Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

Just now, giddyup said:

Same assets, just different location.

Maybe I misunderstood. 

 

I was under the impression you either did not qualify for a pension, or would receive a reduced pension, due to having significant savings in a bank.  You then moved all of that money to Thailand and cried poor to Centrelink and was granted a pension, or a larger pension. 

 

If I am wrong, what was the purpose of moving all your money to Thailand?  

 

If I am right, what consequences do you think there will be if / when they catch up with you? 

 

 

[giddyup]

49 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Maybe I misunderstood. 

 

I was under the impression you either did not qualify for a pension, or would receive a reduced pension, due to having significant savings in a bank.  You then moved all of that money to Thailand and cried poor to Centrelink and was granted a pension, or a larger pension. 

 

If I am wrong, what was the purpose of moving all your money to Thailand?  

 

If I am right, what consequences do you think there will be if / when they catch up with you? 

 

 

I receive a part aged pension due to getting a pension from Comsuper, C'link also deem interest on money invested, which causes a further reduction in pension. I transferred all money from Australia to simplify my Thai partner getting access to the money when I die. It could take months or even years for her to get that money from Oz even though a will was in place. So now it's spread over several joint accounts here.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I, and a few other members, posted links to the proposed changes on how the government may be deeming who is a resident, and who is a non resident for taxation purposes in the future.  The main part of the proposed changes was being inside, or outside of Australia for 183 days a year.  Indeed, they called this the "bright line test" meaning to me it will hold significant weight upon how an individual will be classified.

 

The effect of these changes, if they come in, will not differentiate between a billionaire, millionaire, and a pensioner.  All three have a name, date of birth, and a passport number, and have been outside of Australia for more than 183 days, as shown in immigration records.  Everything will be handled by a computer data base. 

 

Will they make an exemption for pensioners, maybe, maybe not?  Let's hope they do. 

 

The proposed changes were put forward by the Liberals, does it really matter if the changes come in when they are next in power?  Relying on Labor for the next few years is only a buying some time to come up with a plan.  

 

As I have said in previous posts, don't expect pensioners back in Australia to care, because it doesn't effect them one bit, and don't expect the government to be worried about losing votes, because how many expats make their way to an Australian Embassy at election time, so no votes lost on this policy. 

 

Non resident taxation, and their high rates, have been around for years.  Nothing new about this taxation policy.  What is new, if these changes come in, is the grey area that many, including myself, have been able to skirt around and still claim to be a resident for taxation purposes will be replaced by the 183 day law, and there's no getting around that, because you are either in, or out of the country for 183 day, and this is recorded by immigration. 

 

Once again, these proposed changes do not target pensioners, they are clearly designed to scoop up everyone.  Expat pensioners may just be collateral  damage.

 

Yes, but as I said in another post, who really cares whether the government administers the new changes, or a private company. 

 

If it becomes law, there will be no difference between the two.  It's not like the government will show any mercy.  The law is the law.

 

This goes to the heart of the matter.

 

Say you retire and take your super as a monthly payment.  You leave Australia and live in Thailand.  Is that monthly payment an "income" under the law?  If so, and you are outside of Australia for 183 days, how to you propose to argue that your monthly payment should not be taxed at non resident rates?

 

It's money "earned" in Australia, and you live overseas. 

I think I posted this once before but I think there are broader political implications of taxing the pension for those relying on it e.g. upsetting the lebanese, chinese, greek, italian, etc community if such a policy became law. Not politically popular. Imagine 1000's of Australians living off the age pension having to come home - if it became a thing there would surely be an exemption for existing expats. For fairness. No reason for concern in my opinion. 

The broader non-resident rules are a bit unclear sometimes. Talking to actual staff in that area the focus seems to be on the opposite - making sure say some earning income overseas are treated as residents if appropriate.

See what happens but can we concur that pensions cuts for those living off the age pension in Thailand is a remote possibility. 

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

I thought answering time was supposed to be a matter of seconds?

That's my experienc. In the time I was back in OZ I called 132 300 many times to ensure I had the right understanding on many points. Always answered very promptly. My longest wait time perhaps 15 seconds (just guessing).

