Australian Aged Pension

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I have an issue with a loan I advanced to my son. For some reason, the online system flags it and I have to sort it out at a Centrelink office. As you probably know, their phone service is inferior to jungle drums.

It may be $5-10 a fortnight I am missing out on, I don't care.

So I've failed to report changes in my assets which would mean my pension would be adjusted upwards. What penalty could they impose for that, quite apart from making themselves look ridiculous on mainstream and social media?

What happens to your pension payments if you forgive a loan? (yourlifechoices.com.au)

[scorecard]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I have an issue with a loan I advanced to my son. For some reason, the online system flags it and I have to sort it out at a Centrelink office. As you probably know, their phone service is inferior to jungle drums.

It may be $5-10 a fortnight I am missing out on, I don't care.

So I've failed to report changes in my assets which would mean my pension would be adjusted upwards. What penalty could they impose for that, quite apart from making themselves look ridiculous on mainstream and social media?

There's a free call  number you can use to call Centrelink International in Hobart from Thailand, it's 0018006114136 or 0098006114136.

 

I've called them several times, always good listeners, polite and focused and clear specific answers.

 

A couple of time the officer has said "I need to talk to an expert on this specific subject, do you mind holding the line, probably 5 minutes" I replied "sure I will hold", the officer came back on the line and had a clear totally specific answer.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to call them if needed in the future.  

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

There's a free call  number you can use to call Centrelink International in Hobart from Thailand, it's 0018006114136 or 0098006114136.

 

I've called them several times, always good listeners, polite and focused and clear specific answers.

 

A couple of time the officer has said "I need to talk to an expert on this specific subject, do you mind holding the line, probably 5 minutes" I replied "sure I will hold", the officer came back on the line and had a clear totally specific answer.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to call them if needed in the future.  

Actually, it was Centrelink International who decided to stop my PBS benefit when I was in Australia in 2019. Just a voice on the line to the officer in the Belgrave Centrelink office.

I have yet to see anything in writing which explains or justifies that decision.

Your experience is positive, I'd rather put my hand into a bucket of scorpions.

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, giddyup said:

You are correct, however if the laws were to change re receiving pension payments outside Australia there would have to be some kind of Grandfather clause, ie I can't see the Aussie government stopping pension payments and forcing some 80 year old (like me) back to Australia after putting down roots for many years in Thailand, or elsewhere.

I doubt there will be any Grandfather clause or concessions.  

 

The law will simply be, you are an Australian citizen outside Australia for more than than 183 days, so you will be deemed a non-resident for taxation purposes and will be taxed accordingly on every Australian dollar you receive, regardless of where it comes from.

 

Simple, effective, easy to prove, and impossible to deny, and they haven't stopped the pension payments, just taxing them at non-resident rates.

 

This will scoop up hundreds of thousands of people, and net billions of Australian dollars.   

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You may be right.

I hope I am wrong.

 

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

So where are these pensioners, going to live, under bridges and in tents? Australia has enough of a homeless problem as it is.

Those that are renting out a house in Australia will be forced to live in it.  Then there are boarding houses, group homes, aged care facilities etc.  

 

There's been talk of pushing grandpa or grandma out of their 60's model house on a quarter acre in the suburbs to free up homes for young families for some time now. 

 

Federal and State governments don't care too much for where seniors end up living, even if it is under a bridge.

 

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMO it would be a bridge too far for Australia to be the only Western country to deny its pensioners the right to live abroad if they choose to do so.

Cutting the pension off would be drastic, so why not scoop them up in the 183 day law and class them as non-residents for taxation purposes? 

 

In reality, we are outside of Australia for more than 183 days a year, spending money that was generated in Australia, by whatever means.  Therefore, easy targets.

 

The government looks good, as the haven't cut any pensions off, just taxed the money at non-resident rates, which the 183 day law will allow.

 

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Australian politicians have learned messing with people of pension age has painful electoral consequences.

If there is any sense left in Australia, ScoMo and his bunch of lying incompetents will be booted out at the next election. Albanese is looking better every day.

Your scenario is possible, but unlikely.

When's the last time you took the trouble to go to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok and cast a vote?

