Australian Aged Pension

[Spilornis]

11 hours ago, rhodie said:

Cheers. Yes, I agree the 45 days has been discussed. Could you please post a link to the legislation.

I based my comment on the linked Man Judd summary of the legislation. As I mentioned these four factors are very similar to the existing tests used for tax residency except that no one or two factors were by themselves determinant of residency (it was a weighting issue and could be contradicted by residency indices in another country). Interesting that membership of a superannuation fund in Australia is not mentioned as that is one of the present indices

 

"

The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include:

• The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);
• The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);
• Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;
• The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia)"

 

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

[KhunHeineken]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:56 AM, Spilornis said:

As I mentioned these four factors are very similar to the existing tests used for tax residency except that no one or two factors were by themselves determinant of residency (it was a weighting issue and could be contradicted by residency indices in another country).

Did you not see the 183 days is a "bright line test."  This leads me to believe it will be relied upon, and carry the most weight, when determining one's residence for taxation purposes status.

 

On 3/1/2023 at 2:56 AM, Spilornis said:

Interesting that membership of a superannuation fund in Australia is not mentioned as that is one of the present indices

Why would that be relevant to residency for taxation purposes? 

 

On 3/1/2023 at 2:56 AM, Spilornis said:

The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include:

It's unknown, at this stage, what the status of someone will be who is inside Australia for more than 45 days, but less than 183 days. 

 

I could do 46 days (6 weeks) in Australia every year.  No way could I do 6 months in Australia every year. 

 

From memory, from what I read, the days do not have to be consecutive, to it could be a 3 week trip to Australia, and another 3 week trip to Australia, and depending on other factors, you MAY be deemed as a resident for taxation purposes.

 

In any case, most expats in Thailand are living in Thailand full time, so their main consideration is the 183 days, and there's no getting around it if immigration have you outside of Australia for 183 days.

[Lacessit]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:22 PM, KhunHeineken said:

If anything in this thread has caused you, or someone you know, distress, call Lifeline on +61 131114.  Help is only a phone call away.   

This post reminds me of a pyromaniac setting a house on fire, then telling the owner to call the fire brigade.

[Olmate]

On a brighter note a $37.50 f/n  increase is on the way this month for us due to cost of living adjustment. ????

[scorecard]

13 minutes ago, Olmate said:

On a brighter note a $37.50 f/n  increase is on the way this month for us due to cost of living adjustment. ????

Approx 1,700-Baht every 4 weeks. 

[ozfarang]

The OAP indexation is effective 20 March.

 

The maximum fortnightly rate of the pension will increase to $1064 for singles and $1604 for couples, including the pension and energy supplements.????

[Olmate]

17 minutes ago, ozfarang said:

The OAP indexation is effective 20 March.

 

The maximum fortnightly rate of the pension will increase to $1064 for singles and $1604 for couples, including the pension and energy supplements.????

$1030 fn should be the amount paid to single living here I reckon.

[scorecard]

3 hours ago, Olmate said:

$1030 fn should be the amount paid to single living here I reckon.

I live in LOS, the only item I don't get is the Energy Allowance which is around 12 to 14 dollars per fortnight. (Double that amount of course for folks on the 4 weekly payment transferred abroad system.)

 

I do receive the full pension supplement.

[Olmate]

7 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I live in LOS, the only item I don't get is the Energy Allowance which is around 12 to 14 dollars per fortnight. (Double that amount of course for folks on the 4 weekly payment transferred abroad system.)

 

I do receive the full pension supplement.

$963 fn Ive been receiving.plus.now it seems another $ 37, should be $1000. 

[gearbox]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:56 AM, Spilornis said:

I based my comment on the linked Man Judd summary of the legislation. As I mentioned these four factors are very similar to the existing tests used for tax residency except that no one or two factors were by themselves determinant of residency (it was a weighting issue and could be contradicted by residency indices in another country). Interesting that membership of a superannuation fund in Australia is not mentioned as that is one of the present indices

 

"

The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include:

• The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);
• The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);
• Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;
• The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia)"

 

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

From what I can see these are only proposed changes, which are not legislated yet, they are not on the ATO residency test web pages... correct me if I'm wrong.