 

Seems that many posters have a very negative view re Centrelink and I understand in the past there were issues.

 

But my experience from the first visit to a C.link suburban office to creat a CRN (Centrelink Reference Number) and to complete proof of identity were fast and pleasant and the staff always polite and helpful. 

 

The pleasant lady asked me 'is the big file (that I had put on the desk) your OAP application and the Assets and Income statement?'

I said 'yes'.

She resonded politely:

- Do you know that OAP applications are not processed in suburban offices, they all go direct to Canberra for computerised processing. 

- She continued; you can send your completed OAP application by mail to Canberra or if you wish I can scan it direct into the Centrelink central OAP application file right here / right now.

- She also confirmed that nowadays OAP applications are 99% processed by the C'link Canberra computers.

- She then asked 'would you like me to have a quick look at your completed application'. I said 'yes please'.

- She checked every question carefully one by one, then said, 'It's complete and I can't see any items which could cause any confuion or delay, it just needs your signature and if you wish I can put it in the multi function scanning machine (near her desk) and send it to Canberra right now'.

 

Two minutes later all done and she copied a receipt from the scanner and stapled it to the first page.

 

Seventeen (yes 17) days later I got a polite phone call from Canberra to tell me 'your OAP is all approved'.

 

The young man asked me to get a paper and pencil and he carefully gave me the main details step by step, then said 'you will get a letter by speial delivery sometime tomorrow to explain all these details and the back payment and first payment will be deposited in your XXX bank account by closing time tomorrow.

 

The letter arrived the next morning and the funds were deposited mid afternnon that day. (I kept my OZ internet banking open and monitored it every few minutes). 

 

I well realize some members will claim ""BULLXXXX, IT TAKES 3 TO 5 MONTHS ETC., ETC., GET APPROVED"".

 

My eperience was as I described above. And I never experienced 90 minute telephone wait times, perhaps this experience goes back to decades ago?   

 

 

[scorecard]

38 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think I posted this once before but I think there are broader political implications of taxing the pension for those relying on it e.g. upsetting the lebanese, chinese, greek, italian, etc community if such a policy became law. Not politically popular. Imagine 1000's of Australians living off the age pension having to come home - if it became a thing there would surely be an exemption for existing expats. For fairness. No reason for concern in my opinion. 

The broader non-resident rules are a bit unclear sometimes. Talking to actual staff in that area the focus seems to be on the opposite - making sure say some earning income overseas are treated as residents if appropriate.

See what happens but can we concur that pensions cuts for those living off the age pension in Thailand is a remote possibility. 

All agreed. Seems to me there's less than a 1 in a million chance a labour or a liberal government will make cuts to the OAP and similar allowances and same chance they will ever impose any new taxes of Pensions except perhaps changed to limits on income / assets etc., (right now of course pension payments are exempt from taxation).

[ripstanley]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

There is no way to show online where the money has gone or why. Certainly never gave SCB details.

If cetrelink have access to Austrac reports they will be able to see it was transferred to your name and SCB bank Thailand. All electronic transfers are recorded in Austrac. It is a requirement by law.

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, ripstanley said:

If cetrelink have access to Austrac reports they will be able to see it was transferred to your name and SCB bank Thailand. All electronic transfers are recorded in Austrac. It is a requirement by law.

Good luck to them. I'm not hiding anything or asking for more money.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

15 minutes ago, scorecard said:

All agreed. Seems to me there's less than a 1 in a million chance a labour or a liberal government will make cuts to the OAP and similar allowances and same chance they will ever impose any new taxes of Pensions except perhaps changed to limits on income / assets etc., (right now of course pension payments are exempt from taxation).

I concur on the residency thing and effect on age pensions. 

The Age Pension and other pension payments are taxable now though, but for most who receive it it is within the limits, so that no tax is paid. 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

I receive a part aged pension due to getting a pension from Comsuper, C'link also deem interest on money invested, which causes a further reduction in pension. I transferred all money from Australia to simplify my Thai partner getting access to the money when I die. It could take months or even years for her to get that money from Oz even though a will was in place. So now it's spread over several joint accounts here.