 

Do you think the government cares about expat retirees who don't vote anyway?  

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, Will27 said:

I've said something similar before.

I seriously doubt the government and ATO would target pensioners and low income earners.

 

Imagine the publicity the government would cop when a pensioners tops himself because he was forced to leave his family overseas and comeback to Oz.

 

I think KhunHeinekin is scaremongering myself.

Ignore at your own peril.  Everyone should have a Plan B for this.

 

As I said, maybe they will not cut off the pension, just tax it at non-resident rates because the recipient is outside of Australia for 183 days.  

 

How many Australian expat retirees make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote every election?  Do you think the government cares about non-voters? 

 

Nothing like a couple of little Murdoch press releases about Australian retirees in Thailand p*ssing it up with a girlfriend half their age, on the taxpayers money, to whip up a bit of envy and get the tax payer on board for cutting them off or taxing them.  

 

Scaremongering or not, I have a Plan B.  

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

This will scoop up hundreds of thousands of people, and net billions of Australian dollars.   

You have some realistic links to the number of expats world wide, or are the billions of dollars simply pulled out of one of your body orifices?

 

Permit me to doubt the amount of money saved would be worth the effort or grief.

 

You seem to forget those pensioners forced to return to Australia would be very vocal about the change in their circumstances. Both major parties are acutely concerned about the rise of independents, as witness Abbott getting booted out of his seat. An issue like that would be meat and drink to them.

 

I also doubt if a Labor government would make such changes, they are not skinflints with welfare spending. Scotty from Marketing has worn out his welcome, he's a leader like I am a neurosurgeon.

 

I have a plan B. Tax my part pension, because every other asset I have earning income in Australia would be removed from the grasp of the ATO.

[RJRS1301]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

There's been talk of pushing grandpa or grandma out of their 60's model house on a quarter acre in the suburbs to free up homes for young families for some time now.

Please, stop hypothesising on matters which have no substance

Please prove when this was considered in Cabinet eith by LNP or Labor Governments,

 

 

[Will27]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Ignore at your own peril.  Everyone should have a Plan B for this.

 

As I said, maybe they will not cut off the pension, just tax it at non-resident rates because the recipient is outside of Australia for 183 days.  

 

How many Australian expat retirees make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote every election?  Do you think the government cares about non-voters? 

 

Nothing like a couple of little Murdoch press releases about Australian retirees in Thailand p*ssing it up with a girlfriend half their age, on the taxpayers money, to whip up a bit of envy and get the tax payer on board for cutting them off or taxing them.  

 

Scaremongering or not, I have a Plan B.  

You don't know what my plans are.

 

If you're going to cut the OAP by 29% for non-resident rates, for a lot of people that's pretty much akin

to cutting it off.

 

I vote every election.

Still, it's not about voters, it's about targeting vulnerable/older people.

I don't think it will happen.

 

If they were to bring in the rule that you're talking about, they could always add a clause saying

Centrelink payments are exempt or have have an income threshold of $25 000 for example.

 

I've seen you post several times about this.

Telling people to expect a letter a letter from the ATO and so on.

 

I don't think it's too flash TBH.

[KhunHeineken]

32 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You have some realistic links to the number of expats world wide, or are the billions of dollars simply pulled out of one of your body orifices?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_diaspora

 

In 2015 there were 527,255 Australian living outside of Australia.  

 

More recent numbers, pre-covid, put it at 1 million.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/02/a-spoilt-brat-country-the-australians-overseas-who-decided-not-to-come-home

 

Quote:  "Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the foreign affairs department estimated there were about one million Australians living overseas at any given time."

 

Doing some simple math.

 

$1,000,000,000AUD / 1,000,000 expats = $1000AUD per Australian expat, per annum.

 

Based on these figures, you don't think they can whip up "billions" off "hundreds of thousands" of Australian expats?

 

If you have some links showing otherwise to the above numbers, please post them.

 

49 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Permit me to doubt the amount of money saved would be worth the effort or grief.

It's not about saving money, it's about making money from them.  I explained this in a previous post.

 

They don't care too much about taxing the pension and paying less, they want / need hundreds of thousands of Australians back into the Australian economy, where every pension dollar generates jobs, and jobs generate income tax.

