Australian Aged Pension

[Artisi]

barryb & philphy;

Your queries are very well covered in this very thread, have many possibilities and ramifications. There are so many posts about your question, including questions from yours truly, that I guess no-one can provide a 'simple' answer to your query.

Not trying to beat around the bush, but needs a lot of study as to what one should do, particularly if CL grade you as a former resident IF you have been out of Australia for significant periods around retirement age.

Correct, well covered and most points have been answered - just requires some reading to get a good feel of the subject.

[Nignoy]

Latest Australian Overseas Pension Information!! as per interview at Caboolture Centrelink 11am monday 17th of August, to qualify for payment you have to prove at least 2 seperate residency periods of at least 26 weeks each period between february 2002 and present date, no more pick up the phone to notify them you are leaving, they are making it more difficult , and if you have property in australia after 12 months residence overseas it will be classed as capital and your pension will be reduced

[Mason45]

Latest Australian Overseas Pension Information!! as per interview at Caboolture Centrelink 11am monday 17th of August, to qualify for payment you have to prove at least 2 seperate residency periods of at least 26 weeks each period between february 2002 and present date, no more pick up the phone to notify them you are leaving, they are making it more difficult , and if you have property in australia after 12 months residence overseas it will be classed as capital and your pension will be reduced

Does CL have any guide lines on overseas pensions, every CL officer seems to have a different set of rules. What gives these officers the right to set their own standards as it appears when so many expats from all over Australia all seem to have a different scenario about what the qualifications for permanent residency are. You can cash in your existing assets and not claim the OAG and retire forever in Thailand but then the Aust Tax Office swings into action claiming that you're a non resident and you will pay tax of 30% from the 1st dollar and no tax free threshold on all income other than super. I consider myself so lucky to be born in the lucky country.

[Nignoy]

Latest Australian Overseas Pension Information!! as per interview at Caboolture Centrelink 11am monday 17th of August, to qualify for payment you have to prove at least 2 seperate residency periods of at least 26 weeks each period between february 2002 and present date, no more pick up the phone to notify them you are leaving, they are making it more difficult , and if you have property in australia after 12 months residence overseas it will be classed as capital and your pension will be reduced

Does CL have any guide lines on overseas pensions, every CL officer seems to have a different set of rules. What gives these officers the right to set their own standards as it appears when so many expats from all over Australia all seem to have a different scenario about what the qualifications for permanent residency are. You can cash in your existing assets and not claim the OAG and retire forever in Thailand but then the Aust Tax Office swings into action claiming that you're a non resident and you will pay tax of 30% from the 1st dollar and no tax free threshold on all income other than super. I consider myself so lucky to be born in the lucky country.

Wow lucky you if you only pay 30% I am paying 49% at the moment, also no more than 14 days advanced warning of leaving country accepted by CL , so many different personal interpretations of CL pension rules it is a minefield

[fishhooks]

quote Nignoy............."26 weeks each period between february 2002 and present date"

I take it, that means between February 2002 and the date of your application, the 'present date' will not be applicable to many who are still to apply"

[harrry]

I would advise anyone to contact the Overseas section o Centrelink as they are the decision makers and know a lot more than local staff who often give incorrect/incomplete advice.

[Artisi]

Latest Australian Overseas Pension Information!! as per interview at Caboolture Centrelink 11am monday 17th of August, to qualify for payment you have to prove at least 2 seperate residency periods of at least 26 weeks each period between february 2002 and present date, no more pick up the phone to notify them you are leaving, they are making it more difficult , and if you have property in australia after 12 months residence overseas it will be classed as capital and your pension will be reduced

From my experience I would think this is incorrect information - only spending a total of 1 year in 7 would qualify you for clasification of former resident.

[GungaDin]

On a lighter note.....

Has anyone read their tea leaves to say the oz dollar will reach 30bt in the next 14 days?

The present rate sure makes our pensions & savings look a bit better.

Well, better than last November!

[Artisi]

On a lighter note.....

Has anyone read their tea leaves to say the oz dollar will reach 30bt in the next 14 days?

The present rate sure makes our pensions & savings look a bit better.

Well, better than last November!

I would suggest that it has a good chance of hitting 30 - for how long is anyone guess - but if it hovers round 28.5/29 who cares - same same at the end of the day.

[fishhooks]

The current and near future value of the A$ against the US$ and in turn THB depends on the likely or unlikely chance of interest rates in Australia going UP.