Understood. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think I posted this once before but I think there are broader political implications of taxing the pension for those relying on it e.g. upsetting the lebanese, chinese, greek, italian, etc community if such a policy became law. Not politically popular.

How many of these people make their way to an Australian Embassy to vote at election time?  I have never voted at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. 

 

So, whilst not being a popular policy with expats, how many votes do they lose?  Close to zero. 

 

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Imagine 1000's of Australians living off the age pension having to come home

This is another incentive for them to no exempt pensions from non resident taxation.  Think of the billions of dollars returning back into the Australian economy, and the jobs it creates. 

 

You see it as a negative, but it's actually a financial plus for the government to indirectly force pensioners home.  They want to see the Australian tax payer's money circulating in the Australian economy, not circulating around another country's economy.  

 

They give you a pension, and they get some of it back in GST, excise, council rates etc etc, and also income tax from the jobs created.  They give you that pension and you are overseas, they get back zero.

 

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The broader non-resident rules are a bit unclear sometimes. Talking to actual staff in that area the focus seems to be on the opposite - making sure say some earning income overseas are treated as residents if appropriate.

See what happens but can we concur that pensions cuts for those living off the age pension in Thailand is a remote possibility. 

Yes, they are unclear, but will become very clear if the new changes come in.  183 days inside Australia, you are a resident.  183 days outside of Australia, you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

Once again, you are using words like "pension cut."  I have said, these changes do not target pensioners.  They target everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia.  They may exempt pensions, they may not, but people living outside of Australia will be deemed non residents for taxation purposes and there will be no way to get around that. 

 

The question simply is, will pensions be exempt?  There is nothing in the proposed changes saying they will be, so I would put it a little higher than "remote." 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

All agreed. Seems to me there's less than a 1 in a million chance a labour or a liberal government will make cuts to the OAP and similar allowances and same chance they will ever impose any new taxes of Pensions except perhaps changed to limits on income / assets etc., (right now of course pension payments are exempt from taxation).

It's not about cuts to the pension.  It's about you deriving an income, yes, the pension is an income, from Australia, and your geographic location.

 

You say there is a 1 in a million chance the government will cut pensions, but if / when these changes come in, there is a 100% chance you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes if outside of Australia for 183 days.

 

Do you see the issue?

 

Pension = income.

 

Outside Australia 183 days = non resident for taxation purposes.

 

Exemption = maybe, maybe not. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The Age Pension and other pension payments are taxable now though, but for most who receive it it is within the limits, so that no tax is paid. 

It's taxable because it is deemed to be an income. 

 

Why do you think it will not be taxable at non resident rates, if outside of Australian for 183 days? 

[scorecard]

26 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

How many of these people make their way to an Australian Embassy to vote at election time?  I have never voted at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. 

 

So, whilst not being a popular policy with expats, how many votes do they lose?  Close to zero. 

 

This is another incentive for them to no exempt pensions from non resident taxation.  Think of the billions of dollars returning back into the Australian economy, and the jobs it creates. 

 

You see it as a negative, but it's actually a financial plus for the government to indirectly force pensioners home.  They want to see the Australian tax payer's money circulating in the Australian economy, not circulating around another country's economy.  

 

They give you a pension, and they get some of it back in GST, excise, council rates etc etc, and also income tax from the jobs created.  They give you that pension and you are overseas, they get back zero.

 

Yes, they are unclear, but will become very clear if the new changes come in.  183 days inside Australia, you are a resident.  183 days outside of Australia, you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

Once again, you are using words like "pension cut."  I have said, these changes do not target pensioners.  They target everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia.  They may exempt pensions, they may not, but people living outside of Australia will be deemed non residents for taxation purposes and there will be no way to get around that. 

 

The question simply is, will pensions be exempt?  There is nothing in the proposed changes saying they will be, so I would put it a little higher than "remote." 

And as usual you will invent a negative to stir people up. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

44 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

How many of these people make their way to an Australian Embassy to vote at election time?  I have never voted at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. 

 

So, whilst not being a popular policy with expats, how many votes do they lose?  Close to zero. 

