Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:17 AM, Lacessit said:

Unless you quote actual figures with a credible link, your post is meaningless in terms of what proportion of 1 million Australians are retirees.

 

Parkinson's law is the observation that public administration, bureaucracy and officialdom expands, regardless of the amount of work to be done. This was attributed mainly to two factors: that officials want subordinates, not rivals, and that officials make work for each other.

 

If you think computers have changed that observation, I have a bridge in Sydney Harbour I'd like to sell you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have posted links for you before.  The links, which are credible, one being a government website, clearly state at any given time there are about 1 million Australians living overseas. 

 

We discussed what percentage of that 1 million were retired expats.  From memory, I suggested around 20%, or 200,000, you suggested only 80,000. 

 

A member, possibly yourself, posted that Thailand had 20,000 Aussie expats.  I posted a link showing Bali had 10,000 Aussie expats, so I think your figure of 80,000 is a bit skinny. 

 

These figures were discussed to show the savings to Centrelink by withholding 32.5% in non resident tax would be in the billions of dollars, which you disagreed with, and I posted math to show the savings would indeed be over a billion dollars.

 

Now, you are asking for the same links again, about the same topic, which as already been discussed. 

 

Quite frankly, even if the government was one lousy dollar better off, why wouldn't they do it? 

 

I agree with you that bureaucracy expands.  What is your point?

 

As for computers taking staff away from the public service, I never suggested that.  My point is, and members have given examples to back this up, at the press of a button, Centrelink staff, and no doubt immigration, the ATO etc etc, know that you are outside of Australian, and for how long you have been outside Australia.  Surely you agree with this.

 

This data can simply be used to implement / enforce the 183 day law if / when it comes in.  If your point is, it will cost the government more money to withhold 32.5% of pensions from pensioners overseas, I disagree.  It will simply be a data base doing it, and it's already happening with some pensions when people are overseas. 

 

You hope that the costs will exceed the savings, in my opinion, is incorrect.  

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:27 AM, Lacessit said:

IMO it is far more likely the BS stage 3 tax cuts for the wealthy will be scrapped as unsustainable. Plus the tax rorts, which I have posted previously.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-12/inequality-on-steroids-as-rich-take-more-of-the-gains/102200878

 

You can beat the 183 day drum as much as you want, IMO any budget gains from that are small potatoes in comparison to the political risk of inflaming pensioners who do not even live overseas.

 

 

I agree successive governments, from both parties, have made Australia a more unequal society.  This is most evident with housing at this particular point in time. 

 

You seem to think because the savings are small, the government will not implement the 183 day law.  Why is that?  There will be big revenue from wealthy non residents, and the less wealthy and pensioners will simply be collateral damage.  Does it really matter if they only save $1 billion for Centrelink?  A savings is a savings.  

 

We have been through the "pensioner backlash" discussion before.  I'll ask the question again.  Why would a pensioner in Australia care one bit about pensioners overseas?  Serious question?  It doesn't effect them at all. 

 

Pensioners in Australia will vote for a $250 electricity voucher, and couldn't care less about Aussie pensioners overseas paying non resident tax because it doesn't concern them.  There is no comradery amongst pensioners.  Pensioners are just another demographic of voter that will vote for which party will put the most money in their pocket each fortnight. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/12/2023 at 11:22 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

At least acknowledge that your statement  'This is exactly why the 183 day law will eventually be passed.' is better put as 'I think it will eventually be passed'.

Fair point. 

 

So, what odds do you give it?  What percentage do you place on it being passed?

 

Have a look at this article, particularly the second half of the article. Talk of the need to raise the GST and so on.  Australia is in trouble, big trouble, with debt soon to hit over a trillion dollars. 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-feeble-economy-for-rest-of-decade-imf-downbeat-on-outlook-20230411-p5czgf.html

 

"But a report by independent think tank the Grattan Institute, released overnight, shows the country remains on track for 25 years of deficits without significant structural change."

 

 

25 years of deficits. They have to pull the money in from somewhere. 

