Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

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

I think it's you who seems to be confused.

 

I clarified it for you.  This is what I said:

 

"I posted the links as examples just to show 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."

 

Let me be more clearer.  Those links have nothing to do with non resident for taxation purposes laws.  Whilst the super tax concessions may affect some planning to retire overseas in the future, it is not relevant to the sub topic of non resident for taxation purposes. 

 

Once again, I posted those links to show how easily, and how quickly, a new tax, or an increase to an existing tax, or broadening a current tax to scoop up more people, can happen. 

 

In other words, you wake up one morning and read about proposed changes to the non resident tax laws. 

 

You wake up another morning and find they have been passed, and will come into force starting on the next 1st July.

 

No protests, no election issue to vote on, no letters to MP's etc.

 

This is the point I am making when I posted those links.  Again, nothing to do with the topic of super tax concessions when viewed on their own.  

 

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

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.

The savings from them would be billions, and ongoing, forever. 

 

It could, in effect, ensure Australian pensions are spent in Australia, supporting the Australian economy, and creating jobs for Australians.  How's that for a headline on the front page to gather support for the non resident tax changes?   What true blue tax payer, the people who actually pay for the pensions, would not go for that headline, regardless of who owns the press?   

 

Once again, what votes are lost?  Expats don't go to Embassies at election time, and why would pensioners, except for a very few that want to retire to Thailand in the near future, care one bit if pensioners overseas are taxed? 

 

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You may be right, one size fits all is beloved by most bureaucrats.

It's beloved because it scoops up the most people, thus makes the most money for government.     

 

As another member says, and I agree, somehow, someway, pensions, and therefore pensioners, will be caught up in this one way or another.

 

Like I said in another post, with the "one size fits all" perhaps pensioners will just be collateral damage that costs no votes, and makes a savings for Centrelink.  It could also indirectly force some Australians, and their Australian dollar pensions, back into the Australian economy, for a minimum 184 days a year, or possibly for 365 days.   

[KhunHeineken]

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

How many other pensioners who are not expats would feel the same way?

Why would they care? 

 

If those pensioners were informed, through the media, "The government is ensuring Australian pensions are spent in Australia, to benefit the Australian economy, and create jobs in Australia" would they like a headline like that, or still vote it down, even if, and that's a big if, it became an election issue?

 

Even Jacqui Lambie, with her patriotic slant on politics, would be for it.  

 

I suppose the question is, what's more important to Australians inside Australia, money in the Australia economy, or Australian citizens living overseas. 

 

Who would you bet on to vote which way? 

 

My bet would be on people inside Australia voting for anything that benefits Australia and the Australian economy, as they would see expats as a minority group, which we are, spending money to support foreign economies, and creating jobs in foreign countries.

[Lucky Bones]

20 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Why would they care? 

 

If those pensioners were informed, through the media, "The government is ensuring Australian pensions are spent in Australia, to benefit the Australian economy, and create jobs in Australia" would they like a headline like that, or still vote it down, even if, and that's a big if, it became an election issue?

 

Even Jacqui Lambie, with her patriotic slant on politics, would be for it.  

 

I suppose the question is, what's more important to Australians inside Australia, money in the Australia economy, or Australian citizens living overseas. 

 

Who would you bet on to vote which way? 

 

My bet would be on people inside Australia voting for anything that benefits Australia and the Australian economy, as they would see expats as a minority group, which we are, spending money to support foreign economies, and creating jobs in foreign countries.

I often wonder how much Aus pension money is actually spent in Aus.

Holidays overseas and internet purchases must see a bit flowing out.

Telling employed people where to spend their salary doesn't seem to be an issue.

Don't forget that some expat spending o/s can fund a tourist trip to Aus.????????

[Lucky Bones]

40 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I think it's you who seems to be confused.

 

I clarified it for you.  This is what I said:

 

"I posted the links as examples just to show 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."

 

Let me be more clearer.  Those links have nothing to do with non resident for taxation purposes laws.  Whilst the super tax concessions may affect some planning to retire overseas in the future, it is not relevant to the sub topic of non resident for taxation purposes. 

 

Once again, I posted those links to show how easily, and how quickly, a new tax, or an increase to an existing tax, or broadening a current tax to scoop up more people, can happen. 

 

In other words, you wake up one morning and read about proposed changes to the non resident tax laws. 

 

You wake up another morning and find they have been passed, and will come into force starting on the next 1st July.

 

No protests, no election issue to vote on, no letters to MP's etc.

 

This is the point I am making when I posted those links.  Again, nothing to do with the topic of super tax concessions when viewed on their own.  