 

This is another incentive for them to no exempt pensions from non resident taxation.  Think of the billions of dollars returning back into the Australian economy, and the jobs it creates. 

 

You see it as a negative, but it's actually a financial plus for the government to indirectly force pensioners home.  They want to see the Australian tax payer's money circulating in the Australian economy, not circulating around another country's economy.  

 

They give you a pension, and they get some of it back in GST, excise, council rates etc etc, and also income tax from the jobs created.  They give you that pension and you are overseas, they get back zero.

 

Yes, they are unclear, but will become very clear if the new changes come in.  183 days inside Australia, you are a resident.  183 days outside of Australia, you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

Once again, you are using words like "pension cut."  I have said, these changes do not target pensioners.  They target everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia.  They may exempt pensions, they may not, but people living outside of Australia will be deemed non residents for taxation purposes and there will be no way to get around that. 

 

The question simply is, will pensions be exempt?  There is nothing in the proposed changes saying they will be, so I would put it a little higher than "remote." 

Feel like I'm repeating myself a bit but one last post. Takes 3 steps to apply to current expats.

1.  183 day rule is possible but at this time far from probable as neither party is taking or proposing such action. The Liberals had a long time to bring it in but did not. Labour is even less likely. Big difference between policy options and policy. After the 2019 election, which Labour lost likely due to interesting but controversial policies, parties are less likely than ever to have such policies. 

2 If it became law it is not likely to apply to age pensioners who are living off mainly the age pension in my opinion. Commenting on your comment, it is not about expats voting overseas only but the community of people born overseas in Australia who have relatives or friends who are expats, whom they may have to help and support, or those who look forward to the option of retiring overseas in the future. As such, and on the basis of a perception of fairness, I don't think it would happen.

3  If it did it would not likely apply to current expats as clearly not fair. Beyond fairness consider the lack of available housing at reasonable rates as one example, and the possible effect on the health system as a second, and for a range of other reasons, it would not be practical or politically sensible to tax those pensions at non resident rates, and have a potential mass return to our shores. Save a bit on the extras expats don't get too. 

So by the time you get to current expats the statistical likelihood of this happening, and it applying to them, is in my opinion remote. But if you disagree that's fine. 

[Lacessit]

11 hours ago, scorecard said:

30 January 2023?

 

And wait time was 90 minutes?

Yes to both questions.

[Lacessit]

10 hours ago, giddyup said:

I receive a part aged pension due to getting a pension from Comsuper, C'link also deem interest on money invested, which causes a further reduction in pension. I transferred all money from Australia to simplify my Thai partner getting access to the money when I die. It could take months or even years for her to get that money from Oz even though a will was in place. So now it's spread over several joint accounts here.

The balance of any bank account in Thailand is part of a pensioner's  asset base, which is required to be reported to Centrelink by law.

I have three Thai bank accounts, and report the balances to Centrelink when I am in Australia.

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, scorecard said:

That's my experienc. In the time I was back in OZ I called 132 300 many times to ensure I had the right understanding on many points. Always answered very promptly. My longest wait time perhaps 15 seconds (just guessing).

 

Seems that many posters have a very negative view re Centrelink and I understand in the past there were issues.

 

But my experience from the first visit to a C.link suburban office to creat a CRN (Centrelink Reference Number) and to complete proof of identity were fast and pleasant and the staff always polite and helpful. 

 

The pleasant lady asked me 'is the big file (that I had put on the desk) your OAP application and the Assets and Income statement?'

I said 'yes'.

She resonded politely:

- Do you know that OAP applications are not processed in suburban offices, they all go direct to Canberra for computerised processing. 

- She continued; you can send your completed OAP application by mail to Canberra or if you wish I can scan it direct into the Centrelink central OAP application file right here / right now.

- She also confirmed that nowadays OAP applications are 99% processed by the C'link Canberra computers.

- She then asked 'would you like me to have a quick look at your completed application'. I said 'yes please'.

- She checked every question carefully one by one, then said, 'It's complete and I can't see any items which could cause any confuion or delay, it just needs your signature and if you wish I can put it in the multi function scanning machine (near her desk) and send it to Canberra right now'.