 

The Liberals commissioned the proposed changes to non resident tax laws.  The Labor government are aware of the draft legislation.  The current laws are around 90 years old.  Just think what overseas travel looked like 90 years ago.  Then consider no mobiles phones and no internet back then.  Fast forward to 2023 and people can easily live and work in other countries, and easily travel back to their home country to visit friends and family.

 

Why wouldn't they bring the non resident tax laws into the current century? 

 

On 4/12/2023 at 11:22 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You say in the past it could be argued that someone was on a long holiday but now the 183 day rule will stop that. I don't think a blanket rule can be fairly or practically applied to retirees spending more than 6 months or 12 months overseas.  There are clear examples where people do have a long holiday, or there are other circumstances, and an objective fair review would indicate they are in fact a resident.

Why are you telling me this?  You should be voicing this opinion to your Local Member of Parliament.  

 

You have read the proposed changes.  There are no exemptions, means or asset tests, or thresholds mentioned in them.  They were designed to be a blanket law in order to scoop up everyone outside of Australia for 183 days.  How could one appeal this?  What legal grounds would they have?

 

in any case, how is this relevant to the Aussie expat living in Thailand, who is clearly a non resident for taxation purposes, and not just on a holiday?  How could he get around the "blanket" law? 

 

On 4/12/2023 at 11:22 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Grey areas are grey for a reason and a new hard and fast rule needs to make sense. I say it won't happen but feel free to think otherwise. 

Once again, this is your opinion.  I have openly admitted I have been living overseas in the gray area.  I live overseas, but don't pay non resident tax rates.  I'm sure many others are the same.  Some other members have admitted this also.  Why wouldn't the government want to eventually catch up with me? 

 

There have been all sorts of reasons put forward as to why members believe these laws will not be passed.  Some were quite humorous.  Paul Hogan, pensioner backlash,  losing votes etc etc.  All of these reasons were discussed.  

 

It will be interesting what's in the May budget, but I can't see the government, current or future, throwing this draft legislation in the bin. 

 

In my opinion, it's not if, just when, that it will be passed, and the best we can hope for is a threshold or exemption.  

 

Why are you so confident these laws will not be passed? 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The human weakness called "greed" means people can never have enough assets in their lifetime.   

I have enough. If I had more than I need, I would probably give it to the people close to me, that need help.

There is only one luxury I would like, and can't afford. First-class air travel.

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I agree successive governments, from both parties, have made Australia a more unequal society.  This is most evident with housing at this particular point in time. 

 

You seem to think because the savings are small, the government will not implement the 183 day law.  Why is that?  There will be big revenue from wealthy non residents, and the less wealthy and pensioners will simply be collateral damage.  Does it really matter if they only save $1 billion for Centrelink?  A savings is a savings.  

 

We have been through the "pensioner backlash" discussion before.  I'll ask the question again.  Why would a pensioner in Australia care one bit about pensioners overseas?  Serious question?  It doesn't effect them at all. 

 

Pensioners in Australia will vote for a $250 electricity voucher, and couldn't care less about Aussie pensioners overseas paying non resident tax because it doesn't concern them.  There is no comradery amongst pensioners.  Pensioners are just another demographic of voter that will vote for which party will put the most money in their pocket each fortnight. 

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Wealthy non-residents will be able to conform to the 183 day rule easily, therefore the big revenue you forecast may be in your imagination only.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have posted links for you before.  The links, which are credible, one being a government website, clearly state at any given time there are about 1 million Australians living overseas. 

 

We discussed what percentage of that 1 million were retired expats.  From memory, I suggested around 20%, or 200,000, you suggested only 80,000. 

 

A member, possibly yourself, posted that Thailand had 20,000 Aussie expats.  I posted a link showing Bali had 10,000 Aussie expats, so I think your figure of 80,000 is a bit skinny. 

 

These figures were discussed to show the savings to Centrelink by withholding 32.5% in non resident tax would be in the billions of dollars, which you disagreed with, and I posted math to show the savings would indeed be over a billion dollars.

 

Now, you are asking for the same links again, about the same topic, which as already been discussed. 

 

Quite frankly, even if the government was one lousy dollar better off, why wouldn't they do it? 

