Australian Aged Pension

[scorecard]

1 minute ago, Will27 said:

I fail to see how it's not true TBH.

 

Surely Centrelink are not going to let you lodge an application and then <deleted> off for months at a time and say it won't affect your 2 year waiting period.

 

You've said "several trips a year for a few weeks".

 

You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO.

"You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO."

 

I don't disagree but it is flexible as I have mentioned.

[giddyup]

Just now, Will27 said:

I fail to see how it's not true TBH.

 

Surely Centrelink are not going to let you lodge an application and then <deleted> off for months at a time and say it won't affect your 2 year waiting period.

 

You've said "several trips a year for a few weeks".

 

You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO.

I agree. It would be pointless on insisting you do the 2 years back in Oz to qualify for the OAP, only to spend months of that time back overseas (Thailand).

[giddyup]

Just now, scorecard said:

"You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO."

 

I don't disagree but it is flexible as I have mentioned.

Just how flexible is the question.

[scorecard]

34 minutes ago, Will27 said:

So really, you're just guessing.

 

How long do you think it would be ok to stay out of Australia in the 2 year period?

I'd be interested to know.

No I'm not guessing at all. As I mentioned I did talk to a C'link officer on this point and what she explained I have shared here. 

 

I'm not an expert and I don't make any claim to be an expert on this or any other OAP matters, I'm just sharing what I've read and the discussion I had with a C'link officer on the Older Australian Line. 

 

There's a couple of toll free tel numbers from Thailand (and other countries) to C'link.

ALL ON THE C'LINK WEBSITE. CAN i SUGGEST YOU FIND THESE TOLL FREE NUMBERS AND CALL AND ASK, SEE IF YOU CAN GET ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE INFORMATION ON THIS ITEM. 

 

You asked "How long do you think it would be ok to stay out of Australia in the 2 year period?

I'd be interested to know." As I have said I'm not an expert on this and I never will be. I can only share what I have learned. 

 

Please don't attack me; please don't demand definitive answers from me, as above I'm just sharing what I have picked up on this point, nothing more.

 

And yes it's not definitive and that seems to be the way C'link wants it. I guess (repeat guess) the departments' thinking is that if they stated numbers of days and gap periods etc., this would create a scenario that C'link regulations doesn't want to openly explore. 

 

As above; there's a couple of toll free tel numbers from Thailand (and other countries) to C'link. I suggest you look them Up (i'm not going to find them again, you find them) and call and get it direct from the horses mouth. 

[scorecard]

35 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Just how flexible is the question.

Read my posts. I repeat AGAIN, I'm not an expert on this point and I make no claim to be. C'link seems to deliberately NOT DEFINITIVE  definitive on this and the best I can offer (not an expert) is 'flexible'.

[Will27]

49 minutes ago, scorecard said:

No I'm not guessing at all. As I mentioned I did talk to a C'link officer on this point and what she explained I have shared here. 

 

I'm not an expert and I don't make any claim to be an expert on this or any other OAP matters, I'm just sharing what I've read and the discussion I had with a C'link officer on the Older Australian Line. 

 

There's a couple of toll free tel numbers from Thailand (and other countries) to C'link.

ALL ON THE C'LINK WEBSITE. CAN i SUGGEST YOU FIND THESE TOLL FREE NUMBERS AND CALL AND ASK, SEE IF YOU CAN GET ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE INFORMATION ON THIS ITEM. 

 

You asked "How long do you think it would be ok to stay out of Australia in the 2 year period?

I'd be interested to know." As I have said I'm not an expert on this and I never will be. I can only share what I have learned. 

 

Please don't attack me; please don't demand definitive answers from me, as above I'm just sharing what I have picked up on this point, nothing more.

 

And yes it's not definitive and that seems to be the way C'link wants it. I guess (repeat guess) the departments' thinking is that if they stated numbers of days and gap periods etc., this would create a scenario that C'link regulations doesn't want to openly explore. 

