Australian Aged Pension

[Lacessit]

30 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, self funded, so even if pensions are exempt, I am still screwed when these laws are passed. 

 

This has been discussed at an appointment with my accountant on this visit back to Australia, and some strategies discussed.   Until the laws are passed, and the devil in the detail is known, it's continue on as normal.

 

I'm Australian.  If I wasn't, why would I be posting in this thread? 

 

Location is Thailand, but currently back in Oz.  Heading back shortly. 

 

No. 

 

Are you being sarcastic? 

 

In a previous post you disagreed. 

 

Of course the figure of 200,000 is not exact, but I explained how I arrived at that figure.  It's only 2 out of 10 Aussie expats. 

 

There's around 10,000 Australians living in Bali, and you said 20,000 are living in Thailand.  It's interesting that 15% of the 200,000 only live in two countries. 

 

As for why am I so interested in the pension I don't get, that is a good question. 

 

I originally posted to give a "heads up" to expats on this thread about the proposed changes and was shocked by many of the replies. 

 

There were gems such as, "Those laws are only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" that had me shaking my head. 

 

These were just two of many reasons put forward by members as to why they thought the new laws would not apply to them, and despite being outside of Australia for 183 days, they would still remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes. 

 

Using these two examples, being outside of Australia for 183 days would not apply to you, because you are not Paul Hogan, and / or you still have a Medicare Card cause me to post that I disagreed, and you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  

 

So, after posting how I don't think holding a Medicare Card will exempt you from these laws, and how the laws may be for everyone, and not just guys like Paul Hogan, I was ridiculed, personally attacked, and even called a "scaremonger" despite posting links to accounting firms, lawyers, and wealth manager websites that explained the proposed changes. 

 

It then became clear to me that many members were posting based on emotion.  As I said in another post, it's normal to resist change, even fear it, especially change that can effect lifestyle, and especially in those that are older.  Not to mention, anything that takes some money out of our hands raises some anger. 

 

I replied to every post that addressed me, saying why I either agreed, or disagreed.

 

So, while I have no financial interests in pensions, as in, I don't receive one, the thought process, emotion, denial, abuse and intimidation, much of which was directed at me, personally, much of which still continues to this day, kept me posting on the matter.

 

Despite all of the posts, as I did back then, and still do, I wish all expats, pensioner or not, the best of luck in dealing with these new laws if / when they come in.

Casting yourself as the victim isn't going to get you much sympathy, given your track record of negative postings on something that has not happened, and may never do so, in the entirety of what you are postulating.

Putting forward figures which are subsequently demonstrated to be substantially incorrect is not going to gain you much credibility either.

 

I would suggest anyone who makes 255 and counting posts, preaching to the seriously unconverted, has significant OCD issues.

 

"This has been discussed at an appointment with my accountant on this visit back to Australia, and some strategies discussed.   Until the laws are passed, and the devil in the detail is known, it's continue on as normal."

 

You have stated you don't get a pension. However, it does seem from the above statement the proposed change will affect you, and like everyone else, you will be looking for ways to circumvent it. Would it make you envious if said change had thresholds and exemptions not available to you, for those on pensions?

 

[KhunHeineken]

17 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Sorry it was not evident!

No everyone in the room will get all of the jokes, all of the time. 

 

17 hours ago, LosLobo said:

May I suggest it may be appropriate to change the nomenclature of this forum now that you exceeded your 250th post of your epic saga of "Taxing Forum Pensioners".

Once again, you are incorrect.

 

It's taxing everyone outside of Australia for 183 days who derive an income from Australia.  Do you have a comment on this, or will you continue with your pitiful personal attacks?

 

17 hours ago, LosLobo said:

I have a few new names to offer:

 

1) War and Peace on Forum Pensioners.

 

2) There's More Than One Way to Skin a Cat Forum Pensioner.

 

3) 50 250 Shades of Grey Taxation Posts to Flog a Forum Pensioner with and Make Him Suffer.

So do I.

 

1)  To tax or not to tax - that is the question.

 

2)  Know your tax liabilities - be prepared for change.

 

3) The Three Wise Monkeys - if I don't see it, hear it, speak it, then it will not happen to me. 

 

4)  If I shoot the messenger enough, the tax will go away. 

 

5)  The Cat is out of the Expat Taxation Hat - will it be skinned.