 

The savings from them would be billions, and ongoing, forever. 

 

It could, in effect, ensure Australian pensions are spent in Australia, supporting the Australian economy, and creating jobs for Australians.  How's that for a headline on the front page to gather support for the non resident tax changes?   What true blue tax payer, the people who actually pay for the pensions, would not go for that headline, regardless of who owns the press?   

 

Once again, what votes are lost?  Expats don't go to Embassies at election time, and why would pensioners, except for a very few that want to retire to Thailand in the near future, care one bit if pensioners overseas are taxed? 

 

It's beloved because it scoops up the most people, thus makes the most money for government.     

 

As another member says, and I agree, somehow, someway, pensions, and therefore pensioners, will be caught up in this one way or another.

 

Like I said in another post, with the "one size fits all" perhaps pensioners will just be collateral damage that costs no votes, and makes a savings for Centrelink.  It could also indirectly force some Australians, and their Australian dollar pensions, back into the Australian economy, for a minimum 184 days a year, or possibly for 365 days.   

I was a "true blue tax payer" for 40 years.

I like to think I went a way to funding my own pension (obviously not fully).

In addition those 40 years subsidised a truckload of dole bludgers.

Moving closer to autocratic govt every day.????????

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

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.

 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

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.

 

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. 

Your raison d'etre seems to be continually postulating hypotheticals about the OAP.

 

Have you ever considered starting your own topic on something like UFO's?

 

I suggest you leave this forum to those who deal in hard facts!

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

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.    

If you are in Australia and donate to an Australian mosque it would not show up on Austrac. Payment from Australia to overseas Mosque it would but would likely require Centrelink to happen to look up your details i.e. it would not be likely to trigger something automatically at Centrelink.  Both affected by gifting rules if discovered. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

48 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Why would they care? 

 

If those pensioners were informed, through the media, "The government is ensuring Australian pensions are spent in Australia, to benefit the Australian economy, and create jobs in Australia" would they like a headline like that, or still vote it down, even if, and that's a big if, it became an election issue?

 

Even Jacqui Lambie, with her patriotic slant on politics, would be for it.  

 

I suppose the question is, what's more important to Australians inside Australia, money in the Australia economy, or Australian citizens living overseas. 

 

Who would you bet on to vote which way? 

 

My bet would be on people inside Australia voting for anything that benefits Australia and the Australian economy, as they would see expats as a minority group, which we are, spending money to support foreign economies, and creating jobs in foreign countries.

If I was a pensioner and living in Thailand this issue would be way way down my list of concerns. 

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

 

My bet would be on people inside Australia voting for anything that benefits Australia and the Australian economy, as they would see expats as a minority group, which we are, spending money to support foreign economies, and creating jobs in foreign countries.

I can see Albo adding this change to the upcoming referendum ' OAP now linked to a cashless card valid only within Australia'! ????

[KhunHeineken]

52 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Your raison d'etre seems to be continually postulating hypotheticals about the OAP.

Is the below link, which is one of many, a hypothetical? 

 

Do you see any means / asset tests or exemptions mentioned in it?

 

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

 

54 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Have you ever considered starting your own topic on something like UFO's?

Perhaps you should start a new topic, "Am I like an ostrich with my head in the sand?" 

 

55 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I suggest you leave this forum to those who deal in hard facts!

Here's that link again for you to comment on. 

 

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

 

Perhaps you should email the company and tell them to stick to the facts on their website. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lucky Bones said:

I often wonder how much Aus pension money is actually spent in Aus.

Food, accommodation, travel, (petrol) entertainment etc etc. Close to all of the pension would would be spend on living expenses, especially in the current economic climate.  

 

GST, tax and excise, licenses, fees, tolls, levies etc etc, all clawed back out of the fortnightly pension, if the pensioner is inside Australia.

 

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lucky Bones said:

I was a "true blue tax payer" for 40 years.

I like to think I went a way to funding my own pension (obviously not fully).

In addition those 40 years subsidised a truckload of dole bludgers.

Moving closer to autocratic govt every day.????????

Good point, and one that I can relate to, and I'm sure many others well, but I doubt the government cares. 

[KhunHeineken]

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

If you are in Australia and donate to an Australian mosque it would not show up on Austrac.

Simply saying, ill depends who has an interest in knowing what money is going where, and for what purpose.  Eg.  money laundering, financing terrorism, tax evasion, defrauding Centrelink.  

[Lucky Bones]

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Food, accommodation, travel, (petrol) entertainment etc etc. Close to all of the pension would would be spend on living expenses, especially in the current economic climate.  