 

As above; there's a couple of toll free tel numbers from Thailand (and other countries) to C'link. I suggest you look them Up (i'm not going to find them again, you find them) and call and get it direct from the horses mouth. 

I'm not attacking you at all.

I appreciate the advice you're giving.

 

However, I posted that IMO, you would still have to live in Australia for the majority of the 2 years.

You said it was untrue.

I then asked you how long you can stay out for and you didn't really know.

 

That's not attacking you, I was just trying to figure out what I said was untrue.

 

So the bottom line is, no one really knows how long you're allowed the out of the country before it affects your 2 year waiting period. You've advised you can have several holidays a year for a few weeks at a time.

 

I imagine you would have to stay in Australia for the majority of the 2 years or it would be pointless having the 2 year period.

 

I doubt the time outside of Australia is in legislation, it's probably just policy, which for obvious reasons they wouldn't be that keen on advising people.

[scorecard]

43 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I'm not attacking you at all.

I appreciate the advice you're giving.

 

However, I posted that IMO, you would still have to live in Australia for the majority of the 2 years.

You said it was untrue.

I then asked you how long you can stay out for and you didn't really know.

 

That's not attacking you, I was just trying to figure out what I said was untrue.

 

So the bottom line is, no one really knows how long you're allowed the out of the country before it affects your 2 year waiting period. You've advised you can have several holidays a year for a few weeks at a time.

 

I imagine you would have to stay in Australia for the majority of the 2 years or it would be pointless having the 2 year period.

 

I doubt the time outside of Australia is in legislation, it's probably just policy, which for obvious reasons they wouldn't be that keen on advising people.

"

I imagine you would have to stay in Australia for the majority of the 2 years or it would be pointless having the 2 year period.

 

I doubt the time outside of Australia is in legislation, it's probably just policy, which for obvious reasons they wouldn't be that keen on advising people."

 

I agree on both points.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

I fail to see how it's not true TBH.

 

Surely Centrelink are not going to let you lodge an application and then <deleted> off for months at a time and say it won't affect your 2 year waiting period.

 

You've said "several trips a year for a few weeks".

 

You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO.

"You're still going to have to live the majority of your time in Australia IMO."

 

I don't disagree.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

I'm not attacking you at all.

I appreciate the advice you're giving.

 

However, I posted that IMO, you would still have to live in Australia for the majority of the 2 years.

You said it was untrue.

I then asked you how long you can stay out for and you didn't really know.

 

That's not attacking you, I was just trying to figure out what I said was untrue.

 

So the bottom line is, no one really knows how long you're allowed the out of the country before it affects your 2 year waiting period. You've advised you can have several holidays a year for a few weeks at a time.

 

I imagine you would have to stay in Australia for the majority of the 2 years or it would be pointless having the 2 year period.

 

I doubt the time outside of Australia is in legislation, it's probably just policy, which for obvious reasons they wouldn't be that keen on advising people.

Yes it's difficult to get clear and specific answers on this.

 

One point that makes me laugh is:

- In the initial stages of arriving back and getting the process started C'link are quite

serious about re-establisging a home in OZ.

- However as soon as the 2 years is completed, therefore the pensioner has achieved Portability, re-establishing a home / time in/out of Australia is never mentioned.

 

Bottom line for me: I went through the 2 year process (didn't leave OZ for 2 years becaue of Covid) then about 2 weeks after the 2 years was completed I called the Older Australians Line and said

'I want to check please if I am entitled to Portability?

Polite response 'let me check', then 'Yes you are entitled to Portability, do you understand clearly what that means. I explained my understanding was;

- 'Can live abroad forever, no further processing ever except later to prove you are aliveand

- 'Can receive full pension payments* direct to my bank abroad, payments change to 4 weekly'. *but rent assistance and energy allowance stops.

 

C'link lady said 'yes your understanding is correct'.

 

C'link lady politely asked "do you need any advice/help to get your Portability in process?"

I responded "I think I'm OK and I will depart OZ in a few weeks time to go back to my family. In the meantime she had e.mailed a C'link form to be lodged to change my banking details to my bank abroad.