 

6)  250 - can these lost votes change taxation policy.  

 

7)   My war against the ATO - tips for expats, by Paul Hogan.  

 

8)   Have Medicare Card will travel.   

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Casting yourself as the victim isn't going to get you much sympathy, given your track record of negative postings on something that has not happened, and may never do so, in the entirety of what you are postulating.

Putting forward figures which are subsequently demonstrated to be substantially incorrect is not going to gain you much credibility either.

Is it not a fact that my posts, therefore myself, have borne the brunt of ridicule, abuse, snide remarks, and personal attacks on this thread? 

 

I don't seek out, or need, any sympathy.  Simply stating a fact.  

 

Once again, I don't see anything positive in the new laws for expats.  Do you?  If so, please post of them. 

 

Yes, the new laws are not in yet.  Did I say they were?  Do you think they will be passed, eventually?  f not, why not?

 

I said my figure of 200,000 expats, all around the world, is debatable, did I not?  

 

I asked you to put a figure forward and no reply.  

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I would suggest anyone who makes 255 and counting posts, preaching to the seriously unconverted, has significant OCD issues.

Coming from a member who has 18,921 posts to my 1.613.   

 

in any case, try to convert me then.  If you, and everyone else is right, and I am wrong, point out where I am wrong with something of more substance than, "Those laws are only for Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident." 

 

Can YOU tell me where either the proposed laws in various links are in error, or my interpretation of those laws are in error.  By this I mean, the written words, not "there would be a backlash from pensioners" and "pensioners would be up in arms."  It's about the laws and my interpretation of them.   

 

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

"This has been discussed at an appointment with my accountant on this visit back to Australia, and some strategies discussed.   Until the laws are passed, and the devil in the detail is known, it's continue on as normal."

 

You have stated you don't get a pension. However, it does seem from the above statement the proposed change will affect you, and like everyone else, you will be looking for ways to circumvent it. Would it make you envious if said change had thresholds and exemptions not available to you, for those on pensions?

Of course it will effect me.  I've never suggested otherwise.  How many times have I said, "I am one of the ones that will be screwed?" 

 

In my opinion, I'll say that again for clarity purposes, in my opinion, the proposed changes have the ability to impact all expats.  I've been clear about this.  There are no means / asset testing, thresholds, or exemptions mentioned in them, nor any change to the non resident tax brackets, on any websites I have read.  Just because my thought process revolves about what I actually read, rather than emotion, I am labeled as being "negative." 

 

What I read is, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes, no more gray area.  Therefore, any income derived from Australia starts at being taxed at 32.5%, from $0.  Does it read differently to you? 

 

There's a difference between tax minimization and tax avoidance.  Your use of the word "circumvent" suggests some illegality will be involved.  This is certainly not the case. 

 

One strategy discussed is the positive effect that I no longer have to maintain a "domicile" in Australia.  This it what happily kept me in the gray area for so long.  No point keeping it if / when these laws are passed.  So sell that property, and invest the proceeds elsewhere. 

 

Sure, the government still gets 32.5% on the earnings of that sold property a year, but I get the earnings of the other 67.5%, and do not have to pay any fees such as council rates, insurance, maintenance etc.  This 67.5% covers some loss to the 32.5% tax other investments attract, but should keep me pretty much in the lifestyle I currently enjoy in Thailand. 

 

None of this is "circumventing" the law.  It is just minimizing the impact of the new tax on lifestyle.  The ATO can jam a letter into me at any time and my books will pass inspection.

 

Why do you think I mentioned some time ago the new laws may free up some housing stock?  The only reason I had that property was to qualify for the gray area for non resident for tax purposes.  I have friends that will do the same if / when these laws come in. 

 

I have one friend who built a house in Issan for the missus, but lives in Phuket.  His strategy if / when he loses 32.5% of his income out of Australia is they move to Issan and live in the house, but going back to Australia for 184 days a year is not an option for them.  That's a big lifestyle change, but better than other alternatives.    

 

The new laws will force a lot of people to make some tough decisions, these are decisions most don't want to face, so better to throw rocks at me on this forum and hope it all goes away, but I really don't think having a Medicare Card is going to get anyone a free pass on these changes.

