Australian Aged Pension

[4MyEgo]

58 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Interesting point for me for another reason (which I don't wish to discuss here). 

 

Salerno, in the bigger picture I think this is meaning that there is a need to qualify in terms of previous residency, and probably proof of being under the threshold in terms of assets, cash, income etc., however that person can be outside of Australia, in fact for quite a few years, then return and lodge the OAP application forms on the day or arrival in Australia. i.e. no need to wait until say 90 days / 1 year etc., after returning to lodge the application.

 

If the OAP is granted it's backdated to the date of lodging the application. (Typically how long would it take to get a response?)

 

Portability of the OAP (living outside of Australia and still receiving the OAP payments) is allowed after living in Australia full time for 2 years after the date of approval. 

 

Have I got it correct?

 

Thanks.

I believe Salerno has nailed it above this post @ #2970, that said, here is a copy of the Act, have a read of the it, if you already haven't, also an extract in italic bold for you under the link which basically sums it up, i.e. the 2 years is not automatic, i.e. you must satisfy them that you are back for good, but when the 2 years is up, your on the home stretch so to speak. Also see verifying that a person resides in Australia at the bottom link, interesting reading nevertheless.

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/7/1/4

 

A claim for pension can be lodged by a former resident ONLY IF, on the evidence available, there is a clear intention to remain permanently in Australia. A person who intends to return to Australia for a 24 month period only would not be an 'Australian resident' as per SSAct subsection 7(2).

 

http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/2/2/4/20

Edited July 23, 2018 by 4MyEgo

[ELVIS123456]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

As long as you complete your claim within 14 days from lodging intent or starting online I believe when granted it is paid from the date you started (online)/lodged intent. Personally I'd be doing it as early as possible (e.g. 13 weeks before pension age) given delays. Or more likely, if I ever get in that "lucky" position, head back a year before and then lodge 13 weeks in advance of pension age (slim possibility could get portable faster).

The OAP, when approved, is backdated to the date you make a complete and correct application - as determined by CLink.  If you lodge an incomplete or incorrect aplication, you will be advised after a period of time (I believe 8-12 weeks is normal but some take longer).  If your application is not complete or correct, the payment is not back dated.  This rule was brought in to stop people knowingly lodging an incomplete/incorrect application, so that the payments would be backdated from the date of their application - thereby causing CLink a lot of work/trouble to help the applicant finish the application correctly/completely.  Therefore, before you apply you need to make sure it is complete and correct, because you wont find out for a while that it is not.  I believe that this rule has been the subject of many appeals/complaints, but as far as I know the rule still applies.

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

Correct. If you qualify (residency, assets etc.) they can't refuse as far as I understand it.

 

But, make sure you let them know you've returned "home" for good ? 

 

As long as you complete your claim within 14 days from lodging intent or starting online I believe when granted it is paid from the date you started (online)/lodged intent. Personally I'd be doing it as early as possible (e.g. 13 weeks before pension age) given delays. Or more likely, if I ever get in that "lucky" position, head back a year before and then lodge 13 weeks in advance of pension age (slim possibility could get portable faster).

 

Can't say I'm aware of average turnaround I'm afraid.

 

See above; if they can prove you only came back to get the pension then head back overseas they could delay and/or refuse portability. But basically yes, around two years penance for your sins then head off.

 

All the above IMHO of course.

 

Thanks for that.

 

The reality is that I am well past 65 and I no longer have a home, or cash or any assets in OZ and I'm the last person living (both sides of the family), the last time I went to OZ is nearly 20 years ago, but I still have / use my Australian passport. So I guess I would need to go back at or before the anticipated approval date, rent an apartment (perhaps on a 6 months agreement with a 30 days notice clause), to generate the appearance that I'm home (in OZ) for good.

 

Then perhaps at 2 years 1 months? I could return to LOS and never return to OZ?

 

Is that how it works?