 

C'link lady mentioned 'You must wait until you're in your destination country and take this form to your local bank, they have to confirm bank a/c name and a/c number and add the official stamp of the o'seas bank. She also sent me a specific e.mail address to return the completed form.

 

I did all that then quickly got a call from C'link in Oz to politely double check my a/c number at K Bank and the guy from C'link then politely  explained that 'it takes a short time to get you changed from the 2 weeks payment list to the 4 weekly payment list'. He also gave me a date to expect the first 4 weekly payment into K Bank and it was correct. 

 

I get an automatic SMS and an e.mail from K Bank every time there's a deposit.  K bank deducts a small fee to receive the funds and deposit to my account. From memory about 150Baht each time.

 

By this stage nothing mentioned ever again by C'link folks about the 're-establish a home in Oz policies or processes / 2 years policies / processes'. 

[ozfarang]

After I did my 2 years in Australia to gain portability, when I left to return to Thailand I never mentioned to Centrelink that I was leaving Australia permanently, only going overseas indefinitely. My new Medicare card arrive at my mailing address in Australia about 6 months ago and now that I have returned to Australia 14 February to apply for the OAP on behalf of my Thai wife who has been absent from Australia for 6 years.

The application has been accepted and she should receive her first payment on or after the 4 April.

Also a quick call to the Centrelink International line to confirm I had returned to Australia after being away for 2 years and during the call the officer on the line adjusted my pension back to the full pension and had a new Pensioner Concession Card issued which I will receive in the mail shortly.

A heads up for anybody returning to Australia and you have any question regarding your pension only call the Centrelink International #131673 only. Centrelink shopfronts don't know all the rule regarding people on the OAP living overseas

 

All my recent experiences

[Fat is a type of crazy]

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are wrong too. The $10,000 limit applies not only to passengers and crew, but all cash sent by air, courier or by sea.

You may be right on the electronic reporting, permit me to doubt AUSTRAC will get their knickers in a twist over one or two thousand AUD. After all, it took them years to catch up with Westpac.

Austrac is normally cash payments over $10000 and all payments or transfers to and from overseas. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/15/2023 at 1:17 PM, giddyup said:

Hey! I'm 80, I really don't give a rodents rectum who does what, but the money is where no govt. agency can get their hands on it. They can reduce my pension, who cares, I have more than enough to see me out, as will my partner when I'm gone. So scare tactics are wasted on me.

 

Everyone's circumstances are different, and it's not about scare tactics.  

 

We are just discussing some proposed changes to government policy that may effect Aussie expats, no matter what age they are. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/15/2023 at 2:14 PM, ripstanley said:

I can assure you that AUSTRAC do not inform any department of transfers. If that department has access to the AUSTRAC system then they can check transfers for a certain individual if that individual comes to there attention. 

Try making several transactions of $9,999 and see what happens.  

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/15/2023 at 6:55 PM, Lacessit said:

AUSTRAC is notified of transfers above $10,000. Permit me to doubt they are going to waste their time tracking WISE transfers of a few thousand dollars. Or that the financial institution would be reporting them.

I agree, they will not be concerned by small amounts being transferred by an expat, to himself, on a fortnightly or monthly basis.  

 

A large amount, transferred out of Australia, so then the expat can cry poor to Centrelink and put their hand out for a pension, is different.  Even many transfers of $9,9999 triggers notification.

 

I am simply replying to the member/s that may think that if you are over the threshold in assets / cash to claim a pension, you can transfer that money to a Thai bank account and then cry poor to Centrelink. 

 

AUSTRAC knows how much money you moved and where you moved it to, and you would be committing offense, not by transferring, but by claiming to Centrelink you are broke. 

[Olmate]

3 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree, they will not be concerned by small amounts being transferred by an expat, to himself, on a fortnightly or monthly basis.  

 

A large amount, transferred out of Australia, so then the expat can cry poor to Centrelink and put their hand out for a pension, is different.  Even many transfers of $9,9999 triggers notification.