[KhunHeineken]

On 3/3/2023 at 10:27 PM, Lacessit said:

This post reminds me of a pyromaniac setting a house on fire, then telling the owner to call the fire brigade.

Well it's a "hot" topic, which is sure to get a few "fired" up. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:23 AM, Olmate said:

$963 fn Ive been receiving.plus.now it seems another $ 37, should be $1000. 

As I have said, I m not on an OAP, but maybe a member can explain to me why some of you are receiving different amounts? 

 

I can understand with the part pension, but why are members receiving different amount for the full pension?

[KhunHeineken]

On 3/9/2023 at 7:49 AM, gearbox said:

From what I can see these are only proposed changes, which are not legislated yet, they are not on the ATO residency test web pages... correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct, and no one has suggested they are law. 

 

They are proposed changes to the law.  They were drafted by the former Liberal government, and I have posted a link showing the current Labor is aware of them, and may tweak the amount of days, but from memory, that was just in relation to the 45 days.  

 

I have no doubt that the current laws, which are over 90 years old, will eventually be overhauled, probably with something that has no gray area, such as these proposed changes with the 183 days. 

 

So until then, continue on as normal, but consider a plan for remaining overseas with 32.5% less income from Australia, if you can. 

[gearbox]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You are correct, and no one has suggested they are law. 

 

They are proposed changes to the law.  They were drafted by the former Liberal government, and I have posted a link showing the current Labor is aware of them, and may tweak the amount of days, but from memory, that was just in relation to the 45 days.  

 

I have no doubt that the current laws, which are over 90 years old, will eventually be overhauled, probably with something that has no gray area, such as these proposed changes with the 183 days. 

 

So until then, continue on as normal, but consider a plan for remaining overseas with 32.5% less income from Australia, if you can. 

Good that I encountered this thread, I wasn't aware of these proposed changes.

I'm not eligible for OAP and have investment income from Australia, looks like I need to keep an eye and act accordingly, don't want to lose my tax resident status.

[LosLobo]

On 3/9/2023 at 6:19 PM, gearbox said:

From what I can see these are only proposed changes, which are not legislated yet, they are not on the ATO residency test web pages... correct me if I'm wrong.

Asking KH a question will launch KH into another 200 plus posts of War & Peace epic proportion .

Please don't feed the troll, comes to mind!

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, gearbox said:

Good that I encountered this thread, I wasn't aware of these proposed changes.

I'm not eligible for OAP and have investment income from Australia, looks like I need to keep an eye and act accordingly, don't want to lose my tax resident status.

There are many in the same boat, including myself.  I've been cruising along in the big gray area for some years, and I am sure the government know of hundreds of thousands of Aussie abroad who have been doing the same, hence, the gray area had to go, eventually.

[KhunHeineken]

A few things stand out for me in your post.

 

Firstly, the guy you met, the decision maker, will be made redundant if/when the new laws come in.  There will be no need to pay "decision makers" and lawyers and courts.  There will be nothing to appeal.  The proposed changes are black and white.  Thus, further savings to government.

 

I agree with you the proposed changes are more focused on the bigger fish, but many of these bigger fish have been using the same gray area as I, and hundreds of thousands of others have been using for several years. 

 

So, whilst the whole idea of these changes may be to scoop up the bigger fish, without any means / assets testing, thresholds, or exemptions, the little fish get caught up in the same net that was designed to catch the bigger fish.

 

 Quoting you below, this is exactly the gray area many have been hiding in, for many years, and exactly what the proposed changes were designed to stop.

 

"the way residency works in practical terms means it is highly unlikely that proving someone is a non resident would be done by a 183 day rule. That is because there are clearly a range of factors such as links to Australia, property ownership, friends, families, what you are doing overseas, plans to come back, that cannot be ignored. What if you simply have a long holiday once retired ... " 

 

Basically, they don't want Aussies living abroad, who derive an income from Australia, paying resident tax, when in fact they are non residents, just because they have a property in their name, an electricity bill, maintain their membership of a local bowlo, have some mates back there they call occasionally, and some relatives.  In the past, this has been enough to argue your case with a "decision maker" but that will no doubt change, one way or another, in the future.  