 

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by scorecard

[LosLobo]

 

7 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The OAP, when approved, is backdated to the date you make a complete and correct application - as determined by CLink.  If you lodge an incomplete or incorrect aplication, you will be advised after a period of time (I believe 8-12 weeks is normal but some take longer).  If your application is not complete or correct, the payment is not back dated.  This rule was brought in to stop people knowingly lodging an incomplete/incorrect application, so that the payments would be backdated from the date of their application - thereby causing CLink a lot of work/trouble to help the applicant finish the application correctly/completely.  Therefore, before you apply you need to make sure it is complete and correct, because you wont find out for a while that it is not.  I believe that this rule has been the subject of many appeals/complaints, but as far as I know the rule still applies.

 

Commencing a claim

In order to get paid from the date on which you commenced your claim, you will need to submit the claim within 14 days. If you do not complete your claim within 14 days it may result in you being paid from a later date. If an extreme circumstance prevents you from submitting your claim, you may have up to 13 weeks to submit your claim. You may need to provide evidence of extreme circumstances. These rules do not apply to payments not covered by social security law.

 

https://www.centrelink.gov.au/onlineclaim/help/help_index.htm

 

 

[Salerno]

1 minute ago, LosLobo said:

In order to get paid from the date on which you commenced your claim, you will need to submit the claim within 14 days.

As I thought, thanks for confirming.

[ELVIS123456]

On 7/19/2018 at 8:41 PM, sceadugenga said:

What's your opinion of the 2 year wait for portability even for people who have a full Australia Working Life Residency of 35 years or more?

 

IMO the rule stinks and should be amended so that those with 35+ years can apply from overseas. Most citizens of other countries can claim the 'pension' when they are living in another country (usually as long as contributed a minimum period).  But that is the key differentiator - Australia has a very 'socialist' pension system that pays the same amount of money to everyone, no matter how little or how much tax they paid.  Basically, Australia's Super system is like a part of the Govt systems of other countries - except it is far less generous to those that put in extra contributions - and now actually punishes those that do/did.  IMO they should have created a single pension system like that in the US, and pay a much smaller amount of 'support pension' to those that never contribute or qualify. But Labor does what Labor does, and they dumped the 'private' Super system on employers and they left the Govt Pension alone.  Now it cant be changed back, or amended, and those that predicted the current situation (an unsustainable pension when the baby boomers retire) have been proven to be correct.  

[Salerno]

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Is that how it works?

 

In theory yes, although I'm not sure a 6 month lease would convince them you're back for good. I'm a fair way off pension age and thought I'd start looking into it recently, getting the AAP seems straight forward enough but getting portability in the future if I get out of dodge now seems to be a bit of a minefield.

[ELVIS123456]

On 7/19/2018 at 8:36 PM, Ryan CUllinan said:

Hey crew, 
I wrote the article above. It's a long one... haha. 

 

Age Pension: The ultimate article for Australian Expats.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/age-pension-ultimate-article-australian-expats-ryan-cullinan-acsi/

Quite a good summary.  There is one thing I would raise about 'income' from Superannuation.  Depending on the structure of a person's Super account and the types of payments they have made into their Super account, not all of the money withdrawn from Super when a person is on the Pension is 'income' for either ATO or DHS purposes. 

 

One of the reasons I did not take up the 'Pension Stream' option for receiving Super payments, once I had reached the preservation age (even though it was tax advantageous), was that these amounts are now counted by DHS as income.  If you started the Pension Stream before Jan 2017 and were also on the Pension at that time, they were excluded as income and they still are for those people.  Anyone who took up the Pension Stream but were not on the Pension before Jan 2017 (like me) would have lost out.  One thing this little 'epidode' reinforced to me was that if the Govt gives you tax advantages by doing something in Super, if it is a good deal then many people will take it up, and the Govt will then withdraw it.  Same for being able to retire at 55 and get Super payments tax free (up to a certain amount) - now the Govt has moved it up to 60 (too late to stop me taking it ? ).