If interest rates are going to stay much the same same as present (and no other bad news to trip the little Aussie over), you can expect the present exchange to stay similar to the present.

If however, there are continual rumors in Australia of interest rates creeping up, you can expect the A$ to rise and may well get into the low 30's in Thailand that we saw a couple of years back.

My take on it is, if you are getting near to 30 now, grab an exchange now and keep some in reserve to do a bit later. If the exchange improves you are still going to do well with a result of around 28 - 29 on average and keeping some for later you may well average close to 30 all round.

Listen to the business predictions in OZ, if interest rates stay the same over the next few months, waiting won't get you a better result than now.

[david96]

Has anyone received the latest information on Age pensions and the reporting of income of you and your partner. Letters were sent on the 8 and 9 of September 2009.

The reporting requirements are ridiculous to an extreme. Typical Centrelink.

There has been an increase in Age pension payment.

[fishhooks]

Not quite old enough yet, but would be interested to see what they are up to David? Any way to put it somewhere?

[GungaDin]

link with Visit My Website

24 posts so far, on your first day.......

just checked........ and they're all rubbish posts.

[fishhooks]

"Has anyone received the latest information on Age pensions and the reporting of income of you and your partner. Letters were sent on the 8 and 9 of September 2009". (From David)

Anyone have the details of this info?

[david96]

Basically the single age pension has been increased by $65 per F/N, you earn income up to $250 per F/N and not be penalised, over that amount you will lose 50 cents in each dollar of your pension. One has to report their income and that of their "partner" on a particular day, if late your pension will be delayed.

If they class you as a"couple" and only one member on an age pension, no assets in joint names and the other working you are really hit hard. In my case I receive $300 less per F/N than if I was on "single" status.

However there is away out of that one according to "Centrelink" just state that you do not have a "partner".

You go to a single pension. You "separate" but live under the same roof.

I am trying to get more info but I do know of several people who have reverted to "single" status.

[david96]

Just recently Centerlink legally recognised "same sex" relationships, and I am sure a lot of people were happy with that change. But they will now be paid at the "partner" rate and the income of both parties will be accessable for pension payments.

Centrelink are not interested in morals only money and their formula is the one that will pay the least.

[Artisi]

just transfered some money to Bangkok bnk in $A. - exchange rate including the transfer fee into the calculation worked out at 29.27Bht - $A and looks like this may improve in the coming period. Certainly a far better rate than transferring in Bht from Aust.

[GungaDin]

^^^^ Always transfer Dollars, not baht!

[david96]

Just a question, those receiving the Australian Age pension 65+ are you claiming the single rate or are you claiming the "partner" rate where Centrelink has you as a "couple"?

You would of course have applied while you were both in Australia if on a couple rate in the first instance.

Centrelink make the decision on which rate you are paid. You do not seem to have a choice.

Are you living in Australia or living in Thailand it could make a difference. whether you repaid the single or couple rate.

[david96]

To give an example of this single and couple setup as defined by Centrelink.

You are married to a Thai citizen, you are eg. 66 and she is 55

You are in Australia and claim the age pension, your spouse is visiting you on a 676 visa,

You are classified as single.

Your spouse applies for a spouse visa offshore. As soon as she lands in Australia you are classified as a "couple" because of her visa 309. ( data matching to DIAC and ATO)

Yet she is not entitled to Centrelink benefits until the 100 visa is issued.

But she is entitled to work and earn income. Any of her income will affect your pension which is effectively 80% of the single rate.

After a period of time say 2 years you both decide to return and live in Thailand.

But what rate are you now paid? Single or "couple" rate? You both are not living in Australia now ie. from the day you depart Australia.

And one might add that you have no bank accounts or property etc in joint names in Australia.

If you separate or to use the Centrelink term "no longer have a partner" you will be paid the single rate.

Yet your financial arrangements have never changed.

Any views on the subject? Here is an example of obvious discrimination, and it would affect

many who are in a similiar position.

There is no legal requirement that your wife must give you 50% of her gross earnings that I know of in Australia.

So make sure you are single when in Australia, at least in Thailand you are free in this respect.

[david96]

Whe applying for the Age pension you and your wife will be asked if you have assets overseas and income from overseas.

As we are concerned with Thailand (not NZ or the UK) you should say no and if your spouse has assets, house, land etc, just say no to those questions.

As long as no income is brought in to Australia it is none of the business of Centrelink, you are supporting your spouse in Thailand.

You only declare your Australian assets to Centrelink.