 

In any case, how would one argue that they "plan to come back" to Australia when they have been living in Thailand for years, or, have spent all of 6 months in Australia over the last 10 years, with their son or daughter living in their property, or, they rent out their property?  

 

This is where the guy you met contradicts himself.  He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument. 

 

The whole idea of the proposed changes is to make it black, or white, NO GRAY, for the ATO, and the tax payer.  The gray area is 90 years old. It couldn't last forever. 

 

If the 183 day rule is "problematic" then why was it commissioned to be drafted by the former Liberal government?  Could it be they saw the 183 day law as less problematic, and lucrative?  

 

Perhaps you can explain how an Aussie expat, living in Thailand full time, can still be a resident for taxation purposes.   

[Olmate]

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

A few things stand out for me in your post.

 

Firstly, the guy you met, the decision maker, will be made redundant if/when the new laws come in.  There will be no need to pay "decision makers" and lawyers and courts.  There will be nothing to appeal.  The proposed changes are black and white.  Thus, further savings to government.

 

I agree with you the proposed changes are more focused on the bigger fish, but many of these bigger fish have been using the same gray area as I, and hundreds of thousands of others have been using for several years. 

 

So, whilst the whole idea of these changes may be to scoop up the bigger fish, without any means / assets testing, thresholds, or exemptions, the little fish get caught up in the same net that was designed to catch the bigger fish.

 

 Quoting you below, this is exactly the gray area many have been hiding in, for many years, and exactly what the proposed changes were designed to stop.

 

"the way residency works in practical terms means it is highly unlikely that proving someone is a non resident would be done by a 183 day rule. That is because there are clearly a range of factors such as links to Australia, property ownership, friends, families, what you are doing overseas, plans to come back, that cannot be ignored. What if you simply have a long holiday once retired ... " 

 

Basically, they don't want Aussies living abroad, who derive an income from Australia, paying resident tax, when in fact they are non residents, just because they have a property in their name, an electricity bill, maintain their membership of a local bowlo, have some mates back there they call occasionally, and some relatives.  In the past, this has been enough to argue your case with a "decision maker" but that will no doubt change, one way or another, in the future.  

 

In any case, how would one argue that they "plan to come back" to Australia when they have been living in Thailand for years, or, have spent all of 6 months in Australia over the last 10 years, with their son or daughter living in their property, or, they rent out their property?  

 

This is where the guy you met contradicts himself.  He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument. 

 

The whole idea of the proposed changes is to make it black, or white, NO GRAY, for the ATO, and the tax payer.  The gray area is 90 years old. It couldn't last forever. 

 

If the 183 day rule is "problematic" then why was it commissioned to be drafted by the former Liberal government?  Could it be they saw the 183 day law as less problematic, and lucrative?  

 

Perhaps you can explain how an Aussie expat, living in Thailand full time, can still be a resident for taxation purposes.   

 I, m pretty sure you didn.t watch any of the robodebt proceedings.! 

[KhunHeineken]

40 minutes ago, Olmate said:

 I, m pretty sure you didn.t watch any of the robodebt proceedings.! 

I kept an eye on the robodebt fiasco.  The suicides it caused were particularly tragic.

 

Didn't some members of this forum suggest "the government would never go after pensioners" yet, robodebt happened. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

A few things stand out for me in your post.

 

Firstly, the guy you met, the decision maker, will be made redundant if/when the new laws come in.  There will be no need to pay "decision makers" and lawyers and courts.  There will be nothing to appeal.  The proposed changes are black and white.  Thus, further savings to government.

 

I agree with you the proposed changes are more focused on the bigger fish, but many of these bigger fish have been using the same gray area as I, and hundreds of thousands of others have been using for several years. 