 

Likewise, my Super structure means that when I withdraw any amount from my Super, less than 50% is counted as 'income' by ATO or DHS.  This is related to things called taxable components and non-taxable components, and taxed elements and non-taxed elements.  Too complex to try and explain - but  worth learning if it applies or may apply to you.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/super/in-detail/withdrawing-and-paying-tax/withdrawing-your-super-and-paying-tax/?page=3

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Super/APRA-regulated-funds/Paying-benefits/Calculating-components-of-a-super-benefit/

 

[sceadugenga]

27 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

IMO the rule stinks and should be amended so that those with 35+ years can apply from overseas. Most citizens of other countries can claim the 'pension' when they are living in another country (usually as long as contributed a minimum period).  But that is the key differentiator - Australia has a very 'socialist' pension system that pays the same amount of money to everyone, no matter how little or how much tax they paid.  Basically, Australia's Super system is like a part of the Govt systems of other countries - except it is far less generous to those that put in extra contributions - and now actually punishes those that do/did.  IMO they should have created a single pension system like that in the US, and pay a much smaller amount of 'support pension' to those that never contribute or qualify. But Labor does what Labor does, and they dumped the 'private' Super system on employers and they left the Govt Pension alone.  Now it cant be changed back, or amended, and those that predicted the current situation (an unsustainable pension when the baby boomers retire) have been proven to be correct.  

Sorry Elvis, I was asking the new guy who turned up full of  info.

I'm well aware of what you guys think of it....

[ELVIS123456]

29 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

Commencing a claim

In order to get paid from the date on which you commenced your claim, you will need to submit the claim within 14 days. If you do not complete your claim within 14 days it may result in you being paid from a later date. If an extreme circumstance prevents you from submitting your claim, you may have up to 13 weeks to submit your claim. You may need to provide evidence of extreme circumstances. These rules do not apply to payments not covered by social security law.

 

https://www.centrelink.gov.au/onlineclaim/help/help_index.htm

 

Sorry - but this has nothing to do with when your payments will commence.   This relates to you lodging an application online.  You can start and save an application and then come back to it later (eg getting documents), but you must complete the process withion 14 days or payments will start later (if approved).  Just because you finish the online application and 'submit' it within 14 days  does not mean the application will be assessed as complete and/or correct (a valid application has been made). Only if 'valid' will the payments started on the day you commenced the application.  Assessment of an application as being complete and correct is the first step of the approval process.  If the application is assesed as complete and as correct, then the payments will be backdated the 14 days (if applicable).  But if it is assessed as not 'valid' then you may have to start again and relodge the application with the complete documents and/or information required.  However, if it is only a minor issue, then the CLink assessor can decide to request from you corrected info/documents, and the aplication is still 'valid'.  

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/age-pension/claiming

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LosLobo]

13 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Sorry - but this has nothing to do with when your payments will commence.   This relates to you lodging an application online.  You can start and save an application and then come back to it later (eg getting documents), but you must complete the process withion 14 days or payments will start later (if approved).  Just because you finish the online application and 'submit' it within 14 days  does not mean the application will be assessed as complete and/or correct (a valid application has been made). Only if 'valid' will the payments started on the day you commenced the application.  Assessment of an application as being complete and correct is the first step of the approval process.  If the application is assesed as complete and as correct, then the payments will be backdated the 14 days (if applicable).  But if it is assessed as not 'valid' then you may have to start again and relodge the application with the complete documents and/or information required.  However, if it is only a minor issue, then the CLink assessor can decide to request from you corrected info/documents, and the aplication is still 'valid'.  

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/age-pension/claiming

 

Sorry mate I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

Salerno's post was :

 

"As long as you complete your claim within 14 days from lodging intent or starting online I believe when granted it is paid from the date you started (online)/lodged intent"

 

Your reply was:

 

"The OAP, when approved, is backdated to the date you make a complete and correct application"

 

My comment  supporting Salerno's post was:

 

"In order to get paid from the date on which you commenced your claim, you will need to submit the claim within 14 days."