What one finds offensive is that Centrelink expect you to know all your (in their words "partner") assets and income, even when they are not claiming any benefits and do not intend to.

Any "financial advisor" in the private sector would try to arrange your financial affairs to get you the max. benefit possible (and you would pay for that advice) but not Centrelink, they will give you their "financial advice" so as to give the minimum benefit possible.

One also finds it strange that you can be married and/or have a business and arrange your financial affairs separately for eg, tax purposes, personal and business but not Centrelink, they do not permit any choice at all.

So be "single" ("separated") in Australia and "married" in Thailand, where Centrelink has no jurisdiction.

And be married under Thai legal system in Thailand.

In Thailand you support your spouse. That is the difference between Australia and Thailand.

And Thai Govt. does not interfere in your financial affairs in the manner Centrelink can in Australia.

[fishhooks]

Good that this thread has picked up after quite a long pause recently and with good "meaty" stuff to help those who are discriminated against by our "Lucky Country" government.

Twenty years or so ago, I had a 65+ year old neighbour who had retired and lost his wife to cancer. He found a new partner some time later and wanted to marry again, but the advice at the time was never to marry again and for he and his new partner to simply live together, otherwise they would be severly disadvantaged by Centrelink, (probably not called Centrelink at that time?)

So this is not in any way new..... It's a fairly well known fact and yes as someone above stated, if you feel morally that you like to be married, you are better not to do so.

I'm sure no-one wants to rip-off the system in any way, but you are encouraged by "circumstance" to go to these means to get what you are entitled to after perhaps spending your entire working life in this country.

With the 309/100 Visa situation, I would imagine that once Centrelink has you in the system as being married, it would be very hard to say to them that you suddenly now are not married and are separated living under the one roof.

This is imagining you are living in Australia.

Living in Thailand and stating that you have now separated, I reckon opens up an entirely new 'can of worms'.

I'm fairly sure that the government here has no ties whatsoever with the Thai government, so what you do there probably has no connection. But as this thread has demonstrated, living in Thailand and getting an Australian Pension opens up a hefty and complicated situation with getting that pension anyway.

As again someone has posted above, better to have an instant memory loss when it comes to stating any financial means or property in Thailand for you or partner. No matter how much they hassle you, I would think they have no means at all of getting info from the Thai end. That could change if they eventually have some two way agreement as with other countries, but unlikely in regard to Thailand.

[david96]

Many marriages run their financial affairs on a single person basis,( what is his is his and what is hers is hers).

There are a lot of people who could separate quite easily just by notifying Centrelink in writing

within 14 days of the date of separation.

If all your assets and financial obligations are in one name and you have no assets in joint names that is all you have to do, they do not ask why you have separated. You separate by "mutual agreement".

If you marry later in life and marry a Thai citizen this makes it a lot easier.

However, if you have been married a long time you may have assets, bank accounts and liabilities in joint names, including utilities etc.

In this case it may be a lot harder to "separate" as you will have to move all assets out of joint names.and that could be difficult if you have a house in joint names.

But if you do "separate" do it before you leave Australia, ie, plan ahead. Before you go to live in Thailand.

You should not have to argue and fight to justify separation.

One is not sure of this but I think you must sleep in different rooms and move your personal

belongings to the new room.

Of course nothing really changes, one can not be sure if Centrelink ever checks your living arrangements. Although they have more powers than the Police it seems (or they imply)

And of course what is the legal definition of "to separate" or does Centrelink have their own

definition?

A friend of mine has already asked Centrelink about "separating" and was told (verbally only)

to notify them within 14 days that he no longer had a "partner". They intend to return to Thailand at a later date to live. He saw no legal reason why they could not live in the same house together after separation.

I intend to make some discreet enquiries into this matter,as it does affect many persons who

have Thai spouses and as most of us were married in Thailand, this is one good reason never

to register your marriage in Australia.

Note: There is a Social Security Appeals tribunal, but one does not know if it would accept

cases such as this.

Many years ago it was the responsibility of a husband to support his wife and he would give

his wife an allowance for her own personal expenses. That does not exist anymore in Australia, but it still does in Thailand.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

On a lighter note.....

Has anyone read their tea leaves to say the oz dollar will reach 30bt in the next 14 days?

The present rate sure makes our pensions & savings look a bit better.

Well, better than last November!

30.25 at 10 October 2009

[scorecard]

I realize this thread is about Old Age pension, but just wondering whether any members have recent insights about the Australian War Veterans Pension or War Veterans Disbaility allowance.