 

So, whilst the whole idea of these changes may be to scoop up the bigger fish, without any means / assets testing, thresholds, or exemptions, the little fish get caught up in the same net that was designed to catch the bigger fish.

 

 Quoting you below, this is exactly the gray area many have been hiding in, for many years, and exactly what the proposed changes were designed to stop.

 

"the way residency works in practical terms means it is highly unlikely that proving someone is a non resident would be done by a 183 day rule. That is because there are clearly a range of factors such as links to Australia, property ownership, friends, families, what you are doing overseas, plans to come back, that cannot be ignored. What if you simply have a long holiday once retired ... " 

 

Basically, they don't want Aussies living abroad, who derive an income from Australia, paying resident tax, when in fact they are non residents, just because they have a property in their name, an electricity bill, maintain their membership of a local bowlo, have some mates back there they call occasionally, and some relatives.  In the past, this has been enough to argue your case with a "decision maker" but that will no doubt change, one way or another, in the future.  

 

In any case, how would one argue that they "plan to come back" to Australia when they have been living in Thailand for years, or, have spent all of 6 months in Australia over the last 10 years, with their son or daughter living in their property, or, they rent out their property?  

 

This is where the guy you met contradicts himself.  He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument. 

 

The whole idea of the proposed changes is to make it black, or white, NO GRAY, for the ATO, and the tax payer.  The gray area is 90 years old. It couldn't last forever. 

 

If the 183 day rule is "problematic" then why was it commissioned to be drafted by the former Liberal government?  Could it be they saw the 183 day law as less problematic, and lucrative?  

 

Perhaps you can explain how an Aussie expat, living in Thailand full time, can still be a resident for taxation purposes.   

Not many new points in your post so I'll leave it there except to note:

You say 'This is where the guy you met contradicts himself.  He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument.'

I can't see the contradiction in this. There does need to be room for argument so it is not appropriate to apply the 183 day rule to this situation. 

 

You seem to mix up the argument for the 183 day rule with individuals in a specific situation being where they have been many years overseas. The residency issue clearly is easier to decide in such situations. It appears at this time though, there is little appetite to go after people in this situation based on my discussion, but the applying of a 183 day rule is not applicable or relevant to the situation of those overseas for some years. There may be a different rule, e.g. 365 or 730 day rule, that might potentially work a bit better, though it could still be problematic to apply broadly,  but that is not the topic. 

 You acknowledge Robodebt was wrong because it applied black and white rules to a situation that is not black and white and put the onus on the individual to prove otherwise. Surely you can see that once bitten twice shy and neither party will be keen to repeat this type of mistake. 

 

 

 

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I kept an eye on the robodebt fiasco.  The suicides it caused were particularly tragic.

 

Didn't some members of this forum suggest "the government would never go after pensioners" yet, robodebt happened. 

And the government of that day has since strongly realised robodebt was a very serious mistake and there's been mention it was even illegal. Further it happened under a 'gang' of very arrogant liberal leaders who have no concern about their actions, just go for the throat and screw and laugh at the populace.

 

Seems to me that supports the notion no government in the future would go anywhere near any similar schemes for several reasons, some being: unethical, immoral, irresponsible, unacceptable to a mostly socialist society, illegal, completely ignoring the rights of the individual and ignoring that many live in a survival situation. 

[KhunHeineken]

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

I can't see the contradiction in this. There does need to be room for argument so it is not appropriate to apply the 183 day rule to this situation. 

There's been too many people hiding in the "room for argument" for decades.  It had to end.  That said, I never thought it would be so black and white as the 183 days, but you have read the proposed changes, and they are what they are.  They may very well be passed, despite the hardship they will cause to many, such is the way government operates.

 

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

You seem to mix up the argument for the 183 day rule with individuals in a specific situation being where they have been many years overseas. The residency issue clearly is easier to decide in such situations. It appears at this time though, there is little appetite to go after people in this situation based on my discussion, but the applying of a 183 day rule is not applicable or relevant to the situation of those overseas for some years. There may be a different rule, e.g. 365 or 730 day rule, that might potentially work a bit better, though it could still be problematic to apply broadly,  but that is not the topic. 