 

We all know immigration is a taboo subject for Australian voters.  How easy is it for the government to basically force the return of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens back into the Australian economy through tax law?   No immigration issues, and you just boosted the economy by 200,000 or 300,000, or more,  consumers. 

 

Any backlash from voters would be spread across seat across the country.    

 

51 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You seem to forget those pensioners forced to return to Australia would be very vocal about the change in their circumstances.

True.  I guess it comes down to is losing their vote worth the money back into the Australian economy.  

 

52 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I also doubt if a Labor government would make such changes, they are not skinflints with welfare spending.

You make it sound like the major parties have a choice. 

 

Australia is broke. 

 

As I have posted, there's easy billions to be made by enforcing the 183 day non-resident for taxation rule.  

 

Not all of the 1 million Australians overseas are retired.  Many are work, and on good money, who have also been flying under the radar for non-resident taxation.  

 

55 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I have a plan B. Tax my part pension, because every other asset I have earning income in Australia would be removed from the grasp of the ATO.

Same plan as myself.  It's not the way I want it, but I have a feeling it's the way is going to have to be. 

 

As I said, with a housing affordability crisis in Australia, I'm sure they will be happy with freeing up some housing stock as well.    

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Please, stop hypothesising on matters which have no substance

Please prove when this was considered in Cabinet eith by LNP or Labor Governments,

 

 

Plenty on the net about it.

 

Here's just a few links.

 

https://www.propertynow.com.au/blog/downsizing-your-home-new-tax-incentives-may-help/

 

https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/retirement-income/the-600-000-government-incentive-for-seniors-to-downsize

 

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/what-the-second-covid-budget-means-for-the-property-market/

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-12/budget-2021-schemes-revamped-for-pensioners-self-funded-retirees/100132524

 

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_diaspora

 

In 2015 there were 527,255 Australian living outside of Australia.  

 

More recent numbers, pre-covid, put it at 1 million.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jan/02/a-spoilt-brat-country-the-australians-overseas-who-decided-not-to-come-home

 

Quote:  "Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the foreign affairs department estimated there were about one million Australians living overseas at any given time."

 

Doing some simple math.

 

$1,000,000,000AUD / 1,000,000 expats = $1000AUD per Australian expat, per annum.

 

Based on these figures, you don't think they can whip up "billions" off "hundreds of thousands" of Australian expats?

 

If you have some links showing otherwise to the above numbers, please post them.

 

It's not about saving money, it's about making money from them.  I explained this in a previous post.

 

They don't care too much about taxing the pension and paying less, they want / need hundreds of thousands of Australians back into the Australian economy, where every pension dollar generates jobs, and jobs generate income tax.

 

We all know immigration is a taboo subject for Australian voters.  How easy is it for the government to basically force the return of hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens back into the Australian economy through tax law?   No immigration issues, and you just boosted the economy by 200,000 or 300,000, or more,  consumers. 

 

Any backlash from voters would be spread across seat across the country.    

 

True.  I guess it comes down to is losing their vote worth the money back into the Australian economy.  

 

You make it sound like the major parties have a choice. 

 

Australia is broke. 

 

As I have posted, there's easy billions to be made by enforcing the 183 day non-resident for taxation rule.  

 

Not all of the 1 million Australians overseas are retired.  Many are work, and on good money, who have also been flying under the radar for non-resident taxation.  

 

Same plan as myself.  It's not the way I want it, but I have a feeling it's the way is going to have to be. 

 

As I said, with a housing affordability crisis in Australia, I'm sure they will be happy with freeing up some housing stock as well.    

Let's accept there are 1 million Australians living overseas. How many of those are retirees, and how many of those are drawing a full or part pension?

Let's say there are 150,000 retirees living overseas who are drawing the full age pension. The tax clawed back would be $7224, or a bit over 1 billion. Certainly not the billions in savings you are claiming. The part-pensioners like me will make damn sure their income-earning assets go elsewhere. The ATO can't have it both ways, someone who is non-resident and gets income elsewhere can't be taxed on that income.