 

The current wave of hope is, the laws are not in yet, and might not be in for years.  This is of course correct.  The longer the better as far as I am concerned, and then there will probably be the usual start date of "next 1st July" as well.  There's a reason why many accounting firms, lawyers, and wealth manager websites have posted about the new laws, way before they are in, because expats need to consider them, and their own circumstances, and plan for it, and this includes pensioners.  It's all expats, from the wealthy to the not so wealthy.

 

As far as being envious of thresholds and / or exemptions that I may not qualify for, no.  I have wished everyone luck with these new laws, several times.  If at a later stage details emerge of thresholds and exemptions, of course I would hope I am in that pool, but if not, I'll assess my situation and see if it is financially advantageous for me to move some assets to try to join the pool.  Once again, tax minimization, not tax avoidance.  

 

You have said you are a part pensioner.  If pensions are exempt, but other income is not, have you considered a tax minimizing strategy for your other source of income, or will you just pay the 32.5%?    

 

Once again, you, and others, are playing the poster, not the post/s.  

 

Challenge me all you like on what I post, rather than post things like "you are being negative" or "it will never happen because of a backlash from pensioners" because not only is it irrelevant, it means nothing to me.  It's about the written words in the law, not emotion. 

 

     

Edited February 28, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

17 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

Specifically the LNP Government

The RC is interesting watching the relevant MInisters including Bulldozer were squirming and bleeding incompetence and lack of regard for rulings from AAT and others

 

How will this stop the new laws being passed, and their impact on expats? 

[Lacessit]

26 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Is it not a fact that my posts, therefore myself, have borne the brunt of ridicule, abuse, snide remarks, and personal attacks on this thread? 

 

I don't seek out, or need, any sympathy.  Simply stating a fact.  

 

Once again, I don't see anything positive in the new laws for expats.  Do you?  If so, please post of them. 

 

Yes, the new laws are not in yet.  Did I say they were?  Do you think they will be passed, eventually?  f not, why not?

 

I said my figure of 200,000 expats, all around the world, is debatable, did I not?  

 

I asked you to put a figure forward and no reply.  

 

Coming from a member who has 18,921 posts to my 1.613. 

 

I asked you to put a figure forward and no reply.  

 

Coming from a member who has 18,921 posts to my 1.613.   

 

in any case, try to convert me then.  If you, and everyone else is right, and I am wrong, point out where I am wrong with something of more substance than, "Those laws are only for Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident." 

 

Can YOU tell me where either the proposed laws in various links are in error, or my interpretation of those laws are in error.  By this I mean, the written words, not "there would be a backlash from pensioners" and "pensioners would be up in arms."  It's about the laws and my interpretation of them.   

 

Of course it will effect me.  I've never suggested otherwise.  How many times have I said, "I am one of the ones that will be screwed?" 

 

In my opinion, I'll say that again for clarity purposes, in my opinion, the proposed changes have the ability to impact all expats.  I've been clear about this.  There are no means / asset testing, thresholds, or exemptions mentioned in them, nor any change to the non resident tax brackets, on any websites I have read.  Just because my thought process revolves about what I actually read, rather than emotion, I am labeled as being "negative." 

 

What I read is, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes, no more gray area.  Therefore, any income derived from Australia starts at being taxed at 32.5%, from $0.  Does it read differently to you? 

 

There's a difference between tax minimization and tax avoidance.  Your use of the word "circumvent" suggests some illegality will be involved.  This is certainly not the case. 

 

One strategy discussed is the positive effect that I no longer have to maintain a "domicile" in Australia.  This it what happily kept me in the gray area for so long.  No point keeping it if / when these laws are passed.  So sell that property, and invest the proceeds elsewhere. 

 

Sure, the government still gets 32.5% on the earnings of that sold property a year, but I get the earnings of the other 67.5%, and do not have to pay any fees such as council rates, insurance, maintenance etc.  This 67.5% covers some loss to the 32.5% tax other investments attract, but should keep me pretty much in the lifestyle I currently enjoy in Thailand. 

 

None of this is "circumventing" the law.  It is just minimizing the impact of the new tax on lifestyle.  The ATO can jam a letter into me at any time and my books will pass inspection.

 

Why do you think I mentioned some time ago the new laws may free up some housing stock?  The only reason I had that property was to qualify for the gray area for non resident for tax purposes.  I have friends that will do the same if / when these laws come in. 