I was on active duty in Vietnam for 15 months.

I paid taxes in Australian before going to Vietnam and until I was 44 years old, then moved to Thailand and been here ever since. Now 64 years old.

Last time I contacted VA (Veterans Affairs), about 18 months ago, they repeated the same 'policy' they had given me several times before:

"You don't live in Australia therefore you cannot receive a WV pension".

They always go on to say "If Australia had a reciprocal arrangement with Thailand then it would be different" , but there is no such agreement and not likely to be for a long time if ever

Anybody got any other recent insights to share on this, please.

[david96]

Have you tried to contact the Vietnam Veterans Association in Australia, they may be able to give you advice. There may be many in your position.

You would have had a minimum 25 years of residency in Australia working and paying taxes.

You may have to return to Australia to claim.

I am very suspicious of "verbal" advice from some government departments in Australia.

One in particular.

[fishhooks]

David.

Understand your points on the "joint name" situation re assets, but whether or not you register your Thai marriage in Australia, I don't see makes much difference.

I'm sure if you marry in Thailand, the union is fully recognized in Australia as a full and legal marriage. I would further imagine should you later divorce and do-so in Australia, you would come under the same legal obligations as any other Australians. Whereas divorcing in Thailand is a fairly simple procedure at the local Amphur, if you both agree!

As far as Centrelink is concerned, I'm also fairly sure that they see your Thai marriage as being fully recognized in Australia and apply your entitlements as such.

Centrelink treat you as being legally married to a Thai, even during the 309 Visa stage.

[david96]

David.

Understand your points on the "joint name" situation re assets, but whether or not you register your Thai marriage in Australia, I don't see makes much difference.

I'm sure if you marry in Thailand, the union is fully recognized in Australia as a full and legal marriage. I would further imagine should you later divorce and do-so in Australia, you would come under the same legal obligations as any other Australians. Whereas divorcing in Thailand is a fairly simple procedure at the local Amphur, if you both agree!

As far as Centrelink is concerned, I'm also fairly sure that they see your Thai marriage as being fully recognized in Australia and apply your entitlements as such.

Centrelink treat you as being legally married to a Thai, even during the 309 Visa stage.

My argument and this is supported by others that when you do not have assets in joint namesand your spouse does not contribute, ie, give you 50% of her earnings you should be treated as a single person, not as a couple.

However if you have assets in joint names and liabilities in both names, fair enough that you be regarded as a couple.

However if you "separate" and advise Centrelink that you no longer have a "partner" you will

revert to single status.

To "separate" does not mean divorce. There is no intention to divorce.

A Thai legal marriage under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code is recognised in Australia

by DIAC but Centrelink just see it as you having a "partner".

You do not have to prove that your marriage is dejure or defacto ond now "same-sex" is recognised as just that a "partner."

If you "separate" for a while then decide to come back together again you just let Centrelink know within 14 days.

Having a "partner" means that they only have to pay 80% of the single rate.

Plus the fact that you lose 50 cents in every dollar of your pension entitlement of half your spouses income.

[harrry]

Centrelink do not distinguish between married and partners. As far as they are concerned if you are living in a marriage like relationship they treat you the same as if you are married. You wil get the married rate of individual benifit whether or not you are legally married. The partnered rate is about 15% less than if you are single. They also take here assets and income into account in calculating athough she may not be entitled to any benifit at all.

[david96]

The Age Pension 65+

We are supposed to have the freedom of choice, you can legally arrange your financial affairs so as to obtain the greatest benefit so why not have the choice of being regarded as a single person or as a couple.

A different matter if you have dependant children, have joint liabilities and have joint bank accounts. And here you might be better off as you may receive extra allowances.

But in the cases mentioned they live and support themselves financially as single persons and only one receives the age pension, the other spouse receives no benefits at all.

Centrelink just presumes that you are sharing everything 50/50 because you are married or living in a de-facto relationship. It makes it easy for them.

And with defacto relationships they will do all in their powers to prove that you are in one by having both parties reply to numerous questions and providing documentary proof as well as data matching.

And they will catch a lot of "same-sex" relationships which Centrelink now regards as defacto. After the 1st July 2009. Many of these were receiving single benefits, now they will be penalised and get the "couple" rate.

And that amendment was brought in very quickly by our current goverment. And they never mentioned the loss of pension rate at the time so it was never questioned, they promoted the political line that they were not "discriminating" against same sex relationships to cover up their real agenda.