[ELVIS123456]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Sorry mate I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

Salerno's post was :

 

"As long as you complete your claim within 14 days from lodging intent or starting online I believe when granted it is paid from the date you started (online)/lodged intent"

 

Your reply was:

 

"The OAP, when approved, is backdated to the date you make a complete and correct application"

 

My comment  supporting Salerno's post was:

 

"In order to get paid from the date on which you commenced your claim, you will need to submit the claim within 14 days."

I understand the confusion - try this.

 

If someone lodges an incomplete/inaccurate application (which is determined by CLink) then they may have to restart/resubmit the application. If that occurs the payments will not be backdated to the date of the commencement of the first application.  The payments will only be backdated to the commencement of the application, IF the application is assessed by CLink as being a valid application.  Eg - missing key documents relating to identity, or missing information regarding living situation, etc etc etc. 

 

You can lodge an incomplete and/or inaccurate application online.  Just because you lodge it (hit the submit button) does not mean that it is a 'valid' application. This rule was brought in to stop people lodging invalid applications and not providing documents and information requested for many weeks and months. This caused lots of problems and workload in CLink, so the rule was introduced to put the onus on the applicant to submit a complete and accurate application, and to quickly supply anything additional as requested by CLink.

 

So just because you lodge it within 14 days does not mean if/when you get the pension approved that payments will automatically be backdated to when you commenced the application. That is true only if the application is assessed as a valid application (complete and accurate), or you quickly supply whatever document/s information CLink requests.

 

It is best to study up on what is required to be provided in a Pension application, well before you commence the application. And as with all such things one should always make it easy for them (CLink), and to always provide as much as possible - you can never give them too much relevant documentation and information - but make it legible and organised.

 

 

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

 "not all of the money withdrawn from Super when a person is on the Pension is 'income' for either ATO or DHS purposes."



I believe NO money (lump sums) withdrawn from Super when a person is on the Pension is 'income' for either ATO or DHS purposes.

Sorry mate I still cannot find any supporting evidence.

Edited July 23, 2018 by LosLobo

[Salerno]

Sorry, I assumed (and one should never assume) that everyone would use the same definition of "complete" as I do in such a context i.e. all required information, documentation etc. being supplied.

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, sceadugenga said:

Sorry Elvis, I was asking the new guy who turned up full of  info.

I'm well aware of what you guys think of it....

How could anything beat our well moderated "book of knowledge". With advice from subject matter experts with decades of collective experience and research.   ?

Edited July 23, 2018 by LosLobo

[LosLobo]

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I believe NO money (lump sums) withdrawn from Super when a person is on the Pension is 'income' for either ATO or DHS purposes.

Sorry mate I still cannot find any supporting evidence.

It is a minefield out there with some much conflicting information about taxation on the untaxed portion of a pension. I can understand why we have different points of view on this subject.

 

I managed to find  some consensus from some tax paying funds including my own.

 

Generally if you are aged 60 years or more and retired, any account based pension income or lump sum is tax free.

Even though accounts are shown with a taxable amount no tax is payable by the client on any lump sum.

Providers pay the tax on income from investment returns only for Transition to Retirement(TTR) accounts.

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by LosLobo

[ELVIS123456]

10 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I believe NO money (lump sums) withdrawn from Super when a person is on the Pension is 'income' for either ATO or DHS purposes.

Sorry mate I still cannot find any supporting evidence.

Far too complex an issue to give a specific answer  to all the possibloe scenarios - but here are a few.

 

Lump sums taken from Super when you are over 60 and on Newstart are not income to DHS.

 

Lump sums taken from Super when you are over 60 and on Newstart are not taxed by ATO, but they are 'taxable income' (they are tax exempted).