 

Two minutes later all done and she copied a receipt from the scanner and stapled it to the first page.

 

Seventeen (yes 17) days later I got a polite phone call from Canberra to tell me 'your OAP is all approved'.

 

The young man asked me to get a paper and pencil and he carefully gave me the main details step by step, then said 'you will get a letter by speial delivery sometime tomorrow to explain all these details and the back payment and first payment will be deposited in your XXX bank account by closing time tomorrow.

 

The letter arrived the next morning and the funds were deposited mid afternnon that day. (I kept my OZ internet banking open and monitored it every few minutes). 

 

I well realize some members will claim ""BULLXXXX, IT TAKES 3 TO 5 MONTHS ETC., ETC., GET APPROVED"".

 

My eperience was as I described above. And I never experienced 90 minute telephone wait times, perhaps this experience goes back to decades ago?   

 

 

How long ago did this miracle occur?

Based on my recent experience, I have to take your claim of a response time of 15 seconds on the phone (132 300 ) with a truckload of salt.

[scorecard]

39 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

How long ago did this miracle occur?

Based on my recent experience, I have to take your claim of a response time of 15 seconds on the phone (132 300 ) with a truckload of salt.

Yes miracles do happen, and things do change.

Nov 2019 to Jan 2022. 

[Lacessit]

31 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Yes miracles do happen, and things do change.

Nov 2019 to Jan 2022. 

The changes I see are in access ( walk-ins no longer accepted ) and organization. The office I normally go to had Centrelink and Medicare under the one roof. Now I have to travel an extra 8 km to get to a Medicare office. Wait times on the phone, of course.

According to my pharmacist, the PBS is now only paid on the first prescription - repeats are charged at the regular price. Which means I have to make a doctor's appointment once a month to get subsidized medicine.

Example: I take finasteride. PBS price $7.30, retail $28. If I go to a doctor who bulk bills, I am wasting his/her time, and taxpayer's money. In a private practice, the consultation will cost about $50 after the Medicare rebate, more waste. Doctors are abandoning bulk billing in droves.

I don't know who dreams this kind of BS up, but IMO they belong on a dole queue.

[Artisi]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The changes I see are in access ( walk-ins no longer accepted ) and organization. The office I normally go to had Centrelink and Medicare under the one roof. Now I have to travel an extra 8 km to get to a Medicare office. Wait times on the phone, of course.

According to my pharmacist, the PBS is now only paid on the first prescription - repeats are charged at the regular price. Which means I have to make a doctor's appointment once a month to get subsidized medicine.

Example: I take finasteride. PBS price $7.30, retail $28. If I go to a doctor who bulk bills, I am wasting his/her time, and taxpayer's money. In a private practice, the consultation will cost about $50 after the Medicare rebate, more waste. Doctors are abandoning bulk billing in droves.

I don't know who dreams this kind of BS up, but IMO they belong on a dole queue.

Never had any problem with repeat prescriptions being charged at the PBS rate. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

Never had any problem with repeat prescriptions being charged at the PBS rate. 

I will be trying a different pharmacy to see if the response is the same. If not, I will be reporting a potential scam.

[Artisi]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I will be trying a different pharmacy to see if the response is the same. If not, I will be reporting a potential scam.

If you ask for more than 1 repeat to be supplied each time, then the PBS rate is not applied - unless your Dr authorises it. The pharmacy I use will normally supply an extra 1 if you tell them your going on holidays or similar reason. 

[Will27]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

How long ago did this miracle occur?

Based on my recent experience, I have to take your claim of a response time of 15 seconds on the phone (132 300 ) with a truckload of salt.

I'm not sure if these departments fall under the same umbrella or not.

I'm not on a pension.

 

But I had to call Medicare last week and hung up after waiting for an hour.

Got through the following day after waiting nearly 30 minutes.

[KhunHeineken]

13 hours ago, scorecard said:

And as usual you will invent a negative to stir people up. 

What negative have I invented, Scorecard?   I didn't know there was any positive to paying tax.

 

You have seen the proposed changes.  They are very clear, with the 183 day in / out rule.  I didn't invent them. 