 

GST, tax and excise, licenses, fees, tolls, levies etc etc, all clawed back out of the fortnightly pension, if the pensioner is inside Australia.

 

 

 

 

Fair enuff for those doing it tuff. Where the pension is a supplement would likely be a different story.

Anyhow; we shall merrily carry on regardless with a pint half full attitude.????????

[KhunHeineken]

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

If I was a pensioner and living in Thailand this issue would be way way down my list of concerns. 

So, 183 days outside of Australia sees you automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and the Australian pension you receive is deemed to be an income derived from Australia, and the non resident tax rate is 32% from $1 to $120,000, and this would be of little concern to you.

 

Why is that? 

[KhunHeineken]

34 minutes ago, Olmate said:

I can see Albo adding this change to the upcoming referendum ' OAP now linked to a cashless card valid only within Australia'! ????

No, I can just see the government, doesn't matter with party is in power, eventually passing these laws. 

 

It's already on Albo's radar.

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v

 

"Expats could get some relief from a proposed new tax regime, with the Albanese government reviewing the number of days those living outside the country could visit Australia before being slugged income tax."

[KhunHeineken]

17 minutes ago, Lucky Bones said:

Fair enuff for those doing it tuff. Where the pension is a supplement would likely be a different story.

Anyhow; we shall merrily carry on regardless with a pint half full attitude.????????

This goes to the heart of the matter.

 

Those on a full pension may or may not be screwed, depends on whether pensions will be exempt.

 

Those on a part pension will also be screwed, because, for example, say they rent their house out back in Australia, but still qualify for a part pension.  That rent, and the part pension, are still income derived in Australia, and up for 32% non resident tax. 

 

Same with bank interest, share dividends, owning a business etc. 

 

It's not just about pensions, it all and any "income" derived in Australia if you are outside of Australia for 183 days.  They will remove the gray area that many have been in for years, if not decades.  

 

The "pint half full" will have to be in assets / means testing, or a threshold, or exemption, none of which are mentioned in the proposed changes.  

 

I guess why go to the trouble and expense to draft legislation that catches as many people and dollars as possible, just to let them and their money go again by creating another gray area that can be manipulated? 

[Lucky Bones]

6 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

This goes to the heart of the matter.

 

Those on a full pension may or may not be screwed, depends on whether pensions will be exempt.

 

Those on a part pension will also be screwed, because, for example, say they rent their house out back in Australia, but still qualify for a part pension.  That rent, and the part pension, are still income derived in Australia, and up for 32% non resident tax. 

 

Same with bank interest, share dividends, owning a business etc. 

 

It's not just about pensions, it all and any "income" derived in Australia if you are outside of Australia for 183 days.  They will remove the gray area that many have been in for years, if not decades.  

 

The "pint half full" will have to be in assets / means testing, or a threshold, or exemption, none of which are mentioned in the proposed changes.  

 

I guess why go to the trouble and expense to draft legislation that catches as many people and dollars as possible, just to let them and their money go again by creating another gray area that can be manipulated? 

I worked in the Aus superannuation industry for 26 years, both in finance and then as a senior policy officer, across defined benefit funds, accumulation accounts and hybrid schemes.

I saw incorrect legislation drafted as the legislative draftsman didn't understand the issues or reprecussions.

I then saw politicians blindly vote without understanding the legislation.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.????????

 

[Olmate]

25 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

No, I can just see the government, doesn't matter with party is in power, eventually passing these laws. 

 

It's already on Albo's radar.

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v

 

"Expats could get some relief from a proposed new tax regime, with the Albanese government reviewing the number of days those living outside the country could visit Australia before being slugged income tax."

 Your link speaks to Oct 22 budget, seems like Albo,s radar said" Nah! "

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, 183 days outside of Australia sees you automatically be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and the Australian pension you receive is deemed to be an income derived from Australia, and the non resident tax rate is 32% from $1 to $120,000, and this would be of little concern to you.

 

Why is that? 

I have made the case as to the steps required for it to happen and noted that at each step it becomes statistically less and less likely e.g. that they would tax the age pension in this manner and that rules would not be grandfathered. My conclusion is that if I were in those circumstances it would be well down the list of my concerns. 

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Is the below link, which is one of many, a hypothetical? 

 

Do you see any means / asset tests or exemptions mentioned in it?

 

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

 

Perhaps you should start a new topic, "Am I like an ostrich with my head in the sand?" 

 

Here's that link again for you to comment on. 

 

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

 

Perhaps you should email the company and tell them to stick to the facts on their website. 

Apparently, you have made 236 posts on this topic and most of them have been on the same one subject.

 

Of those posts, you seem to have only offered one useful contribution of fact, to which I shall be eternally grateful.