 

I am simply replying to the member/s that may think that if you are over the threshold in assets / cash to claim a pension, you can transfer that money to a Thai bank account and then cry poor to Centrelink. 

 

AUSTRAC knows how much money you moved and where you moved it to, and you would be committing offense, not by transferring, but by claiming to Centrelink you are broke. 

So spending your hard earned is a "nono" once your on OAP? 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:55 PM, Will27 said:

Nice one Rip.

Just another example of misinformation that our resident scaremonger has provided.

 

Expect another 2 page response from him trying to twist things rather than just coming out

and saying "I got it wrong".

As posted, try making several transfers of $9,999 and see what happens.  It still triggers notification. 

 

The whole AUSTRAC discussion is off topic. 

 

A member pointed out that AUSTRAC tracks transfers over $10,000.  Another member disagreed, stating AUSTRAC informs no other department of such transfers.  So what is the purpose of AUSTRAC?   

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, Olmate said:

So spending your hard earned is a "nono" once your on OAP? 

You have to go back to the member's original post a few pages ago that stated this sub topic, 

 

It read to me, and some others, that he did not qualify for the pension, so transferred his money to Thailand, then went to Centrelink and said I have no assets / cash, so give me the pension.

 

It was pointing out that this was an offense, but he shortly clarified his actions and it was left at that. 

 

Say you have $600,000 in the bank but you want to receive a full pension.  (as per below) 

 

It's not as simple as transferring $320,000 to a Thai bank account and then saying to Centrelink I now only have $280,000 in the bank, therefore, I now qualify for the full pension.  

 

You can spend your hard earned, you just can hide it and then put your hand out.  Well, you can, but if caught, there are consequences. 

 

When your assets are more than the limit for your situation, your pension will reduce.

If you’re a member of a couple, the limit is for both you and your partner’s assets combined, not each of you.

Your situation	Homeowner	Non-homeowner
Single	$280,000	$504,500
A couple, combined	$419,000	$643,500
A couple, separated due to illness, combined	$419,000	$643,500
A couple, one partner eligible, combined	$419,000	$643,500

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:38 AM, scorecard said:

You asked "How long do you think it would be ok to stay out of Australia in the 2 year period?

I'd be interested to know." As I have said I'm not an expert on this and I never will be. I can only share what I have learned. 

Didn't you say a "prolonged" stay would be fine? 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:25 AM, MAF666 said:

Bugga.

They call it "the 2 year prison sentence." 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:29 AM, Lacessit said:

Income from a superannuation fund is already taxed within the fund itself. Taxing it again at 30% would have every superannuant up in arms, double taxation is anathema whether one is inside or outside Australia.

Interesting article.

 

Federal budget 2023: Superannuation tax concessions in Jim Chalmers’ sights (smh.com.au)

 

"Superannuation tax concessions worth $53 billion could be overhauled by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in an attempt to repair the budget bottom line, as the government moves towards blocking early access to retirement savings."

 

I had no idea the tax concessions amounted to so much.  It's almost as much as the aged pension. 

 

"Tax concessions on super are forecast to cost the budget $52.6 billion in 2022-23, just under the total cost of the age pension at $55.3 billion, according to an analysis of the October budget by the Australia Institute."

 

[Lacessit]

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Interesting article.

 

Federal budget 2023: Superannuation tax concessions in Jim Chalmers’ sights (smh.com.au)

 

"Superannuation tax concessions worth $53 billion could be overhauled by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in an attempt to repair the budget bottom line, as the government moves towards blocking early access to retirement savings."

 

I had no idea the tax concessions amounted to so much.  It's almost as much as the aged pension. 

 

"Tax concessions on super are forecast to cost the budget $52.6 billion in 2022-23, just under the total cost of the age pension at $55.3 billion, according to an analysis of the October budget by the Australia Institute."

 

It's a reform which is long overdue.

A single person ( non- homeowner ) with assets over $846,000 cannot get the age pension, or a part pension.

