legislation doesn't effect them.  

 

You still have the "pensioners will be up in arms" argument.  Not going to happen, and even if it did, it would be in "insignificant numbers" for the government to care. 

Edited Sunday at 06:30 PM by KhunHeineken

[cdnvic]

We've issued many warnings, and removed countless posts in this topic to try keeping it informative and readable for everyone, but it's not working and we have to step it up a level.

 

From now on, anyone fighting with another member in this topic will lose their posting privileges for increasing periods. It won't matter if you are starting the argument, responding to it, or joining in. You made the choice to be part of the problem and will be treated the same.

 

This doesn't mean debate is not allowed, but if you can't engage in debate without insulting others, your input isn't welcome here.