 

Lump sums taken from Super when you are on the Pension are income to DHS - the 'taxable' component of your withdrawal that is (even thought it is not taxed).

 

Lump sums taken from Super when you are on the Pension are income to ATO, but they are not taxed.

 

Myself and others have previously provided lots of answers/references on each of these issues.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by ELVIS123456

[ELVIS123456]

10 hours ago, Salerno said:

Sorry, I assumed (and one should never assume) that everyone would use the same definition of "complete" as I do in such a context i.e. all required information, documentation etc. being supplied.

I should have been more careful when responding - I can see now how it caused the confusion. 

 

I was trying to make sure people realised that backdating of payments to the date you commenced a Pension application was not automatic.  Although someone thinks that it is complete and accurate, that does not mean that CLink with assess it as being a 'valid' application. Therefore, one should read up and learn what is required in detail - and dont try to avoid/hide anything - they have ways to find things out and they keep detailed records. That and a whole lot of other reasons is why it takes so long for CLink to approve an application.

 

As an example of the benefits of being informed and aware of what is required in any Govt application, my wife's Migration Visa was approved in 6 months after the application was lodged.  There was no interview and no questions. She had never been to Aust and had even been 'deported' from one country many years before for overstaying a visitor Visa (thought it was 30 days but it was 14 - no charges/no court). The reason was that I took my time and created an application that was fully complete and organised for them - I made it easy for them to do their job - easy to tick and pass on to the next step.  Most people take about 12 months and some take longer - because they dont make it easy for the public servants to read, review, assess and approve. The key is to look at it from their point of view and to make it easy - rather than just briefly answering questions and attaching docs, as quickly as possible.  Certainly a Migrant Visa is more complex than a Pension application, but the same principle applies.

 

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Lump sums taken from Super when you are on the Pension are income to DHS - the 'taxable' component of your withdrawal that is (even thought it is not taxed).

 

Lump sums taken from Super when you are on the Pension are income to ATO, but they are not taxed.

 

Myself and others have previously provided lots of answers/references on each of these issues.

 

Without evidence I do not believe lump sums (taxed or untaxed components) are assessed by DHS as income (or exempt income ? ) for pensioners.

 

I do agree the that taxed element of a superannuation income stream or lump sum received by a person 60 years old or older is non-assessable non-exempt income for the ATO. But the bottom line is that no tax is payable and therefore there is no impact on the pensioner. By discussing this aren't we unnecessarily overthinking the issue.

 

I haven't seen any references by you to evidence addressing these issues......

Edited July 24, 2018 by LosLobo

[ELVIS123456]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Without evidence I do not believe lump sums are assessed by DHS as income for pensioners.

 

I do agree the that taxed element of a superannuation income stream or lump sum received by a person 60 years old or older is non-assessable non-except income for the ATO. But the bottom line is that no tax is payable and therefore there is no impact on the pensioner. By discussing this aren't we unnecessarily overthinking the issue.

 

I haven't seen any references by you to evidence addressing these issues......

Up to you what you believe. 

But before you get the pension, I recommend you look this issue up on DHS and ATO websites.

Or find the previous posts where this issue was discussed at length and links provided.

[LosLobo]

8 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Up to you what you believe. 

But before you get the pension, I recommend you look this issue up on DHS and ATO websites.

Or find the previous posts where this issue was discussed at length and links provided.

I thought that the moderator ruled that the onus was on the poster to support comments with evidence with links to DHS. ?

Edited July 24, 2018 by LosLobo

[ELVIS123456]

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I thought that the moderator ruled that the onus was on the poster to support comments with evidence with links to DHS. ?

The onus is on you to find the posts I have already posted.

It is not on me to find my previous posts.

And nothing in the way you have 'asked' has given me the slightest inclination to do so.

 

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/

 

[sceadugenga]

On the advice of ThaiVisa Administration this thread is locked until further notice.

[sceadugenga]

Scott Morrison scraps Government plans to raise pension age to 70

The Prime Minister has dumped the plan to raise the pension age to 70.