Said person with those assets in superannuation gets exactly the same tax concessions as someone with $10 million or $100 million in their superannuation. If they are invested in shares paying fully -franked dividends, the super fund pays zero tax on the dividend income.

This has been a rort since Reasonable Benefit Limits were abolished in 2007. I can hear the howls of outrage from an increasingly irrelevant political party and their beneficiaries already.

[KhunHeineken]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's a reform which is long overdue.

I think the article is a good example of quick, and sometimes how easy, legislation can change to tax people.  Either a completely new tax, or an increase to an existing tax. 

 

The current legislation around resident / non resident taxation is about 90 years old. 

 

Obviously, politicians think that legislation is well overdue for reform as well.  Yet, some think the proposed changes will never be passed. 

 

It's interesting how, with a quick announcement, you can raise over $50 billion in tax.  Where's the backlash.  Why are people not up in arms?    

 

There's an interesting article on it today.

 

Superannuation tax overhaul plans supported by crossbench senators (smh.com.au)

 

I see one of Jacqii Lambie's group is for it.  So much for cross bench members voting down any new taxes, particularly Jacqui Lambie and her group, instead of "swinging behind" new taxes? 

 

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Said person with those assets in superannuation gets exactly the same tax concessions as someone with $10 million or $100 million in their superannuation.

 Could it be an "easy win" for Jim because this policy seems to effect the more wealthy? 

 

Aren't expat non residents, like Paul Hogan, viewed as wealthy?  There's no means / asset test, or exemptions mentioned in the proposed changes, just as you mention, everyone is in the same superannuation boat.  I guess all non resident expats will be taxed the same also.   

 

I wonder if the proposed changes will be passed to also "attempt to repair the budget bottom line" and raise another "X" amount of billions of dollars.   Where will be the backlash?  Why will pensioners in Australia not be up in arms for their fellow pensioners living overseas? 

 

Australia will soon hit a trillion dollars of debt.  The money to service that debt has to come from somewhere, and the propose changes to legislation have already been drafted and paid for by the previous government.  It's only a matter of time. 

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I think the article is a good example of quick, and sometimes how easy, legislation can change to tax people.  Either a completely new tax, or an increase to an existing tax. 

 

The current legislation around resident / non resident taxation is about 90 years old. 

 

Obviously, politicians think that legislation is well overdue for reform as well.  Yet, some think the proposed changes will never be passed. 

 

It's interesting how, with a quick announcement, you can raise over $50 billion in tax.  Where's the backlash.  Why are people not up in arms?    

 

There's an interesting article on it today.

 

Superannuation tax overhaul plans supported by crossbench senators (smh.com.au)

 

I see one of Jacqii Lambie's group is for it.  So much for cross bench members voting down any new taxes, particularly Jacqui Lambie and her group, instead of "swinging behind" new taxes? 

 

 Could it be an "easy win" for Jim because this policy seems to effect the more wealthy? 

 

Aren't expat non residents, like Paul Hogan, viewed as wealthy?  There's no means / asset test, or exemptions mentioned in the proposed changes, just as you mention, everyone is in the same superannuation boat.  I guess all non resident expats will be taxed the same also.   

 

I wonder if the proposed changes will be passed to also "attempt to repair the budget bottom line" and raise another "X" amount of billions of dollars.   Where will be the backlash?  Why will pensioners in Australia not be up in arms for their fellow pensioners living overseas? 

 

Australia will soon hit a trillion dollars of debt.  The money to service that debt has to come from somewhere, and the propose changes to legislation have already been drafted and paid for by the previous government.  It's only a matter of time. 

What's the low hanging fruit? Taxing OAP retirees outside Australia for a return of a few million, or removing superannuation tax concessions which would almost pay for the entire age pension bill? There's already talk of making $5 million the limit for concessions, beyond that taxing super like any other source of income.

When I had my own SMSF, I was actually getting refunds on zero tax from the ATO via franking credits, and I was small potatoes compared to some. I can remember a multi-millionaire boasting how his accountant had managed to get him a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.