 

I have one friend who built a house in Issan for the missus, but lives in Phuket.  His strategy if / when he loses 32.5% of his income out of Australia is they move to Issan and live in the house, but going back to Australia for 184 days a year is not an option for them.  That's a big lifestyle change, but better than other alternatives.    

 

The new laws will force a lot of people to make some tough decisions, these are decisions most don't want to face, so better to throw rocks at me on this forum and hope it all goes away, but I really don't think having a Medicare Card is going to get anyone a free pass on these changes.

 

The current wave of hope is, the laws are not in yet, and might not be in for years.  This is of course correct.  The longer the better as far as I am concerned, and then there will probably be the usual start date of "next 1st July" as well.  There's a reason why many accounting firms, lawyers, and wealth manager websites have posted about the new laws, way before they are in, because expats need to consider them, and their own circumstances, and plan for it, and this includes pensioners.  It's all expats, from the wealthy to the not so wealthy.

 

As far as being envious of thresholds and / or exemptions that I may not qualify for, no.  I have wished everyone luck with these new laws, several times.  If at a later stage details emerge of thresholds and exemptions, of course I would hope I am in that pool, but if not, I'll assess my situation and see if it is financially advantageous for me to move some assets to try to join the pool.  Once again, tax minimization, not tax avoidance.  

 

You have said you are a part pensioner.  If pensions are exempt, but other income is not, have you considered a tax minimizing strategy for your other source of income, or will you just pay the 32.5%?    

 

Once again, you, and others, are playing the poster, not the post/s.  

 

Challenge me all you like on what I post, rather than post things like "you are being negative" or "it will never happen because of a backlash from pensioners" because not only is it irrelevant, it means nothing to me.  It's about the written words in the law, not emotion. 

 

     

" I asked you to put a figure forward, and no reply".

 

Perhaps you have forgotten I posted a figure of 90,000 in response to your 200,000 claim.

 

True, I have racked up nearly 19,000 posts. Having said that, I can't recall any thread where I have made more than 250 posts, which IMO is monomania.

 

I think I can reasonably claim quite a few of my posts are intended to help other people, not instil fear in them.

 

I have also had two death threats on the ASEAN/Thai Visa forum. In the light of that, casting yourself as a victim of a smear campaign is not going to get any traction with me.

 

Let me suggest you do something positive, such as sharing the strategies in more detail you have discussed with your accountant. 

[Artisi]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

" I asked you to put a figure forward, and no reply".

 

Perhaps you have forgotten I posted a figure of 90,000 in response to your 200,000 claim.

 

True, I have racked up nearly 19,000 posts. Having said that, I can't recall any thread where I have made more than 250 posts, which IMO is monomania.

 

I think I can reasonably claim quite a few of my posts are intended to help other people, not instil fear in them.

 

I have also had two death threats on the ASEAN/Thai Visa forum. In the light of that, casting yourself as a victim of a smear campaign is not going to get any traction with me.

 

Let me suggest you do something positive, such as sharing the strategies in more detail you have discussed with your accountant. 

If the new rules pass, that's if and I don't see any reason why they won't, there will be no strategy to bye pass the 183 days. 

If it passes and you're out of the country for more than 183 day (without good reason ie, business travel etc.) you will be classified as a non resident and subject to the proposed tax. 

I cannot see what all this backward and forward snipping and aggravation is about. 

If it's brought in, it's in and that's it, plus even now if the tax guys are aware that your living overseas, there is current provision to tax your earnings, but  as pointed out - it's a gray area and many if not all are dodging it. 

[Will27]

45 minutes ago, Artisi said:

If the new rules pass, that's if and I don't see any reason why they won't, there will be no strategy to bye pass the 183 days. 

If it passes and you're out of the country for more than 183 day (without good reason ie, business travel etc.) you will be classified as a non resident and subject to the proposed tax. 

I cannot see what all this backward and forward snipping and aggravation is about. 

If it's brought in, it's in and that's it, plus even now if the tax guys are aware that your living overseas, there is current provision to tax your earnings, but  as pointed out - it's a gray area and many if not all are dodging it. 

There's been a lot of reasons put forward why it won't be implemented.

 

So you're saying if it's implemented, the 183 rule is will be subject to "good reasons".

 

Most of the sniping is due to one insufferable poster TBF.

[Artisi]

20 minutes ago, Will27 said:

There's been a lot of reasons put forward why it won't be implemented.