 

I agree with you that bureaucracy expands.  What is your point?

 

As for computers taking staff away from the public service, I never suggested that.  My point is, and members have given examples to back this up, at the press of a button, Centrelink staff, and no doubt immigration, the ATO etc etc, know that you are outside of Australian, and for how long you have been outside Australia.  Surely you agree with this.

 

This data can simply be used to implement / enforce the 183 day law if / when it comes in.  If your point is, it will cost the government more money to withhold 32.5% of pensions from pensioners overseas, I disagree.  It will simply be a data base doing it, and it's already happening with some pensions when people are overseas. 

 

You hope that the costs will exceed the savings, in my opinion, is incorrect.  

Saying you have posted credible links does not make it so, you are begging the question. ( Again ).

 

I really can't be bothered going back to the post where you claimed computers would make administering a 183 rule low cost. As is usual with your prolific posting, you say something, then deny you said it in subsequent posts. It's called sophistry.

 

When bureaucracy expands, the wages and salary bill rises. Is that too simple a point for you to understand?

[KhunHeineken]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I have enough. If I had more than I need, I would probably give it to the people close to me, that need help.

There is only one luxury I would like, and can't afford. First-class air travel.

 

For me, health is wealth.  Nothing more important than your health.  The insurance is expensive though. 

[KhunHeineken]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Wealthy non-residents will be able to conform to the 183 day rule easily

How so?

 

Take a reasonably wealthy expat retiree in Thailand.  Maybe a good sum in cash at bank or super, or a large share portfolio, or a small portfolio of rental properties.  How will they "easily conform" to the 183 day law?     

[KhunHeineken]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Saying you have posted credible links does not make it so, you are begging the question. ( Again ).

 

I really can't be bothered going back to the post where you claimed computers would make administering a 183 rule low cost. As is usual with your prolific posting, you say something, then deny you said it in subsequent posts. It's called sophistry.

 

When bureaucracy expands, the wages and salary bill rises. Is that too simple a point for you to understand?

I disagree that I am practicing sophistry.  I have backed up my comments with links, and when I have posted my opinion, I have said so. 

 

I simply disagree with you that cost will be higher than the reward in this matter.  As another member said, at this stage, it appears the 183 day law is a "blanket" law that covers everyone.  Such a blanket law is bound to be profitable for government, otherwise it would be scrapped.  

 

Given the Labor party are aware of the proposed changes, and I have posted a link showing this, as they are possibly going to change the 45 day part of the law, it may be the case Labor pick up what Liberal started.

 

Here's another link.  Don't know if it's the same one I posted before.

 

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-you-live-outside-australia?context=60040

 

"At any time there’s around one million Australians living and working overseas. Properly preparing for a long stint outside Australia will make the transition less stressful. Read Going overseas to live or work on the smartraveller website for more information."

 

Services Australia would have credible data.

 

In relation to cost, all of the current infrastructure would be used.  I believe some pensions are already reduced when outside Australia for something like 6 weeks, I would see the 183 day law as operating not much differently to what is already happening.

 

Actually, the 183 day law would probably be cheaper to implement and enforce because there is no gray area.  There would be nothing to review, nothing to appeal.  It's there in black and white and can not be refuted by the tax payer because immigration has it documented, and we have already established that a pension is deemed an "income" at law. 

[KhunHeineken]

Whilst posting the link for Lacessit, I came across this statistic from a credible source.

 

https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australias-population-over-75-million-born-overseas

 

"In addition, in 2018-19 there were 75,000 Australian citizens who returned to Australia after living overseas but in the same year there were nearly 87,000 who decided to emigrate."

 

It shows more leaving than returning.  I wonder how many retirees were in the 87,000. 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

How so?

 

Take a reasonably wealthy expat retiree in Thailand.  Maybe a good sum in cash at bank or super, or a large share portfolio, or a small portfolio of rental properties.  How will they "easily conform" to the 183 day law?     

Perhaps you have not noticed, Australia has its own smorgasbord of climates to choose from year round. For a wealthy expat, no trial at all to spend 183 days in Australia in a place of their choosing, then back to Thailand or anywhere else.

