Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

45 minutes ago, scorecard said:

You say "that may soon be changing ......."

 

Can you please share the source of your post. Thanks.

If you have read the last few pages of the thread, you would see a few members, including myself, have posted different links to the proposed changes.

 

Here's a link posted by member tlcwaterfall just a few posts back.

 

https://www.holdingredlich.com/current-issues-and-changes-to-individual-tax-residency-rules

 

In my opinion, it's this part that may see a lot of expats, including pensioners, scooped up.

 

"The proposed stage one test (being the primary test) is based on physical presence in Australia and will be a ‘bright line test’ – that is, a person who is physically present in Australia for 183 days or more in any income year will be an Australian tax resident."

 

The way it reads to me is, if you are outside of Australia for more than 183 days, you will then be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.  

[KhunHeineken]

49 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Might be time to transfer all bank funds out of Australia.

Selling property and shares, and moving the proceeds offshore is one option for those generating an income in Australia.

 

If a pension is deemed to be an income, and in all likelihood it will be, then pensioners are looking at around a 30% hit, which may see them have to spend 6 months a year in Australia, move back to Australia completely, or downgrade their lifestyle here.  

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Selling property and shares, and moving the proceeds offshore is one option for those generating an income in Australia.

 

If a pension is deemed to be an income, and in all likelihood it will be, then pensioners are looking at around a 30% hit, which may see them have to spend 6 months a year in Australia, move back to Australia completely, or downgrade their lifestyle here.  

Moving back for 6 months of the year at age 80 is no easy task, or for anyone over 65 for that matter. Where would I live, no property there, so stay in a hotel for 6 months?

Edited April 30, 2022 by giddyup

[KhunHeineken]

32 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I think you may be confusing centerlink pension resident and ATO tax resident. The 183 day is to do with pensions, not tax resident. I haven't been back for 3 years, but ATO test still says I am a tax resident.

As I have said in several posts, that test could be changing.  Proposed changes have been put forward, and like any other change a government passes, it's designed to make them more money, not less money.

 

There are several links to the changes in the last few pages.  I have just reposted one of the links for the benefit of another member.

 

It puts the 183 days inside or outside of Australia as the primary test.  That's pretty black and white and easy for the government to prove because it's linked to immigration's data base. 

 

The only question is will the Australian pension be exempt, or will it be deemed "income" and taxed at non resident rates.    

[scorecard]

5 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Moving back for 6 months of the year at age 80 is no easy task, or for anyone over 65 for that matter. Where would I live, no property there, so stay in a hotel for 6 months?

Or rent an apartment and perhaps receive rent assistance etc. If true, govt get tax money but it's paid out in allowances.

 

And all of this puts the pension thru unnecessary grief.

[KhunHeineken]

11 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Moving back for 6 months of the year at age 80 is no easy task, or for anyone over 65 for that matter. Where would I live, no property there, so stay in a hotel for 6 months?

This is the decision many may soon be facing.  I would think a downgrade of lifestyle in Thailand would still be an upgrade on lifestyle in Australia, but the cost of living in Thailand is increasing as well.

 

Perhaps for some the answer maybe a move to a cheaper country like Cambodia. 

 

  

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Or rent an apartment and perhaps receive rent assistance etc. If true, govt get tax money but it's paid out in allowances.

 

And all of this puts the pension thru unnecessary grief.

Caravan park is another cheap option.

 

The government knows it either saves 30% of pension payments to those living overseas, or this brings many of them back for at least 6 months of the year, and all their pension money is circulating in the Australian economy where it creates employment, which creates more income tax, not to mention GST on purchases by the pensioner, fuel taxes etc.  

 

It's a win win for the government, and they couldn't care less about the pensioner.  

[giddyup]

16 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

This is the decision many may soon be facing.  I would think a downgrade of lifestyle in Thailand would still be an upgrade on lifestyle in Australia, but the cost of living in Thailand is increasing as well.

 

Perhaps for some the answer maybe a move to a cheaper country like Cambodia. 

 

  

As long as I can keep getting permission to stay in Thailand there is no way I would be moving back to Australia or anywhere else at my age.

[giddyup]

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Caravan park is another cheap option.

 

The government knows it either saves 30% of pension payments to those living overseas, or this brings many of them back for at least 6 months of the year, and all their pension money is circulating in the Australian economy where it creates employment, which creates more income tax, not to mention GST on purchases by the pensioner, fuel taxes etc.  

 

It's a win win for the government, and they couldn't care less about the pensioner.  