 

So you're saying if it's implemented, the 183 rule is will be subject to "good reasons".

 

Most of the sniping is due to one insufferable poster TBF.

any reason put forward by posters is meaningless.

Good reason is as I said - if your overseas for legitimate reasons - on business, in the armed forces, government appointment etc - that shouldn't be too difficult to understand -  being retired and living o/s is not a reason to be classed as a resident for tax purposes as per the proposed rules coming in.  

 I'm on record in saying I don't agree with it for people on OAP or low paid super funds - and If asked to vote on the subject I would say NO.

 

He's not the only insufferable poster ????

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Artisi

[Will27]

4 minutes ago, Artisi said:

any reason put forward by posters is meaningless.

Good reason is as I said - if your overseas for legitimate reasons - on business, in the armed forces, government appointment - that shouldn't be too difficult to understand -  being retired and living o/s is not a reason to be classed as a resident for tax purposes  

 

He's not the only insufferable poster ????

 

 

When then your post is meaningless then if that's the case.

 

If you think the 183 rule will be subject to "legitimate reasons", then you're opening up a can of worms that does make it hard to enforce.

 

Obviously armed forces and overseas government transfers won't be included but I'm not sure about

being on business.

 

Insufferable posters, you can say that again.

[Artisi]

1 minute ago, Will27 said:

When then your post is meaningless then if that's the case.

 

If you think the 183 rule will be subject to "legitimate reasons", then you're opening up a can of worms that does make it hard to enforce.

 

Obviously armed forces and overseas government transfers won't be included but I'm not sure about

being on business.

 

Insufferable posters, you can say that again.

I'll leave it to you as to why my post is meaningless as I certainly don't want to be classed as another insufferable poster. 

[Will27]

40 minutes ago, Artisi said:

I'll leave it to you as to why my post is meaningless as I certainly don't want to be classed as another insufferable poster. 

You're the one who said "any reason put forward by posters in meaningless". 

So I assume that means you and every other poster on here.

 

As far as insufferable posters.

Someone who has posted over 200 posts, with the vast majority of them about the same subject, not to mention incorrect information is subjective I think.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Artisi said:

If the new rules pass, that's if and I don't see any reason why they won't, there will be no strategy to bye pass the 183 days. 

If it passes and you're out of the country for more than 183 day (without good reason ie, business travel etc.) you will be classified as a non resident and subject to the proposed tax. 

I cannot see what all this backward and forward snipping and aggravation is about. 

If it's brought in, it's in and that's it, plus even now if the tax guys are aware that your living overseas, there is current provision to tax your earnings, but  as pointed out - it's a gray area and many if not all are dodging it. 

The big question is whether Australia will (AFAIK) become the first nation in the world to tax government pensions.

A pension is not earnings. I have always paid whatever taxes I owed on earnings, either via PAYE, or FY assessment of investment income/capital gains.

The aggravation arises from endless negativity. Permit me to doubt I am alone in that perception.

[Artisi]

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The big question is whether Australia will (AFAIK) become the first nation in the world to tax government pensions.

A pension is not earnings. I have always paid whatever taxes I owed on earnings, either via PAYE, or FY assessment of investment income/capital gains.

The aggravation arises from endless negativity. Permit me to doubt I am alone in that perception.

 

Taxable pensions, payments and allowances

You must include taxable Australian Government pensions, payments and allowances in your tax return. Examples include:

• age pension
• carer payment
• Austudy payment
• JobSeeker payment
• Youth allowance
• Defence Force income support allowance (DFISA) where the pension, payment or allowance to which it relates is taxable
• veteran payment
• invalidity service pension, if you are age-pension age or over
• disability support pension, if you are age-pension age or over
• income support supplement
• sickness allowance
• parenting payment (partnered)
• disaster recovery allowance (but not in relation to 2019–20 bushfires).

So seems pensions are taxable 

PS - added after switching on brain - if below tax free threshold it would non taxable 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Artisi

[Will27]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The big question is whether Australia will (AFAIK) become the first nation in the world to tax government pensions.

A pension is not earnings. I have always paid whatever taxes I owed on earnings, either via PAYE, or FY assessment of investment income/capital gains.

The aggravation arises from endless negativity. Permit me to doubt I am alone in that perception.

Pensions are taxable, but if that's your only source of income you're OK.