Why do I have to keep explaining the bleeding obvious to you? How many of your 342 posts actually have any relevance to the OAP?

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Whilst posting the link for Lacessit, I came across this statistic from a credible source.

 

https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australias-population-over-75-million-born-overseas

 

"In addition, in 2018-19 there were 75,000 Australian citizens who returned to Australia after living overseas but in the same year there were nearly 87,000 who decided to emigrate."

 

It shows more leaving than returning.  I wonder how many retirees were in the 87,000. 

The population of Australia is 26 million. The link should say 7.5 million were born overseas.

Credible source or not, a differential of 12,000 is fairly small in the scheme of things.

You do not post links for me. You post them in an attempt to bolster shaky assumptions and hypothetical situations.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

For me, health is wealth.  Nothing more important than your health.  The insurance is expensive though. 

Health is very much in one's own hands. Good diet and adequate exercise are important.

Many of the expats I see in Thailand seem determined to eat and drink themselves to death.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Health is very much in one's own hands. Good diet and adequate exercise are important.

Many of the expats I see in Thailand seem determined to eat and drink themselves to death.

But that is their choice, none of us have a "for sale by date".........????

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps you have not noticed, Australia has its own smorgasbord of climates to choose from year round. For a wealthy expat, no trial at all to spend 183 days in Australia in a place of their choosing, then back to Thailand or anywhere else.

Why do I have to keep explaining the bleeding obvious to you? How many of your 342 posts actually have any relevance to the OAP?

Talk about changing the narrative to suit your argument.   Now you are banging on about living in Australia for 6 months for the purposes of tax minimization and how there are nice climates to chose from in Australia.  

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many wealthy expats chose to live in Thailand for things other than the climate.  Eg. personal freedoms.

 

I could win the lottery tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to stay in Australia for 6 months of the year, for every year.

 

The bleeding obvious, which you fail to see as relevant, is if / when these proposed changes are passed into law, every expat, including pensioners, will be impacted financially.  The impact may be so great that many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand.  There could very well be a 32.5% reduction in pensions, because they are an "income" and the pensioner is overseas for more than 183 days a year. 

 

I know one pensioner who is preparing for it buy looking into caravan parks in Australia with decent locations, but with cheap rent.  He will have to do the 6 months in Australia if his pension is reduced by 32.5% and will need cheap accommodation whilst serving his time.  Would you like me to tell him none of this is relevant to him? 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

The population of Australia is 26 million. The link should say 7.5 million were born overseas.

Credible source or not, a differential of 12,000 is fairly small in the scheme of things.

You do not post links for me. You post them in an attempt to bolster shaky assumptions and hypothetical situations.

I posted that link because I found it interesting that in 2018 - 19 more people left Australia than returned.  No other reason.  It was not about the amounts of people. 

 

Obviously, should that trend continue, and it very well might, due to the increasing higher cost of living in Australia, more and more retirees make seek to retire abroad, thus creating a bigger incentive to tax them. 

 

I posted the other link for you because you said you couldn't be bother to scroll back, so yes, I posted it for your benefit. 

 

What is so shaky and hypothetical about the proposed changes to non resident tax law?  It's in black and white.  Do you see any exemptions, thresholds, or means and assets test in them? 

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Would be interesting to read what additional 'personal freedoms' wealthy Australians living in Thailand enjoy compared to OZ.

I would not say I am wealthy, I am a part pensioner. Having said that, there are a few things I can enjoy in Thailand which are simply not available in Australia.

 

1/ Renting a condo with a swimming pool at a quarter of the cost in Australia.

2/ Getting a fine for speeding, 500 baht. In OZ, the same offence would be about 17,000 baht.

3/ Having a girlfriend who is 23 years younger than me.

5/ Riding a 110 cc scooter around town. Believe it or not, much more risky in OZ. Parking said scooter wherever I want to.

 

Australia is a nanny state, no question. Prohibitions and restrictions everywhere.