I guess people are not up in arms because there are many Australians on quite good incomes who are now battling to survive due to price inflation and interest rate hikes, and they are not too concerned if the wealthy have to start sharing some of the pain.

 

[KhunHeineken]

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What's the low hanging fruit? Taxing OAP retirees outside Australia for a return of a few million, or removing superannuation tax concessions which would almost pay for the entire age pension bill? There's already talk of making $5 million the limit for concessions, beyond that taxing super like any other source of income.

When I had my own SMSF, I was actually getting refunds on zero tax from the ATO via franking credits, and I was small potatoes compared to some. I can remember a multi-millionaire boasting how his accountant had managed to get him a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.

I guess people are not up in arms because there are many Australians on quite good incomes who are now battling to survive due to price inflation and interest rate hikes, and they are not too concerned if the wealthy have to start sharing some of the pain.

 

I posted the links as examples just to show how how quickly, and sometimes how easily, a new tax can be introduced, or an existing tax increased, or broadened to include more tax payers.  It's not really about the tax concessions on super.

 

I posted the links for those who seem to think that the 90 year old part of non resident tax legislation will not be overhauled, reformed, streamlined etc, and to the government's financial benefit.  

 

I agree pensioners would be low hanging fruit in the whole scheme of tightening up the non resident for taxation purposes legislation, but without any details on means / asset testing, or exemptions in the proposed changes, it's possible the tax is for the the high hanging fruit and the low hanging fruit.  It very well may be a tax that does not discriminate.  Outside Australia 183 days and derive an income from Australia, here's your 32% bill, or here's your reduced pension. 

 

In relation to the high hanging fruit, the wealthy, more tax to be raised because they can not hide within the 90 year old gray area, and for the low hanging fruit, the pensioners, a nice ongoing savings for Centrelink, and the possibility it indirectly forces pensioners, and their pension,  back into the Australian economy for at least 184 days, possibly for 365 days.   A win-win for the government even with the low hanging fruit.

 

As said, with Australia approaching 1 trillion dollars of debt, the money has to come from somewhere, and in my opinion, the government will be chasing all the "fruit" it can, wherever they can find it.  If not the current Labor government, the next Liberal government who commissioned the drafting of the legislation. 

 

So that's everyone from Paul Hogan to the pensioner, and fortunately for the government, it costs next to zero votes to put all the expat "fruit" in the same basket, because just about all expats never make our way to an Embassy at election time, so why wouldn't they make this legislation to apply to all expat "fruit?"  . 

 

 

[Artisi]

I said before, I lost interest in the nuts and bolts of it all as I have relocated back to Aus although it did marginally influence the decision. 

The way I see it, if the 183 day is passed, pensioners o/s will be caught up in it, end of story. Wring your hands, sticking your head in the sand, ignoring it, or keep believing it won't change the fact. 

 

I'm dead against it for expats on a government pension or low paying super fund - but who am I when it comes to the tax man collecting taxes? 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:08 AM, KhunHeineken said:

As posted, try making several transfers of $9,999 and see what happens.  It still triggers notification. 

 

The whole AUSTRAC discussion is off topic. 

 

A member pointed out that AUSTRAC tracks transfers over $10,000.  Another member disagreed, stating AUSTRAC informs no other department of such transfers.  So what is the purpose of AUSTRAC?   

To clarify I am fairly sure it is as follows:

0ver $10,000 cash banked - reported on Austrac

Funds transferred e.g. wise or for purchases made   - reported on Austrac regardless of amount

The $10,000 overseas is where you are taking say cash, travellers cheques if they are still a thing, money orders etc overseas, or sending by mail, etc.

So sending $9999 by Wise has no positive or negative effect positive in terms of notification. 

 

[Lacessit]

On 2/23/2023 at 9:22 AM, KhunHeineken said:

I posted the links as examples just to show how how quickly, and sometimes how easily, a new tax can be introduced, or an existing tax increased, or broadened to include more tax payers.  It's not really about the tax concessions on super.