 

That there is a possibility of expatriate pensioners  being taxed on their OAP.

 

Once is enough! 

 

Re-iteration is unnecessary! 

 

Give it up!

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

 

The comments in my previous post stand!

[Will27]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Apparently, you have made 236 posts on this topic and most of them have been on the same one subject.

 

Of those posts, you seem to have only offered one useful contribution of fact, to which I shall be eternally grateful.

 

That there is a possibility of expatriate pensioners  being taxed on their OAP.

 

Once is enough! 

 

Re-iteration is unnecessary! 

 

Give it up!

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

 

The comments in my previous post stand!

Hope you're ready for a 1000 word reply pointing out that you're wrong and he is in fact correct.

 

He's like a dog with a bone.

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Lucky Bones said:

I saw incorrect legislation drafted as the legislative draftsman didn't understand the issues or reprecussions.

I then saw politicians blindly vote without understanding the legislation.

Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.????????

I would not be surprised if the same thing happens in this case.

 

The politicians will think everyone living overs are like Paul Hogan, and vote it in. 

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Olmate said:

 Your link speaks to Oct 22 budget, seems like Albo,s radar said" Nah! "

Does it really matter when it's passed? 

 

If you say 10 years from now, great.  Most of us will have passed. or too old to care anyway.  

 

If you say 10 months from now, that's going to effect most members of this forum, and new Aussie retirees to Thailand, and other countries. 

 

Another interesting article.

 

Albanese can break reform gridlock, but will he dare? (smh.com.au)

 

"Albanese has given Chalmers another chance to test the public’s appetite for tax reform after last year’s discussion on the stage-three income tax cuts ended in retreat, with the PM sticking to his election promise to leave the former Morrison government’s fiscal time bomb untouched."

 

I doubt the Australian public would care about any tax reform for non residents.  It will sail through. 

[KhunHeineken]

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

I have made the case as to the steps required for it to happen and noted that at each step it becomes statistically less and less likely e.g. that they would tax the age pension in this manner and that rules would not be grandfathered. My conclusion is that if I were in those circumstances it would be well down the list of my concerns. 

I suppose for those that have put everything they have in a Thai girls name, this tax would be the least of their concerns. 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Apparently, you have made 236 posts on this topic and most of them have been on the same one subject.

So?

 

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Of those posts, you seem to have only offered one useful contribution of fact, to which I shall be eternally grateful.

 

That there is a possibility of expatriate pensioners  being taxed on their OAP.

 

Glad I could help.

 

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Once is enough! 

 

Re-iteration is unnecessary! 

 

Are you a moderator?

 

Some wish to discuss the proposed changes.  You don't have to join the discussion.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list.  That's what it's there for. 

 

You didn't make a comment in your other post.  It was just a personal attack. 

 

I asked if you have any comment on proposed changes in the link, and your next post is another personal attack.  

 

What's your opinion on the proposed changes? 

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

40 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Hope you're ready for a 1000 word reply pointing out that you're wrong and he is in fact correct.

Happy to hear why you think you are correct, and I am wrong, rather than a meaningless personal attack.

 

41 minutes ago, Will27 said:

He's like a dog with a bone.

A bit like the Australian Tax Office will be on this one, when it's passed.   `

 

But, apparently, these proposed changes are only for guys like Paul Hogan. 

[LosLobo]

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

So?

 

Glad I could help.

 

Are you a moderator?

 

Some wish to discuss the proposed changes.  You don't have to join the discussion.  Feel free to put me on your ignore list.  That's what it's there for. 

 

You didn't make a comment in your other post.  It was just a personal attack. 

 

I asked if you have any comment on proposed changes in the link, and your next post is another personal attack.  

 

What's your opinion on the proposed changes? 

 

 

 

 

With respect, what I stated was not ad hominem and it was not intended. 

 

It was fact with a dash of humor!

 

 

[ripstanley]

8 hours ago, Will27 said:

Hope you're ready for a 1000 word reply pointing out that you're wrong and he is in fact correct.

 

He's like a dog with a bone.

Will this is a great post. I have heard of people who love to hear their own voice but here we someone who loves to read their own writings.

[Lacessit]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

 

The savings from them would be billions, and ongoing, forever. 

 

  

Perhaps if you posted some facts and figures to support your vague assertions, I might stop regarding them as utter drivel.

 The savings from removing superannuation tax concessions are almost equivalent to the total cost of the OAP. Fact.

Now post the estimated contribution of taxing the OAP of retirees living overseas. IMO it's not billions.