Frankly, I think you enjoy scaremongering and being negative. On ignore now.

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

You don't know what my plans are.

I'm simply suggesting to members they should have a Plan B.

 

I hope it never happens, because I too will have to make some harsh financial decisions, but from what I read, new changes to the tax laws coming in put the

183 day rule front and center as the primary test.  What does that tell you?

 

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

If you're going to cut the OAP by 29% for non-resident rates, for a lot of people that's pretty much akin

to cutting it off.

I agree, and the Australian will welcome these consumers back into the Australian economy. even if it's for only 6 months of the year.

 

The ATO can't be seen taxing some people who are outside of Australia for 183 days, and giving a free pass to other people who are outside of Australia for

183 day a year.

 

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

I vote every election.

Still, it's not about voters, it's about targeting vulnerable/older people.

I don't think it will happen.

How many others make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote?  

 

They will not be portrayed as vulnerable people.  They will be portrayed as people living the high life in Asia on the tax payers money.  

 

I hope it doesn't happen, but the new changes appear to rely heavily on the 183 day test.

 

Another member has already posted some links, here's another one.

 

 https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/

 

Quote:  "The proposed new rules are based on ‘bright lines’ and ‘objective factors’. The first proposed test is a 183 day test. A taxpayer will be a tax resident of Australia if they spend 183 days or more in Australia in an income year."

 

The 183 day test used to be secondary, now it primary.  Notice how the ATO sys if you are in Australia for 183 days you are a resident.  This tells me that if you are outside for 183 days, you are a non-resident.

 

Does it read differently to you?

 

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

If they were to bring in the rule that you're talking about, they could always add a clause saying

Centrelink payments are exempt or have have an income threshold of $25 000 for example.

They could do that, but what about those with income generating assets back in Australia, like a rental property and shares?  I guess it will cause some lifestyle changes.

 

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

've seen you post several times about this.

Telling people to expect a letter a letter from the ATO and so on.

 

I don't think it's too flash TBH.

I've put forward some links that show the changes.  

 

Let's be honest, many of us have been flying under the radar when in fact, we are non-residents for taxation purposes.  The source of the income is irrelevant to the ATO.  In my opinion, the clock was always ticking on this.  Perhaps the time is near.  

 

Can you post some links that support your opinion that nothing will change?  

[RJRS1301]

33 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Plenty on the net about it.

 

Here's just a few links.

 

https://www.propertynow.com.au/blog/downsizing-your-home-new-tax-incentives-may-help/

 

https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/retirement-income/the-600-000-government-incentive-for-seniors-to-downsize

 

https://www.realestate.com.au/news/what-the-second-covid-budget-means-for-the-property-market/

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-12/budget-2021-schemes-revamped-for-pensioners-self-funded-retirees/100132524

 

 

 

 

They were incentives to encourage, nothing more. Did you follow up uptake, very few.

Blogs and opinions  are Not  policy based.

Please show  links to cabinet discussions

There was nothing about "pushing" in any of those links or opinions.

Big difference between incentives and forcing

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by RJRS1301

[KhunHeineken]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Let's accept there are 1 million Australians living overseas. How many of those are retirees, and how many of those are drawing a full or part pension?

Let's say there are 150,000 retirees living overseas who are drawing the full age pension. The tax clawed back would be $7224, or a bit over 1 billion. Certainly not the billions in savings you are claiming. The part-pensioners like me will make damn sure their income-earning assets go elsewhere. The ATO can't have it both ways, someone who is non-resident and gets income elsewhere can't be taxed on that income.

Frankly, I think you enjoy scaremongering and being negative. On ignore now.

 

You still don't get it.  You think it just targets pensioners.

 

The 183 day law will not discriminate.  It will scoop up EVERYONE outside of Australia for 183 days.  

 

They will get a little from some, and much from some others, and everyone in between.  

 

I am in a similar situation.  My Plan B is to put my assets outside of the reach of the ATO, simply because I chose to live outside of Australia for 183 days.  

 

All I am saying is, Australian expats, retired or not, on a pension or not, need to have a Plan B for the 183 day rule because the change is coming.  I, and other members, have have provided links setting out the changes.