 

I posted the links for those who seem to think that the 90 year old part of non resident tax legislation will not be overhauled, reformed, streamlined etc, and to the government's financial benefit.  

 

I agree pensioners would be low hanging fruit in the whole scheme of tightening up the non resident for taxation purposes legislation, but without any details on means / asset testing, or exemptions in the proposed changes, it's possible the tax is for the the high hanging fruit and the low hanging fruit.  It very well may be a tax that does not discriminate.  Outside Australia 183 days and derive an income from Australia, here's your 32% bill, or here's your reduced pension. 

 

In relation to the high hanging fruit, the wealthy, more tax to be raised because they can not hide within the 90 year old gray area, and for the low hanging fruit, the pensioners, a nice ongoing savings for Centrelink, and the possibility it indirectly forces pensioners, and their pension,  back into the Australian economy for at least 184 days, possibly for 365 days.   A win-win for the government even with the low hanging fruit.

 

As said, with Australia approaching 1 trillion dollars of debt, the money has to come from somewhere, and in my opinion, the government will be chasing all the "fruit" it can, wherever they can find it.  If not the current Labor government, the next Liberal government who commissioned the drafting of the legislation. 

 

So that's everyone from Paul Hogan to the pensioner, and fortunately for the government, it costs next to zero votes to put all the expat "fruit" in the same basket, because just about all expats never make our way to an Embassy at election time, so why wouldn't they make this legislation to apply to all expat "fruit?"  . 

 

 

You seem to be confused between low and high-hanging fruit.

 

The low-hanging fruit are the wealthy, because their potential contribution to the budget bottom line is massive once the superannuation tax rorts have been removed. Nearly as much as the entire OAP cost. IMO those wealthy are not going to be getting sympathy anywhere outside the Liberal Party, which is looking increasingly irrelevant. As is the Murdoch media, which has been influencing Australian politics for decades.

 

OTOH, pensioners are high hanging fruit. The return from taxing them is peanuts, and the political backlash from taxing the OAP, whether one is inside Australia or out, IMO would be considerable. Politicians of all stripes have learned not to mess with the pensioner vote.

 

You may be right, one size fits all is beloved by most bureaucrats. Perhaps they will be more cautious after the Robodebt Royal Commission, which has exposed the war on the poor initiated by the Liberals.

 

The next Liberal Government? I'll be dead by then.

[Lacessit]

20 hours ago, Artisi said:

I said before, I lost interest in the nuts and bolts of it all as I have relocated back to Aus although it did marginally influence the decision. 

The way I see it, if the 183 day is passed, pensioners o/s will be caught up in it, end of story. Wring your hands, sticking your head in the sand, ignoring it, or keep believing it won't change the fact. 

 

I'm dead against it for expats on a government pension or low paying super fund - but who am I when it comes to the tax man collecting taxes? 

Thank you. You are not affected by that change; however, you are dead against taxing pensions. How many other pensioners who are not expats would feel the same way?

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/23/2023 at 2:17 AM, Artisi said:

The way I see it, if the 183 day is passed, pensioners o/s will be caught up in it, end of story.

Unless pensions are exempt, and there's no mention of that in the proposed changes, but it could be announced later, I can't see how they would not be caught up in it.

 

On 2/23/2023 at 2:17 AM, Artisi said:

I'm dead against it for expats on a government pension or low paying super fund - but who am I when it comes to the tax man collecting taxes? 

You are in Oz, so if it becomes and election issue, which I doubt it will, you can vote against it.  How many expats will make their way to an Embassy and vote against it, next to zero. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/23/2023 at 3:45 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

So sending $9999 by Wise has no positive or negative effect positive in terms of notification. 

I wasn't commenting on a positive or negative effect. 

 

I am simply saying, there is a common belief that if you stay under $10,000 then an AUSTRAC notifications will not be triggered.  This is not the case.  Eg. try donating $5,000 to your favorite mosque, on a monthly basis, and see what happens.