It may work for some, depending on their age, but would they really expect an 80 or 90 year old in a wheelchair to be moving back and forwards. They could stop my pension totally but I still would be able to survive here for my remaining days.

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:37 PM, giddyup said:

As long as I can keep getting permission to stay in Thailand there is no way I would be moving back to Australia or anywhere else at my age.

The Australian government thanks you for your 30%.  ????  

Edited May 2, 2022 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:40 PM, giddyup said:

It may work for some, depending on their age, but would they really expect an 80 or 90 year old in a wheelchair to be moving back and forwards. They could stop my pension totally but I still would be able to survive here for my remaining days.

The Australian government couldn't care less about you.  They care only about the money.  

 

If / when these changes are passed, it's a win win for them.  If you stay in Thailand, they save around 30% in pension payments.  If you move back to Australia, your pension money is circulating in the Australian economy.  

 

This is just for pensioners, but I think the changes are really targeting expats that are generating an income in Australia through rental properties, shares, businesses, for example, and living overseas in places like Thailand.  

 

We, and I am one of them, have been able to fly under the radar for a long time.  The 183 day rule is black and white.  No radar to fly under.  That's why I think this law will pass, and it loses no votes because expats don't make their way to the Embassy every election day. 

 

The big money is not in the pensioners, but I think they will be scooped up in the net.    

[giddyup]

23 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

The Australian government thanks you for your 30%.  ????  

Not yet they don't.

[Lacessit]

15 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Not yet they don't.

30% of what? Starting to tax the OAP would be an electoral gift to Labor.

[KhunHeineken]

20 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Not yet they don't.

Let's hope never.

[KhunHeineken]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

30% of what? Starting to tax the OAP would be an electoral gift to Labor.

As posted before, if the pension is deemed to be an "income" and the pensioner is outside of Australia for more than 183 days in a calendar / financial year, then it will most likely be taxed at non resident rates, being around 30% from dollar number one, no tax free threshold.  Considering it's the Australian government who pays the pension, they will just pay around 30% less a fortnight.  They motivation for this law is to either save the government 30% on pensions being send abroad, or force the pensioners home and have their money benefiting the Australian economy, not a foreign country's economy.  Something I am sure tax payers in Australia would cheer about.   

 

I don't see the argument of a voter backlash or gift to Labor.  Firstly, these proposed changes will most likely be passed post election.  I wouldn't expect to to have to deal with them until 2022.  Secondly, how many expats go to the Embassies in various capital cities around the world and vote come election time?  I know I never have.   No votes lost from the people it effects the most.  

[Will27]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As posted before, if the pension is deemed to be an "income" and the pensioner is outside of Australia for more than 183 days in a calendar / financial year, then it will most likely be taxed at non resident rates, being around 30% from dollar number one, no tax free threshold.  Considering it's the Australian government who pays the pension, they will just pay around 30% less a fortnight.  They motivation for this law is to either save the government 30% on pensions being send abroad, or force the pensioners home and have their money benefiting the Australian economy, not a foreign country's economy.  Something I am sure tax payers in Australia would cheer about.   

 

I don't see the argument of a voter backlash or gift to Labor.  Firstly, these proposed changes will most likely be passed post election.  I wouldn't expect to to have to deal with them until 2022.  Secondly, how many expats go to the Embassies in various capital cities around the world and vote come election time?  I know I never have.   No votes lost from the people it effects the most.  

No matter how many times you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

 

The government cannot reduce your pension by 30% at all.

They have to pay you the standard pension that you're entitled to.

 

If you're deemed to be a non-resident by the ATO, they will tax you accordingly.

You're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

 

If you don't think there will be a backlash when the headlines read " Government slashes income

for our most vulnerable", "Pensioner kills himself as new tax laws would've forced him to leave his family and return to Oz", etc.

 

You've got your head in the sand.

[KhunHeineken]

16 minutes ago, Will27 said:

No matter how many times you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

I hope it never happens, but proposed changes have been put forward.  Who in government is going to vote against them when they are such a good money maker and lose no votes?

 

Did you go to the Embassy in Bangkok and vote in the last election?  

 

16 minutes ago, Will27 said:

The government cannot reduce your pension by 30% at all.

They have to pay you the standard pension that you're entitled to.

 

If you're deemed to be a non-resident by the ATO, they will tax you accordingly.

You're just making stuff up to suit your argument.

Huh?

 

You say they can't reduce the pension by 30% but can tax the pension accordingly, which for a non resident for taxation purposes, is around 30%.  Haven't you just agreed with the point I am making?