 

They are simple to understand.  Aussie citizen outside of Australia for 183 days is deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.  Does that Aussie citizen derive an income from Australia, if yes, taxed at non resident tax rates.  Is a pension an income derived in Australia, yes.  Will pensions be exempt, maybe, maybe not. 

 

What part of the below do you dispute?

 

Are you an Aussie citizen?  Yes.

 

Do you live in Thailand? Yes.

 

Do you derive an income (pension) from Australia?  Yes.

 

Are pensions exempt?  Unknown.

 

Some suggest the government wouldn't tax pensioners at not resident rates because of a backlash.  I have suggested such a backlash would cost close to zero votes.

 

I have never made my way to the Australian Embassy to cast a vote, have you?  If we took a poll of members on this thread and asked them the same question, how many would say they have ever voted at an Australian Embassy?

 

No doubt they will upset pensioners if pensions are not exempt, but it will cost them no votes, so why would they care? 

 

It's a no brainer for government.  Save billions of dollars in Centrelink funds, for costing zero votes.  What government wouldn't take that deal? 

 

 

[Will27]

17 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

What negative have I invented, Scorecard?   I didn't know there was any positive to paying tax.

 

You have seen the proposed changes.  They are very clear, with the 183 day in / out rule.  I didn't invent them. 

 

They are simple to understand.  Aussie citizen outside of Australia for 183 days is deemed a non resident for taxation purposes.  Does that Aussie citizen derive an income from Australia, if yes, taxed at non resident tax rates.  Is a pension an income derived in Australia, yes.  Will pensions be exempt, maybe, maybe not. 

 

What part of the below do you dispute?

 

Are you an Aussie citizen?  Yes.

 

Do you live in Thailand? Yes.

 

Do you derive an income (pension) from Australia?  Yes.

 

Are pensions exempt?  Unknown.

 

Some suggest the government wouldn't tax pensioners at not resident rates because of a backlash.  I have suggested such a backlash would cost close to zero votes.

 

I have never made my way to the Australian Embassy to cast a vote, have you?  If we took a poll of members on this thread and asked them the same question, how many would say they have ever voted at an Australian Embassy?

 

No doubt they will upset pensioners if pensions are not exempt, but it will cost them no votes, so why would they care? 

 

It's a no brainer for government.  Save billions of dollars in Centrelink funds, for costing zero votes.  What government wouldn't take that deal? 

 

 

Woof woof.

[KhunHeineken]

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

1.  183 day rule is possible but at this time far from probable as neither party is taking or proposing such action. The Liberals had a long time to bring it in but did not. Labour is even less likely. Big difference between policy options and policy. After the 2019 election, which Labour lost likely due to interesting but controversial policies, parties are less likely than ever to have such policies. 

It costs millions of dollars to draft legislation.  It's not something they give to a bunch of kids straight out of uni. 

 

No doubt the government of the day spent this money on the drafting because they could see a long term financial benefit to do so, and it was obviously drafted with making money in mind, not losing money. 

 

I admit, such legislation was more aimed at the top end of town who individually escape from paying millions of dollars in tax, but the law can't discriminate, unless means testing or exemptions are written into the law, and I saw none of that in the proposed changes.  The end result is, John Smith is treated the same as Paul Hogan, whether John Smith is a pensioner, or not.  

 

The second half of this part of your post is just your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, and I don't mind reading.   Of course, covid turned a lot of non residents into residents for 3 years, and the government had its hands full with that crisis.  Now things are back to normal, but with an even bigger debt to service, I am sure the government, whether that be the current Labor government, or a future Liberal government, will be looking to get their hands on John and Paul's money again.

 

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

2 If it became law it is not likely to apply to age pensioners who are living off mainly the age pension in my opinion. Commenting on your comment, it is not about expats voting overseas only but the community of people born overseas in Australia who have relatives or friends who are expats, whom they may have to help and support, or those who look forward to the option of retiring overseas in the future. As such, and on the basis of a perception of fairness, I don't think it would happen.

As you say, it's just your opinion.  There's nothing in the proposed changes that says pensions will be exempt from non resident tax rates.