[Artisi]

12 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Pensions are taxable, but if that's your only source of income you're OK.

as they are usually below the tax free threshold.

[scorecard]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Like I said, I'm not on a pension.  I looked it up, it said $1026.50 per fortnight, I posted the link, and ran the numbers. 

 

At $963 per fortnight, the annual savings to Centrelink, based on 200,000 Aussie expats, all around the world, would be $1, 627, 470, 000. 

 

Still over $1 billion, which an other member denied it would be, which I also addressed in another post, after he claimed many pensioners were on a part pension. 

Where does the 200,000 Aussie expats number come from?

[scorecard]

27 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Pensions are taxable, but if that's your only source of income you're OK.

"The aggravation arises from endless negativity. Permit me to doubt I am alone in that perception."

 

You are NOT alone, the negativity comes from one poster who it seems searches for anything /creates whatever, to keep posting negative comments. He quotes 'data' which is his creation. 

 

The reality is quite simple. Nobody knows what might/could happen in the longer term re pensions, taxes and similar, so everything this poster submits to the webboard is assumption, speculation, twists into negativity. 

 

In the meantime I assume that the OZ government will not penalize pensioners in any way. In fact there's been recent mention in the media that pensioners are struggling and metion of the possibility of some support. Not facts, just some mention. 

 

Further, nowadays I don't believe most media reports, all media/any country.

 

I put a block on the 'usual suspect's' posts but somehow the block stopped working. 

[Lacessit]

Well, one shoe has dropped. A long overdue reform.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-28/jim-chalmers-superannuation-tax-changes-three-million-cap/102032156

[scorecard]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Well, one shoe has dropped. A long overdue reform.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-28/jim-chalmers-superannuation-tax-changes-three-million-cap/102032156

From the link:

 

" "This is expected to apply to around 80,000 people, and they will continue to benefit from more generous tax breaks on earnings from the $3 million below the threshold."

On this time line, the measure would take effect after the next federal election."

 

Keep in mind:

- This is specific to Superannuation.

- This is comment by the trearurer, NOT current law. Not yet discussed by the full parliaament, which could bring changes/adjustments.

 

It's NOT about pensions. 

 

[Lacessit]

56 minutes ago, Artisi said:

 

Taxable pensions, payments and allowances

You must include taxable Australian Government pensions, payments and allowances in your tax return. Examples include:

• age pension
• carer payment
• Austudy payment
• JobSeeker payment
• Youth allowance
• Defence Force income support allowance (DFISA) where the pension, payment or allowance to which it relates is taxable
• veteran payment
• invalidity service pension, if you are age-pension age or over
• disability support pension, if you are age-pension age or over
• income support supplement
• sickness allowance
• parenting payment (partnered)
• disaster recovery allowance (but not in relation to 2019–20 bushfires).

So seems pensions are taxable 

PS - added after switching on brain - if below tax free threshold it would non taxable 

 

Exactly. Is the tax free threshold removed when someone is classed as non-resident?  If so, then the pension is taxed, without regard to any income thresholds.

[scorecard]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Exactly. Is the tax free threshold removed when someone is classed as non-resident?  If so, then the pension is taxed, without regard to any income thresholds.

"

You must include taxable Australian Government pensions, payments and allowances in your tax return. Examples include:

• age pension
• carer payment
• Austudy payment
• JobSeeker payment
• Youth allowance
• Defence Force income support allowance (DFISA) where the pension, payment or allowance to which it relates is taxable......"

 

The fact is must be listed doesn't automatically means it is subject to taxation.

 

It could be that:

 

- I must be listed but is in fact exempt from taxation. 

 

Some folks receive a DVA Disability monthly Compensation Allowance (used to be called DVA Disability Pension - name changed a few months ago.) 

 

In many such cases the disabilities are severe and make life quite difficult (both anotomical and mental - PTSD , panic, anxiety, depression etc. issues) All a result of a war. 

 

I very much doubt any OZ government would ever consider taxing such allowances/payments. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by scorecard

[Will27]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Exactly. Is the tax free threshold removed when someone is classed as non-resident?  If so, then the pension is taxed, without regard to any income thresholds.

Yep

 

No threshold for non-residents.

[Artisi]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Exactly. Is the tax free threshold removed when someone is classed as non-resident?  If so, then the pension is taxed, without regard to any income thresholds.