 

Just look at the Robo Debt debacle for how much the Australian government cares about people.    

 

It's a heads up, not scaremongering.  

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

They were incentives to encourage, nothing more. Did you follow up uptake, very few.

Blogs and opinions  are Not  policy based.

Please show  cabinet links

 

It's simple.  Here's a link to the propose tax changes.

 

https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/

 

I couldn't care less if you have a Plan B, or not, but it appears likely the 183 day rule is set to be the primary residency test, and I doubt it will discriminate.  The whole idea is obviously to broaden the net.

 

You can continue to debate on this forum, and hope, pray, and beg the ATO all you like, I don't care either way.  

 

For me, the writing is on the wall.  

[Will27]

16 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm simply suggesting to members they should have a Plan B.

 

I hope it never happens, because I too will have to make some harsh financial decisions, but from what I read, new changes to the tax laws coming in put the

183 day rule front and center as the primary test.  What does that tell you?

 

I agree, and the Australian will welcome these consumers back into the Australian economy. even if it's for only 6 months of the year.

 

The ATO can't be seen taxing some people who are outside of Australia for 183 days, and giving a free pass to other people who are outside of Australia for

183 day a year.

 

How many others make their way to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok to vote?  

 

They will not be portrayed as vulnerable people.  They will be portrayed as people living the high life in Asia on the tax payers money.  

 

I hope it doesn't happen, but the new changes appear to rely heavily on the 183 day test.

 

Another member has already posted some links, here's another one.

 

 https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/

 

Quote:  "The proposed new rules are based on ‘bright lines’ and ‘objective factors’. The first proposed test is a 183 day test. A taxpayer will be a tax resident of Australia if they spend 183 days or more in Australia in an income year."

 

The 183 day test used to be secondary, now it primary.  Notice how the ATO sys if you are in Australia for 183 days you are a resident.  This tells me that if you are outside for 183 days, you are a non-resident.

 

Does it read differently to you?

 

They could do that, but what about those with income generating assets back in Australia, like a rental property and shares?  I guess it will cause some lifestyle changes.

 

I've put forward some links that show the changes.  

 

Let's be honest, many of us have been flying under the radar when in fact, we are non-residents for taxation purposes.  The source of the income is irrelevant to the ATO.  In my opinion, the clock was always ticking on this.  Perhaps the time is near.  

 

Can you post some links that support your opinion that nothing will change?  

If a law was introduced saying the OAP was exempt from tax, then it would not fall onto the ATO.

 

It is my opinion, nothing more that the ATO will not target pensioners and low income earners.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If a law was introduced saying the OAP was exempt from tax, then it would not fall onto the ATO.

 

It is my opinion, nothing more that the ATO will not target pensioners and low income earners.

 

 

Great.   What is the basis of your opinion?   Do you have a link showing this law to back up your opinion?  

 

Here's an example.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Australia and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Thailand and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well, however, the Immigration data base spits out a list of name of ALL Australians outside of Australia for 183 days and passes this list onto the ATO.

 

Some on this forum have the opinion that the Aussie working in London on big money in finance will get a "please explain" letter from the ATO, but the Aussie  aged pensioner living in Thailand will not.  Maybe that will be the case, but in my opinion, they will both get the letter from the ATO. 

 

Perhaps aged pensioner expats will be exempt, but how many of them rent a house out, have some superannuation, or shares.  Do you think these aged pensioners will get a free pass?   

 

Once again, I can't see the 183 day rule discriminating on age, geographic location, or amount of income, provided it's over $18,500AUD. 

 

Obviously, you see things differently, and that fine.  I really hope I am wrong on this, but only time will tell if I am.  

[RJRS1301]

17 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's simple.  Here's a link to the propose tax changes.

 

https://cgw.com.au/publication/tax-residency-changes-in-the-wind/

 

I couldn't care less if you have a Plan B, or not, but it appears likely the 183 day rule is set to be the primary residency test, and I doubt it will discriminate.  The whole idea is obviously to broaden the net.

 

You can continue to debate on this forum, and hope, pray, and beg the ATO all you like, I don't care either way.  

 

For me, the writing is on the wall.  