I haven't mixed it up.  183 days inside Australia, resident.  1Therefore, 83 days outside Australia, non resident.  Where's the mix up? 

 

Not about appetite to go after people.  It's about the passing of a law that sees ANY Australian citizen outside of Australia for more than 183 days a year, who derives an "income" from Australia being deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, no gray area, no wiggle room, no room for argument.  Simple as this, really.

 

Please post a link to a proposed 365 days or 730 days rule.  Even if this was the case, how does this help Aussie expats living overseas full time? Even at 730 days, they eventually get scooped up, so, no real difference between 183 days and 730 days for expats.  

 

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

You acknowledge Robodebt was wrong because it applied black and white rules to a situation that is not black and white and put the onus on the individual to prove otherwise. Surely you can see that once bitten twice shy and neither party will be keen to repeat this type of mistake. 

No, Robodebt was wrong because of the method the government used.  I have no problem with the government going after welfare cheats.  

 

Aussie expat pensioners are not welfare cheats, but they are non residents for taxation purposes.  Sure, they are not the focus of these proposed changes, but without an exemption, they will be scooped up by them as well. 

 

As for the government being shy to repeat this mistake, immigration know all the Aussies that are outside of Australia.  Centerlink know all the Aussies that are on a welfare payment.  As incompetent as the Australian government is, not even they could mess this up with things being made so simple. 

 

Simple chain of events with data bases.  Eg.  Aussie John Smith has been outside of Australia for 183 days.  Immigration inform the ATO and  Centerlink.  If John Smith is self funded, next tax return his bill goes up by 32.5%.  If John Smith is a pensioner, Centerlink start reducing his pension by 32.5% per fortnight.  Where's the Robodebt scenario in this simple example?

[KhunHeineken]

3 minutes ago, scorecard said:

And the government of that day has since strongly realised robodebt was a very serious mistake and there's been mention it was even illegal. Further it happened under a 'gang' of very arrogant liberal leaders who have no concern abouttheir actions, just go for the throat.

 

Seems to me that supports the notion no government in the future would go anywhere near any similar schemes for several reasons, some being: unethical, immoral, irresponsible, unacceptable to a mostly socialist society, illegal, completely ignoring the rights of the individual . 

Pensioners living overseas are not welfare cheats, well, some might be get a few dollars on the side, but that's for another threat.

 

The proposed changes to non resident taxation is nothing like Robodebt.  There are some very wealthy people that have been using the gray area for years.  The gray area is in law that is over 90 years old.  It had to come to an end one day.  The former Liberal government made a start, and the current Labor government are aware of the proposed changes. 

 

Common sense says if they pass the proposed changes, they add another non resident tax bracket that would be a tax free threshold that would see pensioners under the threshold, but I have not read such a proposal.   

 

I really don't see the link between Robodebt and closing a 90 year old gray area tax loop hole. 

[LosLobo]

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I have said, I m not on an OAP, but maybe a member can explain to me why some of you are receiving different amounts? 

 

I can understand with the part pension, but why are members receiving different amount for the full pension?

This  person has offered advice on this forum, titled Australian Aged Pension,  in almost 300 posts, 

 

Yet he admits that he has no personal experience with the AAP and is now asking the audience who he is offering advice to, basic questions about the AAP!

 

ROFL comes to mind!

 

[scorecard]

29 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

This  person has offered advice on this forum, titled Australian Aged Pension,  in almost 300 posts, 

 

Yet he admits that he has no personal experience with the AAP and is now asking the audience who he is offering advice to, basic questions about the AAP!

 

ROFL comes to mind!

 

He's also just made statements about aspects of gaining Thai Permanent residency which are quite wrong.

 

He's also just said 'A Certificate of Residency', is not 'Permanent Residence'. 

[scorecard]

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I have said, I m not on an OAP, but maybe a member can explain to me why some of you are receiving different amounts? 

 

I can understand with the part pension, but why are members receiving different amount for the full pension?