 

Have you read the proposed changes?  Why do you think they will not come in?  Why do you think expat pensions will be exempt?  What about those expats that rent out a house or have some supplementary income from shares and the like?  All of that will be taxed at non resident rates. 

 

16 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If you don't think there will be a backlash when the headlines read " Government slashes income

for our most vulnerable", "Pensioner kills himself as new tax laws would've forced him to leave his family and return to Oz", etc.

 

You've got your head in the sand.

They will not be portrayed as vulnerable.  They will be portrayed as having a better lifestyle on the Aussie tax payers money.

 

What about the headline, "Aussie pensioners living the high life in Thailand on your tax payer dollars."     Nothing like a bit jealousy to gain support for taxing overseas pensions.

 

What about the headline, "Aussie tax payers supporting foreign economies."  Should gain a bit of patriotism and racism in support for the changes.

 

If you think the Australian government, or the tax payers in Australia, care about expat pensioners living abroad, then it's you who has your in the sand.   

Edited May 2, 2022 by KhunHeineken

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

Not yet they don't.

In a much broader comment, I wonder about the several recent posts from a couple of members re pensions being taxed (E.g. 30%).

 

Why has this suddenly come up again for discussion? Is there a specific reason or just a couple of people who like to frighten old people?

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by scorecard

[giddyup]

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I hope it never happens, but proposed changes have been put forward.  Who in government is going to vote against them when they are such a good money maker and lose no votes?

 

Did you go to the Embassy in Bangkok and vote in the last election?  

 

Huh?

 

You say they can't reduce the pension by 30% but can tax the pension accordingly, which for a non resident for taxation purposes, is around 30%.  Haven't you just agreed with the point I am making?

 

Have you read the proposed changes?  Why do you think they will not come in?  Why do you think expat pensions will be exempt?  What about those expats that rent out a house or have some supplementary income from shares and the like?  All of that will be taxed at non resident rates. 

 

They will not be portrayed as vulnerable.  They will be portrayed as having a better lifestyle on the Aussie tax payers money.

 

What about the headline, "Aussie pensioners living the high life in Thailand on your tax payer dollars."     Nothing like a bit jealousy to gain support for taxing overseas pensions.

 

What about the headline, "Aussie tax payers supporting foreign economies."  Should gain a bit of patriotism and racism in support for the changes.

 

If you think the Australian government, or the tax payers in Australia, care about expat pensioners living abroad, then it's you who has your in the sand.   

"What about the headline, "Aussie tax payers supporting foreign economies."  Should gain a bit of patriotism and racism in support for the changes".

 

Was that comment directed at people on aged pensions or those collecting disability pensions?

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, giddyup said:

"What about the headline, "Aussie tax payers supporting foreign economies."  Should gain a bit of patriotism and racism in support for the changes".

 

Was that comment directed at people on aged pensions or those collecting disability pensions?

That comment was directed at the member who thinks the Aussie tax payer would be outraged by the taxing of pensions being sent overseas.  

 

I would say there would be more support for taxing overseas pensions than outrage. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by KhunHeineken

[giddyup]

12 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

That comment was directed at the member who thinks the Aussie tax payer would be outraged by the taxing of pensions being sent overseas.  

 

I would say there would be more support for taxing overseas pensions and outrage. 

 

 

No, I mean who was that headline directed at? From your rhetoric it seems you might be in support of taxing overseas pensions. Every time an Aussie travels overseas (approx 10 million a year prior Covid) they are supporting foreign economies aren't they? What are they going to do ban travel?

Edited May 2, 2022 by giddyup

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, giddyup said:

No, I mean who was that headline directed at? From your rhetoric it seems you might be in support of taxing overseas pensions.

I'm against the 183 day rule because it effects me.  I will have some big decisions to make if / when it comes in.  

 

In my opinion, it will come in.  Will pensions going overseas be exempt, or still classed as "income" derived in Australia, who knows?  

 

The headline was to go the opposite way to the other member's headline that was suggesting there would be a backlash against taxing overseas pensions.  

 

Do you think it would be a hard sell to the Australian public if the government showed tax payer dollars supporting a foreign country's economy, and not the Australian economy?  I think it was gain support, not backlash.  As posted, there are jealous, patriotic, and racist people in the Australian population.    

 

Once again, I think the 183 day rule will come in.  Whether or not pensions will come under the rule, we'll have to wait and see, but there's nothing wrong with preparing for it.  