Scott Morrison has announced the decision on breakfast television this morning even before Cabinet has formally agreed to it.

It was one of the issues on which Labor had repeatedly attacked the Government, especially highlighting the impact for people with physically difficult jobs.

Former treasurer Joe Hockey announced the plan to lift the pension age from 67 to 70 in his controversial 2014 budget in a bid to help fund the cost of the ageing population.

The Senate has refused to ever agree to legislation to formalise the change, but until today the Government had stuck to the policy.

Mr Morrison told Channel Nine he did not think the measure was needed anymore.

"It is one of the things I will be changing pretty quickly," Mr Morrison told Channel Nine this morning after facing a question on it from a viewer.

It is the first major policy backdown he has made since becoming PM.

"I was going to say this next week, but I may as well say it here, I have already consulted my colleagues on that and next week Cabinet will be ratifying a decision to reverse taking the retirement age to 70.

It will remain at 67, which is what Labor increased it to.

"The pension age going to 70, gone," Mr Morrison said.

The pension age has already started going up from 65.

People turning 66 in the first half of next year will have to wait until July to qualify for the pension.

The next stage kicks in from July 2021 when the age to qualify for the age pension goes up to 66 years and six months.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-05/scott-morrison-scraps-plans-to-raise-pension-age-to-70/10202678

[Ron19]

Due to popular demand this topic has been re-opened.

Members are advised that it will be closely monitored

and any hint of the bickering that occurred in the past

will result in an almost certain posting suspension.

[Nemises]

Well done ScoMo [emoji106]
But should your Government lose office at the next Fed election, will Labour push it back out to 70 like they did by taking it from 65 [emoji666]️ 67?

[Old Croc]

I guess Morrison will say anything over the next few months in an attempt to win the unwinnable. It remains to be seen what his actual policies would be if the impossible happens and he wins office. 

In opposition, his mates, Abbott and Hockey, also made big promises to sway the vote. Promises thrown by the wayside in their first budget which was designed to reward their backers on the big side of town and put the little man down.

How soon people forget the "Budget from Hell" from the same cartel.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Old Croc

[ELVIS123456]

9 hours ago, Old Croc said:

I guess Morrison will say anything over the next few months in an attempt to win the unwinnable. It remains to be seen what his actual policies would be if the impossible happens and he wins office. 

In opposition, his mates, Abbott and Hockey, also made big promises to sway the vote. Promises thrown by the wayside in their first budget which was designed to reward their backers on the big side of town and put the little man down.

How soon people forget the "Budget from Hell" from the same cartel.

'Snowflake in Hell' I would say for the chances of Libs winning.  But stranger things have happened - Keating somehow got re-elected :) 

 

Big issue that Pollies say one thing to get elected, and then dont do what they said (except Trump).  I can remember many years ago after Howard's 'core and non'core' change of heart, discussing whether a High Court challenge challenge could be successful based on false and misleading statements under the Electoral Laws of Australia.  Consensus was that you would have to be able to show that they deliberately lied in order to get elected, knowing that they would never implement the policies being 'advertised'.  Still, after many years of Pollie lies and doing one thing in election mode, and another in Govt mode, it could be claimed that past history shows this to be now a standard practice, and the onus should be on the Govt to prove they could not implement their promises, and showing that the reasons why they chose not to were valid.  Wish I knew a retired QC like Daryl did (The Castle).

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron19]

A post carrying on in the same manner as before that caused this forum to be closed has been removed.

This type of post will not be allowed in the future and the member/members posting will earn at least

a posting suspension or even a permanent ban if it continues. You have been warned.

[Nemises]

The “Issue of the Day” on Nightlife last night was the AAP. It was very informative with numerous callers contributing. Here is the podcast link. You just need to scroll forward to about 3/4 of the way through to find the start of the discussion.


http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/nightlife/nightlife/10180382