I guess some folks are wondering the same question.

You're the vocal expert, so help us all to know the answers.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

This  person has offered advice on this forum, titled Australian Aged Pension,  in almost 300 posts, 

Have I?  What advice have I offered?  Have I told anyone what they should be doing with their money, no?

 

I have informed people of the proposed changes to tax residency laws, and have posted link after link after link.

 

When I have offered my opinion, I have said, "In my opinion" which makes it an opinion, not advice.  You have obviously misunderstood. 

 

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Yet he admits that he has no personal experience with the AAP and is now asking the audience who he is offering advice to, basic questions about the AAP!

I am self funded, like thousands of others, and many part pensioners.  I don't receive an aged pension, and I have said this.  

 

Once again, I have not offered advice.  It's been a sub topic within the aged pension forum that very well may have an impact on pensions, and pensioners. 

 

How does personally attacking me change the proposed changes to tax residency laws? 

 

Do you feel better after shooting the messenger?  Does it make the proposed changes disappear for you? 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

He's also just said 'A Certificate of Residency', is not 'Permanent Residence'. 

Provide a link showing that a Certificate of Residence means you are a Permanent Resident of Thailand. 

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Bottom line for me; there's many different allowance etc. I have no need to have any knowledge about them.

 

No shame in admitting you can't answer the question, so why personally attack me, when you don't even know yourself? 

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Provide a link showing that a Certificate of Residence means you are a Permanent Resident of Thailand. 

Strange, ince you're such an expert, that you don't know there's always some confusion because 'Certificate of Residence' has two qute different meanings in Thailand:

 

1. Cerificate of Residence. Meaning a simple letter stating your residential address, nothing more. Type of visa not mentioned. You've already alluded to this item.

 

2. Certificate of Residence. Please see the attachment to this post below. Note that the cover of the 'Certificate of Residence' book mentions 'see page 21', proving that it's a book.

 

Page 1 has a photo of the foreigner who has passed the requirements and now holds a 'Certificate of Residence'. Pages, 2, 3, 4, 5 show the full details of the foreigner, dates etc., etc., that the 'Certificate od Residence' was granted/issued etc.  In my case it was issued about 26 years ago. 

 

When the holder departs and returns to Thailand this book must be presented to the passport officer along with the passport of that foreigner. The passport officer stamps both books with the same departure/arrrival stamps. Eventually all the pages in the 'certificate of Residence' book are filled. 

 

When this happens the foreigner takes the full 'Certificate of Residence book', passport etc., to an immigration office where they automatically replace the book with a new one. Replacing book is mechanical, it doesn't require any form of re-approval, or interview etc. It's approved for life.

 

In my case my current 'Certificate of Residence' book is about half full.

 

But you say; what about "Permanent Resident/ Permanent Residence'?

 

Most foreingers know it's the same thing. Most Immigration officers will refer to the whole thing as both 'Certificate of Residence' and 'Permanent Resident'.

 

Most/maybe all the law firms/ agents etc., who offer help/advice in this subject area use both terms but mostly use the term 'Permanent Resident'. No doubt because that nomenclature is possibly more atttractve / more alluring to potential clients.

 

Also true of course there's many foreigners in LOS long-term who have looked at applying for 'PR' but decided there's not enough benefits. I don't disagree that there's not many specific benefits except that:

• - There's no need to re-apply for a new one year visa such as with the so called Retirement Visa (and ohe visas), meaning that the holder has to prepare a lot of documents each year (mostly very mechanical).
• - There's no need to hold 800,00Baht or whatever in a bank account and get bank statements etc., on the day of applying for the re-issue etc.
• - There's no need to keep 800,000BaHt or whatever mostly 'locked' in a bank account.
• - There's no chance that suddenly the visa requirements change and make it difficult/very difficult to gain the re-issue, and this can and does happen with many categories of Thai visas.

For me the benefit is that I have pretty much have a guarantee that visas issues will never cause me to be separated from my wonderful Thai family. The book can also sometimes be of benefit when dealing with other gov't agencies, banks etc.