[KhunHeineken]

Just came across this in another thread.  It's not Aussie related, but just goes to show the contempt another government has for its pensioners living abroad.

 

 

 

 

Why would the Australian government think any differently? 

[giddyup]

27 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm against the 183 day rule because it effects me.  I will have some big decisions to make if / when it comes in.  

 

In my opinion, it will come in.  Will pensions going overseas be exempt, or still classed as "income" derived in Australia, who knows?  

 

The headline was to go the opposite way to the other member's headline that was suggesting there would be a backlash against taxing overseas pensions.  

 

Do you think it would be a hard sell to the Australian public if the government showed tax payer dollars supporting a foreign country's economy, and not the Australian economy?  I think it was gain support, not backlash.  As posted, there are jealous, patriotic, and racist people in the Australian population.    

 

Once again, I think the 183 day rule will come in.  Whether or not pensions will come under the rule, we'll have to wait and see, but there's nothing wrong with preparing for it.  

10 million Aussies travel overseas every year, I imagine their money is being spent in other countries. Perhaps they should ban travel as well.

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, giddyup said:

10 million Aussies travel overseas every year, I imagine their money is being spent in other countries. Perhaps they should ban travel as well.

That would be their savings they are spending, nothing the government can do about that.  The pension on the other hand, that's a different story.  The government controls that money.  

[KhunHeineken]

Here's an interesting article.  This account seems to say the changes are already through.  The changes may already have been passed.  

 

https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/

 

Quote:

"Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency.

 

The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes."

 

 

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

That would be their savings they are spending, nothing the government can do about that.  The pension on the other hand, that's a different story.  The government controls that money.  

There are approx. 100,000 Aussie pensioners living abroad, a drop in the ocean in terms of government spending.  

[scorecard]

49 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm against the 183 day rule because it effects me.  I will have some big decisions to make if / when it comes in.  

 

In my opinion, it will come in.  Will pensions going overseas be exempt, or still classed as "income" derived in Australia, who knows?  

 

The headline was to go the opposite way to the other member's headline that was suggesting there would be a backlash against taxing overseas pensions.  

 

Do you think it would be a hard sell to the Australian public if the government showed tax payer dollars supporting a foreign country's economy, and not the Australian economy?  I think it was gain support, not backlash.  As posted, there are jealous, patriotic, and racist people in the Australian population.    

 

Once again, I think the 183 day rule will come in.  Whether or not pensions will come under the rule, we'll have to wait and see, but there's nothing wrong with preparing for it.  

QUOTE:  "Do you think it would be a hard sell to the Australian public if the government showed tax payer dollars supporting a foreign country's economy..."

 

I wonder how many total dollars this is (per annum), compared to all spending by pensioners resident in Australia?  

 

Someone here is going to react quickly with 'HUGE', which I doubt is true.

 

There's still the argument that penioners should be free to spend their pension money as they please. Many have contributed a lot to the building of Australia for a lifetime.

 

There's also the argument whether folks who are on the DVA Service Pension (especially war veterans) and now living abroad, should be subject to the resident/non-resident arguments.

 

There's also cases where older Australians live abroad because they need care and support and they have no family left in Australia (me), but do have family abroad who want to take care of them. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by scorecard

[deej]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Here's an interesting article.  This account seems to say the changes are already through.  The changes may already have been passed.  

 

https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/

 

Quote:

"Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency.

 

The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes."

 

 

Mission Impossible.

Beside,s, sadly you are becoming a broken record  player on this topic????

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

QUOTE:  "Do you think it would be a hard sell to the Australian public if the government showed tax payer dollars supporting a foreign country's economy..."

 

I wonder how many total dollars this is (per annum), compared to all spending by pensioners resident in Australia?  

 

Someone here is going to react quickly with 'HUGE', which I doubt is true.

 

There's still the argument that penioners should be free to spend their pension money as they please. Many have contributed a lot to the building of Australia for a lifetime.

 

There's also the argument whether folks who are on the DVA Service Pension (especially war veterans) and now living abroad, should be subject to the resident/non-resident arguments.

 

There's also cases where older Australians live abroad because they need care and support and they have no family left in Australia (me), but do have family abroad who want to take care of them. 

True, we are not spending our pensions in the Australian economy. If there are proponents of taxing pensions of people living overseas, they conveniently forget we don't cost anything in rent assistance, the PBS, telephone and energy supplements etc. We don't get the sweeteners handed out by politicians hoping to keep us onside. We don't take up space at Centrelink offices, and we are zero burden on the Australian health system.