I believe it is currently, but this can and is dodged around by many, including myself prior to returning to Aus.   - but let's not start the discussion all over again -  it's been  done to death.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

From the link:

 

" "This is expected to apply to around 80,000 people, and they will continue to benefit from more generous tax breaks on earnings from the $3 million below the threshold."

On this time line, the measure would take effect after the next federal election."

 

Keep in mind:

- This is specific to Superannuation.

- This is comment by the trearurer, NOT current law. Not yet discussed by the full parliaament, which could bring changes/adjustments.

 

It's NOT about pensions. 

 

My argument with another poster has been about what is high and low-hanging fruit. I rest my case.

Logic tells me the sole 183 day rule ( assuming it ever gets up with a Labor government ) would also follow the timeline of the next Federal election, two and a half years away. Given the Boomer population bulge, IMO unlikely. Don't mess with the pensioner vote is Politics 101.

Can you imagine the teal independents and Greens won't be supporting the Treasurer's comments? I am enjoying the spectacle of the Liberals being reduced to a wailing anachronism.

[Artisi]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

My argument with another poster has been about what is high and low-hanging fruit. I rest my case.

Logic tells me the sole 183 day rule ( assuming it ever gets up with a Labor government ) would also follow the timeline of the next Federal election, two and a half years away. Given the Boomer population bulge, IMO unlikely. Don't mess with the pensioner vote is Politics 101.

Can you imagine the teal independents and Greens won't be supporting the Treasurer's comments? I am enjoying the spectacle of the Liberals being reduced to a wailing anachronism.

as the 183 day rule will only apply to expats - I really don't see too many polies taking notice or caring too much. 

Maybe everyone posting would be better off spending their time lobbying politicians as to why this shouldn't be passed into law.  

 

 

[Will27]

11 minutes ago, Artisi said:

as the 183 day rule will only apply to expats - I really don't see too many polies taking notice or caring too much. 

Maybe everyone posting would be better off spending their time lobbying politicians as to why this shouldn't be passed into law.  

 

 

I reckon they will take notice when/if a pensioner returns to Oz and goes to the media about not being able to live with his family overseas because his pension has been reduced by a 3rd.

 

And when pensioners return to Australia with nowhere to live.

 

And that will happen.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Will27

[KhunHeineken]

 

And just like that, Albo announces 80,000 Australians will pay 30%, up from 15%. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, most Australians will not shed a tear for people with over $3 million in their super account, but it just goes to show how quick and easy a new tax can be brought in, or an existing tax increased, or broadened. 

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/superannuation-update-tax-concession-increase-balances-over-3-million-dollars/7368bf42-32a7-497b-83a9-3e4057dfcbc1

 

Interesting press conference.  It will only make them around $2 billion when fully up and running.  That's a long way from the over $50 billion that was touted. 

 

Didn't a member suggest reducing pensions by the non resident tax rate would be too small for the government to even contemplate? 

 

It's not coming in until 2025.  Plenty of warning on this one, just like the proposed changes to non resident tax laws. 

[Artisi]

14 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I reckon they will take notice when/if a pensioner returns to Oz and goes to the media about not being able to live with his family overseas because his pension has been reduced by a 3rd.

 

And when pensioners return to Australia with nowhere to live.

 

And that will happen.

That's a maybe but unfortunately the damage will have already been done and unlikely to be changed for a few returning expats. 

[Will27]

7 minutes ago, Artisi said:

That's a maybe but unfortunately the damage will have already been done and unlikely to be changed for a few returning expats. 

If it did come in, you can bet there will be more than a few returning.

 

It's the main reason I don't think the change will be implemented.

Targeting vulnerable pensioners is usually a no go for most governments.

[Spilornis]

On 2/26/2023 at 9:38 PM, rhodie said:

Can you link to that proposed legislation. I was under the belief that the proposal was the reverse. People who are resident in Australia for 183 days will not be able to claim non residence for tax purposes. I am not sure the reverse is true at this stage.

Interesting...

it appears to have a secondary test very similar to the old domicile test but you need to have spent 45 days per year in Australia to avail yourself of that aspect of the test.

For people residing overseas who don't satisfy either test and who receive Australian income (including the OAP) the inability to avail oneself of the tax free threshold is a big change

Edited February 28, 2023 by Spilornis