[Rimmer]

Off topic posts and replies doing their best to hijack the topic, have again been removed, topic is about:

 

Australian Aged Pension

[Lacessit]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:47 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Talk about changing the narrative to suit your argument.   Now you are banging on about living in Australia for 6 months for the purposes of tax minimization and how there are nice climates to chose from in Australia.  

 

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but many wealthy expats chose to live in Thailand for things other than the climate.  Eg. personal freedoms.

 

I could win the lottery tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to stay in Australia for 6 months of the year, for every year.

 

The bleeding obvious, which you fail to see as relevant, is if / when these proposed changes are passed into law, every expat, including pensioners, will be impacted financially.  The impact may be so great that many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand.  There could very well be a 32.5% reduction in pensions, because they are an "income" and the pensioner is overseas for more than 183 days a year. 

 

I know one pensioner who is preparing for it buy looking into caravan parks in Australia with decent locations, but with cheap rent.  He will have to do the 6 months in Australia if his pension is reduced by 32.5% and will need cheap accommodation whilst serving his time.  Would you like me to tell him none of this is relevant to him? 

Another deflection, I was talking about wealthy retirees and their options.

 

Winning the lottery is a red herring. I suppose if you can put in an entry once a week for the next 150,000 years, statistically I can guarantee you will win. It's the same class of "what if" as your 183 day proposition.

 

You are not in receipt of the OAP. Your interest in making multiple posts repeating the same mantra seems to be in sharing the misery around. Would  it make you feel better if pensioners will be  taxed at the same 32.5% as you? I'm no psychologist; however, to me that makes you a mentally sick person.

[KhunHeineken]

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Another deflection, I was talking about wealthy retirees and their options.

 

Winning the lottery is a red herring. I suppose if you can put in an entry once a week for the next 150,000 years, statistically I can guarantee you will win. It's the same class of "what if" as your 183 day proposition.

 

You are not in receipt of the OAP. Your interest in making multiple posts repeating the same mantra seems to be in sharing the misery around. Would  it make you feel better if pensioners will be  taxed at the same 32.5% as you? I'm no psychologist; however, to me that makes you a mentally sick person.

There was no deflection.  I called you out on wealthy Australians being able to "easily conform" to the 183 day law.  When asked how, your reply was move back to Australia for 6 months of the year.  If they wanted to do this, they would already be doing it.  In fact, many Aussie expat retirees are capable of this anyway, as seen by how they move back for their 2 year qualifying period. 

 

Aussie expats, wealthy or pensioners, simply don't want to spend 6 months of the year, every year, for tax minimization or pension maximization purposes.  Simply concept, really.  

 

Winning the lottery was an example.  It could be the sale of an asset/s, an inheritance, a compensation payout or whatever.  My point being, we are all in Thailand because we don't want to be in Australia.  If we wanted to be in Australia, we can be, because we have a birth right to reside in Australia via citizenship.  The argument of "I can't afford to live in Australia on a pension" is not true because there are about 2.5 million people on the aged pension doing it.  The debate is in the quality of lifestyle, not the capability.   

 

It is true, I am not on the aged pension, but that's not to say that if /when the 183 day law is passed I will not restructure my finances and go onto the aged pension in the future. 

 

You still don't get it, do you?  If / when the 183 day law comes in, we are all looking at paying 32.5% tax.  In the case of pensioners, I would suggest the government simply withholds 32.5% of their pension.  It's not me versus you versus pensioners.  It's expats versus government, because the 183 day law, as it currently reads, doesn't discriminate.  There are no exemptions, means / assets tests, or thresholds in the proposed changes.    

 

Interesting you mention psychology.  Remember this list of reasons why people chose to ignore the proposed changes?  Some were quite humorous. 

 

The psychology behind it is, if I tell myself enough reasons why it will not happen, then it won't happen, and if I tell myself enough reasons why it should not not apply to me, then it will not apply to me.  If I shoot the messenger then I didn't receive the message and ignorance is bliss. 

 

 

"the Government would never do that. " 

 

"that will never happen." 

 

"Centerlink told me 6 years ago..................."

 

"there would be too much bad publicity for the Government."

 

"there would be a big backlash by pensioners." 

 

"I use a VPN when accessing the MyGov website." 