Your link is about tax changes, not forcing Grandma and pa to sell their homes.

The mooted changes to tax will make no difference to my disposable income at all, irrespective if I decide to remain here or return to Oz.

No income from government and my tax arrangements are legal, and if need be to adjust them, so be it. 

In fact a complete overhaul to the Tax laws all hundreds of volumes of them would be welcome, to make them more  equitable

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

No income from government and my tax arrangements are legal, and if need be to adjust them, so be it. 

So why are you posting on the pension thread?

 

I made a cross reference that basically forcing aged pensioners back to Australia MAY have an intended result of them selling up property and freeing up housing stock, so they can live in Thailand regardless of the 183 day rule.  It would be an intended benefit, not a policy.  

Edited March 17, 2022 by KhunHeineken

[ozfarang]

@KhunHeinekennone of this proposed legislation has been passed into law at present as fr as I know and there is an election in May '22 and the chance of Labor forming the next government is highly likely. 

 

Labor are against most of this legislation and if they form the next government it will  (the proposed legislation) will not be put to the house for a vote so there will be no changes to the current laws. 

 

I maybe wrong, but your thoughts.

[KhunHeineken]

3 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

@KhunHeinekennone of this proposed legislation has been passed into law at present as fr as I know and there is an election in May '22 and the chance of Labor forming the next government is highly likely. 

I agree.

 

3 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

Labor are against most of this legislation and if they form the next government it will  (the proposed legislation) will not be put to the house for a vote so there will be no changes to the current laws. 

Link please.  

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

So why are you posting on the pension thread?

 

I made a cross reference that basically forcing aged pensioners back to Australia MAY have an intended result of them selling up property and freeing up housing stock, so they can live in Thailand regardless of the 183 day rule.  It would be an intended benefit, not a policy.  

Scare tactics, not fact . It would also take a policy change, , changes to complex tax laws, so hypothesis on your part, nothing more.

It is an open forum, not only for those receiving government benefits

Unless of course you wish to restrict freedom of expression which does not agree with yours

 

[RJRS1301]

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Great.   What is the basis of your opinion?   Do you have a link showing this law to back up your opinion?  

 

Here's an example.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Australia and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Thailand and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well, however, the Immigration data base spits out a list of name of ALL Australians outside of Australia for 183 days and passes this list onto the ATO.

 

Some on this forum have the opinion that the Aussie working in London on big money in finance will get a "please explain" letter from the ATO, but the Aussie  aged pensioner living in Thailand will not.  Maybe that will be the case, but in my opinion, they will both get the letter from the ATO. 

 

Perhaps aged pensioner expats will be exempt, but how many of them rent a house out, have some superannuation, or shares.  Do you think these aged pensioners will get a free pass?   

 

Once again, I can't see the 183 day rule discriminating on age, geographic location, or amount of income, provided it's over $18,500AUD. 

 

Obviously, you see things differently, and that fine.  I really hope I am wrong on this, but only time will tell if I am.  

Centrelink and the ATO know within 7 days when one leaves the country, automatic exchange of information from DFAT on departure

[Olmate]

3 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

@KhunHeinekennone of this proposed legislation has been passed into law at present as fr as I know and there is an election in May '22 and the chance of Labor forming the next government is highly likely. 

 

Labor are against most of this legislation and if they form the next government it will  (the proposed legislation) will not be put to the house for a vote so there will be no changes to the current laws. 

 

I maybe wrong, but your thoughts.

Scott is.dead in the water. Flood debacle was his final fxxx up. Pensioners in rescue boats will have their say now.

[Will27]

18 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Great.   What is the basis of your opinion?   Do you have a link showing this law to back up your opinion?  

 

Here's an example.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Australia and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well.

 

Say there's a aged pensioner in Thailand and he gets his pension every fortnight and all is well, however, the Immigration data base spits out a list of name of ALL Australians outside of Australia for 183 days and passes this list onto the ATO.

 

Some on this forum have the opinion that the Aussie working in London on big money in finance will get a "please explain" letter from the ATO, but the Aussie  aged pensioner living in Thailand will not.  Maybe that will be the case, but in my opinion, they will both get the letter from the ATO. 