 

What has someone in Australia sending money to someone overseas got to do with the proposed changes? 

 

Is that person in Australia who is sending money overseas and who wishes to retire overseas an Australian citizen?  If so, after 183 day overseas, any income earned in Australia would be taxed at non resident rates.  Why would they be treated any differently.  If they are not an Australian citizen, no vote lost there, either.    

 

Since when have you expected a government to be fair, especially when it comes to tax?

 

13 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

3  If it did it would not likely apply to current expats as clearly not fair. Beyond fairness consider the lack of available housing at reasonable rates as one example, and the possible effect on the health system as a second, and for a range of other reasons, it would not be practical or politically sensible to tax those pensions at non resident rates, and have a potential mass return to our shores. Save a bit on the extras expats don't get too. 

So by the time you get to current expats the statistical likelihood of this happening, and it applying to them, is in my opinion remote. But if you disagree that's fine. 

I see your point.

 

Do you think the benefit of either saving in Centrelink payments to non resident pensioners, and indirectly forcing some of the expats home, and having their full pension circulating in the Australian economy, outweighs their use of infrastructure here?  I did say, having them return creates jobs, even in hospitals, and what do people with a job pay, income tax. 

 

An example of the extras you talk about, say some free car registration.  They now drive a car in Australia and pay for fuel.  Do you think all the tax and excise, including GST on petrol for the year, amounts to more than the free rego? I say it would.

 

What about that beer they have at the RSL?  All the tax and excise on it going back into government revenue, not to mention the extra bar staff employed to serve that beer, and the income tax they pay. 

 

Now picture just these two examples across hundreds of thousands across Australia that were indirectly forced to return, and you will see the government has more than made enough to cover some medical. 

 

I see it as a financial win - win for government, and on that basis, I put the chances at higher than remote.

[KhunHeineken]

26 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Woof woof.

No fleas on me.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, Artisi said:

If you ask for more than 1 repeat to be supplied each time, then the PBS rate is not applied - unless your Dr authorises it. The pharmacy I use will normally supply an extra 1 if you tell them your going on holidays or similar reason. 

I was not asking for the repeat to be supplied at the same time. The pharmacist did not give me the repeat back when filling the first prescription.

I was recently reading an article about a pharmacist in Brisbane who had his assets frozen pending the refund of $1.9 million obtained by PBS fraud.

[Lacessit]

53 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

 

 

 

Now picture just these two examples across hundreds of thousands across Australia that were indirectly forced to return, and you will see the government has more than made enough to cover some medical. 

 

I see it as a financial win - win for government, and on that basis, I put the chances at higher than remote.

Your figure of hundreds of thousands is quite exaggerated. According to Google, there are about 20,000 Australian retirees in Thailand, and some of those are self-funded. Thailand is probably the most frequently selected retirement destination for Australians overseas, for various reasons. Those numbers should not be confused with expat numbers, which is what you appear to be doing.

 

Forcing elderly retirees to return would put more strain on an already broken Medicare system. We are much more likely to need medical care. In addition, the

government would have to start forking out extra cash for supplements such as energy, phone, transport and rent assistance.

 

When returning retirees are paying 50-60% of their pension income in rent alone, how can the government get extra benefit from people living on Mama noodles?

 

Let's say the government decides to tax the pensions of people living overseas at 30%. Said pensioners simply don't put in a tax return. The ATO may be able to collect the tax in advance, which I see as another Robodebt time bomb. Inevitably, bureaucracies make mistakes.

 

You see it as a win-win, I see it as a cost "saving" which would not be worth the effort of implementation.

[scorecard]

22 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Maybe I misunderstood. 

 

I was under the impression you either did not qualify for a pension, or would receive a reduced pension, due to having significant savings in a bank.  You then moved all of that money to Thailand and cried poor to Centrelink and was granted a pension, or a larger pension. 

 

If I am wrong, what was the purpose of moving all your money to Thailand?  

 

If I am right, what consequences do you think there will be if / when they catch up with you? 

 

 

You're way too personal and not your business to be asking folks here to explain themselves / explain details.