Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

34 minutes ago, Nemises said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. 

 

Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area? 

[Nemises]

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. 

 

Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area? 

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

[Nemises]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

 

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

I also used the word “probably”. 
 

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”
- WRONG 🤣, and

• “all very simple”

- WRONG, AGAIN! 🤣🤣

 

 

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, Nemises said:

 

I also used the word “probably”. 
 

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”
- WRONG 🤣, and

• “all very simple”

- WRONG, AGAIN! 🤣🤣

 

 

Never argue with an idiot.

 

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

[scorecard]

13 hours ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

 

13 hours ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

[Olmate]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

I reckon it means all the OAP folk living from week to week, (apparentlythats the majority in Aust (((and here))), waiting the drip feed, are really not worthy nor entitled to their payment! Well according to KH😭

[KhunHeineken]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Never argue with an idiot.

 

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

Something you have proven very well in the USA thread. 

 

Geez, we even had Americans trolling on the Aussie thread, just because you were trolling on their thread.  Something I had never seen before on this forum. 

[KhunHeineken]

14 hours ago, Nemises said:

I also used the word “probably”. 

So, how "grey" is it? 

 

Clearly, $10 in a bank account isn't a "significant cash deposit." 

 

I've given my OPINION on it.  For expat retirees, it could be their Super.  For many it could be their life savings.  For some it could be the proceeds from the sale of a property.  For others it could simply be an investment. 

 

I conceded I do not know the dollar figure. 

 

This is the ONLY grey area you nominated, so only one. 

 

15 hours ago, Nemises said:

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”

Once again, realistically, how grey is it though?

 

15 hours ago, Nemises said:

all very simple

Yes, a lot more simple than the current 90 year old laws, which are complex and subjective.

 

These outdated laws are the reason myself, and many other Australians, including pensioners, all around the world, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, despite deriving an income from Australia. 

 

All that will finish with the "bright line test" and the four "factor tests."  

 

It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident.  Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.  45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests.  Less than 45 days is non resident.  The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years.  There's the new laws in just a few sentences.  How is that "not simple?" 

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

In case you missed it, here it is again. 

 

From a previous post: 

 

"When the proposed changes are passed into law, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  That's the "bright line" test.

 

If you are inside Australia between 45 days and 183 days, you have to meet two out of four factor tests.

 

The pension is deemed to be an income. 

 

Non resident tax is 30% from $0 to $135,000.

 

There are no exemptions in the proposed changes.  

 

There are no changes to the non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes.  Eg. the introduction of a tax free threshold to cover pensioners. 

 

There is no means testing in the proposed changes. 

 

The Australia / Thailand DTA does not cover the aged pension, it covers "service pensions." 

 

A member asked what are the four factor tests.

 

Here is a simplified version of them:

 

"The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include:

 

The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);

 

The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);

 

Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;

 

The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia)."

 

 

You can find the expanded version in the government's consultation paper. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

 

 

Most expat retirees, but particularly pensioners, would want to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold.  If they are deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes, it's 30% tax from $0 to $135,000. 

 

Immigration, the ATO, and Centerlink are all government departments.  They can easily withhold 30% of one's pension once they are outside of Australia for 183 days.  They already do this with the pension supplements after 6 weeks. 

 

The easiest way I can see for an Aussie expat, pensioner or not, to remain an Australian resident, but still spend most of their time in Thailand, is to go back to Australia for 45 days every year, and be able to meet two out of the four factor tests. 

 

Certainly, one of the factor tests is easy, that being, "the right to reside."  Being Australian, with an Australian passport, meets this factor test.  Each member will have to see if they can one of the other three factor tests.  

 

The days of living overseas but still having the ATO assess you as a resident for tax purposes, the "long holiday" loophole, will close when these laws are passed, and no, Albo didn't scrap them.  In fact, Labor progressed them to the consultation stage, so the laws have the support of both major political parties.   

 

To summarize, it's 45 days in Australia and meet two out of four factor tests, or live in Thailand on 30% less income derived from Australia, and yes, the pension is deemed an income. 

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Olmate said:

I reckon it means all the OAP folk living from week to week, (apparentlythats the majority in Aust (((and here))), waiting the drip feed, are really not worthy nor entitled to their payment! Well according to KH😭

Rubbish.  I've never suggested such a thing. 

 

The current 90 year laws will be modernized, it's not if, just when, and then many loopholes will be closed. 

 

Many, including myself, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, and neither have pensioners. 

 

Living in Thailand full time, how can any of us possible argue we are a Australian resident for tax purposes after the new laws are passed?  

 

It's been proven the aged pension is deemed an income. 

 

The first non resident tax bracket is 30% from $0 to $135,000. 

 

There are no exemptions in the proposed changes. 

 

Put the above together and it's 45 days in Australia each year, and meet two of four factor tests, or live of 30% less income derived from Australia. 

 

I really thought they would add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners living overseas.  Just a small threshold of say $30,000, but they didn't, so what does that tell you? 

[Nemises]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident.  Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.  45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests.  Less than 45 days is non resident.  The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years.  There's the new laws in just a few sentences.  How is that "not simple?" 

I never said that the 45/183 day rule was “not simple”.