 

Perhaps aged pensioner expats will be exempt, but how many of them rent a house out, have some superannuation, or shares.  Do you think these aged pensioners will get a free pass?   

 

Once again, I can't see the 183 day rule discriminating on age, geographic location, or amount of income, provided it's over $18,500AUD. 

 

Obviously, you see things differently, and that fine.  I really hope I am wrong on this, but only time will tell if I am.  

My opinion is based on what I've read and think about the Government targeting pensioners.

I just don't think it will happen.

 

How can I show a link showing a law?

It is my opinion only, I've told you that several times.

There's is no law that backs up your opinion.

 

I've said several times, I don't think they will target pensioners or low income earners.

If a law is bought in, which I doubt, like I've said, the could impose an income threshold.

 

What has an income of $18 500 got to do with anything?

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

Scare tactics, not fact . It would also take a policy change, , changes to complex tax laws, so hypothesis on your part, nothing more.

It is an open forum, not only for those receiving government benefits

Unless of course you wish to restrict freedom of expression which does not agree with yours

 

You do understand that policy changes have outcomes, don't you? 

 

You do understand that tax rates play a big part in the actions of individuals and business, don't you?  

 

I have property in Australia.  I have said on this forum that if the ATO is going to tax my rental income at the non-resident tax rate, because I am outside of Australia for 183 days, then I will sell up and move the money to a Singapore bank account where the ATO and their 183 day rule can't touch it.

 

Another member said he would put his assets out of reach of the ATO.

 

How many others would do the same?  To liquidate property because it's no longer beneficial to keep it, tax wise, is nothing new.  It's purely a business decision.   

 

Expats choosing to do the same, would this not free up some house stock in Australia?

[KhunHeineken]

11 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Centrelink and the ATO know within 7 days when one leaves the country, automatic exchange of information from DFAT on departure

Like I said, easy targets.  

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

You do understand that policy changes have outcomes, don't you? 

 

You do understand that tax rates play a big part in the actions of individuals and business, don't you?  

 

I have property in Australia.  I have said on this forum that if the ATO is going to tax my rental income at the non-resident tax rate, because I am outside of Australia for 183 days, then I will sell up and move the money to a Singapore bank account where the ATO and their 183 day rule can't touch it.

 

Another member said he would put his assets out of reach of the ATO.

 

How many others would do the same?  To liquidate property because it's no longer beneficial to keep it, tax wise, is nothing new.  It's purely a business decision.   

 

Expats choosing to do the same, would this not free up some house stock in Australia?

Many of us do have property, shares, businesses and  trusts etc in Oz, however no tax change will "force" me to sell. 

Mind you with the increase in property prices rising in some areas where I have property, that may CONVINCE to me sell, after advice form my advisors

 

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, Will27 said:

My opinion is based on what I've read and think about the Government targeting pensioners.

Please post a link to what you have read.

 

I am not saying pensioners would be targeted.  I am saying they will be scooped up in the 183 day net, along with every other Australian who is overseas 183 day of the year.

 

8 minutes ago, Will27 said:

How can I show a link showing a law?

If you read it, you can link it.

 

As you honestly admit, it's all your own opinion.

 

I, and others, have posted links to the proposed tax changes.

 

In my opinion, the 183 day rule is cause for some concern.  If you are not at all concerned, that great, however, something more than "they would never do it" would be needed to alleviate my concern.

 

Some on this forum think the poor old expat pensioner will be untouched.  I hope that is right, but I would not be surprised if it turns out not to be the case.

 

14 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I've said several times, I don't think they will target pensioners or low income earners.

If a law is bought in, which I doubt, like I've said, the could impose an income threshold.

As I have said, several times, they would not be targeting pensioners, just scooping them up in the 183 day net.  There is a difference.

 

They could have an income threshold, but I have yet to see that proposed.

 

Again, I, and others, have posted links to the proposed changes.   That's all we know at this time.   

 

18 minutes ago, Will27 said:

What has an income of $18 500 got to do with anything?

Good point.  That's my error.  Once deemed a non-resident for tax purposes, I believe tax is paid from dollar number one, but I could be wrong on this.