The cost of administrating the removal of superannuation tax concessions is zero. Fact again. What will the cost of administrating a tax on the OAP be, when a good proportion of pensioners will be flitting in and out of Australia to <deleted> it?

 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps if you posted some facts and figures to support your vague assertions, I might stop regarding them as utter drivel.

Ok, so I posted some links from government websites a while ago that said at any one time there are more than 1,000,000 Australians living abroad.   (scroll back, you'll find the links) 

 

Obviously, Australian immigration and Centrelink know whether a welfare recipient is inside Australia, or outside Australia. 

 

We don't know the exact figures, but say we said 40% of the 1 million Aussies overseas were retired.  Obviously, this figure is debatable.

 

So that's 400,000 Aussies retired overseas.  A member posted earlier that Thailand has 20,000 Australian expats alone.  I suggested Bali would have a lot also. 

 

Out of those 400,000 retired Aussie expats, say half are receiving a Centrelink pension.  Once again, this is debatable.  

 

So, say there's 200,000 Aussies living overseas, anywhere in the world, on a Centrelink pension.

 

The fortnightly aged pension is  $1026.50AUD.

 

200,000 x $1026.50 = $205,300,000 in aged pension a fortnight to Aussie expats.  Effectively, this money leaves Australian shores, and is gone from the Australia economy. 

 

$205,300,000 x 26 fortnights = $5,337,800,000 a year in aged pensions going to Aussie expats.

 

The tax rate for non residents is 32.5% from $0 to $120,000.  (scroll back for link to this also) 

 

$5,337,800,000 x 32.5% = $1,734,785,000 is non resident tax (pension reduction) to Aussie expats, per year.   Are we not in the billions of dollars?

 

This is only 2 out of 10 Aussie expats, that are on a Centrelink pension.

 

Now, let's move onto the other 200,000 self funded retirees through their super, rental property, shares, business ownership etc.  

 

Then, let's move on to the other 600,000 Aussie expats that are working, some of whom are on big dollars, like Paul Hogan.

 

How many of the other 800,000 Aussie expats have been maneuvering around the big gray area of a law passed in 1936 to call themselves Australian residents for taxation purposes when they are actually not?  The 183 days will scoop all of them up easily.  

 

Put it all together and it's a nice earner for government and costs next to zero votes.

 

What government wouldn't want a piece of the above action? 

 

Are the above figures "utter drivel" Lacessit?  If you think so, why? 

 

We can work backwards to find out just how many Aussie expats on a pension it takes, at non resident tax rates, to hit the $1 billion mark, so if you disagree with the 200,000 figure, given that Thailand has 20,000 of them alone, throw a figure out there and let's run the numbers.

 

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The savings from removing superannuation tax concessions are almost equivalent to the total cost of the OAP. Fact.

Yes, I was the one that posted a link to that.  What's your point?  That it makes a lot of money?  So does taxing / reducing pensions at non resident tax rates, as shown above.

 

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Now post the estimated contribution of taxing the OAP of retirees living overseas. IMO it's not billions.

The cost of administrating the removal of superannuation tax concessions is zero. Fact again. What will the cost of administrating a tax on the OAP be, when a good proportion of pensioners will be flitting in and out of Australia to <deleted> it?

I just did.  It's over $1 billion AUD in savings a year. 

 

As far as the cost of implementing, next to nothing, as Centrelink staff are already are being paid, and immigration and Centrelink data bases do all the work.  Some wait times may take longer.  As if the government cares about that.

 

Pretty simple for Centrelink and immigration data bases.  Once a pensioner is overseas for 183 days, their pension is reduced by 32.5%.  A computer handles this.  Where's the administrating cost in that? 

 

The pensioner comes home, they have to go to a Centrelink office and wait in a queue.  So what?  Where's the administration cost in that?  Even if there was some administration costs, it's more than covered by the over $1 billion raised in pension savings to Centrelink.

 

Here's another interesting article.  This could be good news for the proposed non resident tax changes.  There could be a threshold put in place on the super tax concessions to only target the top end of town. 

 

Hopefully, they might do the same to the non resident tax when it comes in.   Maybe something like you can have an income derived from Australia up to X amount of dollars before non resident tax rates apply to your income.  A little like the tax free threshold.  We can only hope.

 

Jim Chalmers signals $3m superannuation fund threshold for cut to tax breaks (smh.com.au)

 

Once gain, I only posted the links to the super tax concessions to show how easily and quickly a new tax can come in, or be changed to tax more people.  I didn't post them because they are relevant to non resident taxation, but you seem to have a thing for super tax concessions.  Why is that?  It doesn't really effect expats already living in Thailand and elsewhere, but non resident taxation very well might.