 

"that's only for people like Paul Hogan."  

 

"they can't tax a pension."

 

"I'm still a resident because I am using an address in Australia." 

 

"I didn't tick the box leaving permanently on the departure card."

 

"I told my Australian bank I am still a resident of Australia." 

 

"I'm on a veteran's pension. It's different." 

 

"I'm still a resident because I go back to Australia for a couple of weeks every year." 

 

"it would cost too many votes." 

 

"I still have a Medicare card so I am still a resident." 

 

"My mate told me................................"

 

 

How does any of the above get around the fact that an Australian individual, pensioner or not, is outside of Australia for 183 days? 

 

The UK do not pass on CPI increases to British pensioners living overseas.  This has been the case for years.  I am not surprised the Australian government would be looking at making some savings in this area as well.  

 

You call it sharing misery around, probably because of your pessimistic view on things, but I call it spreading information, so people can prepare. 

 

Te current law is 90 years old and viewed as no longer fit for purpose.  Times are changing.  The ground is shifting beneath Aussie expats.  The Australian economy is not in good shape and looking at 25 years of deficits. (already posted the link)  The government has to get the money from somewhere, and whilst pensioners in Australia may get a free pass, like UK pensioners, I am not so sure Aussie expat pensions will be left untouched.  Certainly self funded expats will be impacted. 

 

The previous Liberal government commissioned the draft legislation.  It's already been paid for.  The current Labor government is aware of it and reviewing it.  This tells me it's not dead in the water or been thrown in the bin.  It hasn't gone away with the election result as some on this forum had hoped.  The Labor government can smell a dollar in it just like Liberal did. 

 

You're on a part pension.  Have you at all considered, even for a moment, the 183 day law?  if so, would you have even known about the proposed changes it if it wasn't posted on this forum? 

 

Ignore the propose changes at your peril. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

There was no deflection.  I called you out on wealthy Australians being able to "easily conform" to the 183 day law.  When asked how, your reply was move back to Australia for 6 months of the year.  If they wanted to do this, they would already be doing it.  In fact, many Aussie expat retirees are capable of this anyway, as seen by how they move back for their 2 year qualifying period. 

 

Aussie expats, wealthy or pensioners, simply don't want to spend 6 months of the year, every year, for tax minimization or pension maximization purposes.  Simply concept, really.  

 

Winning the lottery was an example.  It could be the sale of an asset/s, an inheritance, a compensation payout or whatever.  My point being, we are all in Thailand because we don't want to be in Australia.  If we wanted to be in Australia, we can be, because we have a birth right to reside in Australia via citizenship.  The argument of "I can't afford to live in Australia on a pension" is not true because there are about 2.5 million people on the aged pension doing it.  The debate is in the quality of lifestyle, not the capability.   

 

It is true, I am not on the aged pension, but that's not to say that if /when the 183 day law is passed I will not restructure my finances and go onto the aged pension in the future. 

 

You still don't get it, do you?  If / when the 183 day law comes in, we are all looking at paying 32.5% tax.  In the case of pensioners, I would suggest the government simply withholds 32.5% of their pension.  It's not me versus you versus pensioners.  It's expats versus government, because the 183 day law, as it currently reads, doesn't discriminate.  There are no exemptions, means / assets tests, or thresholds in the proposed changes.    

 

Interesting you mention psychology.  Remember this list of reasons why people chose to ignore the proposed changes?  Some were quite humorous. 

 

The psychology behind it is, if I tell myself enough reasons why it will not happen, then it won't happen, and if I tell myself enough reasons why it should not not apply to me, then it will not apply to me.  If I shoot the messenger then I didn't receive the message and ignorance is bliss. 

 

 

"the Government would never do that. " 

 

"that will never happen." 

 

"Centerlink told me 6 years ago..................."

 

"there would be too much bad publicity for the Government."

 

"there would be a big backlash by pensioners." 

 

"I use a VPN when accessing the MyGov website." 

 

"that's only for people like Paul Hogan."  

 

"they can't tax a pension."

 

"I'm still a resident because I am using an address in Australia." 

 

"I didn't tick the box leaving permanently on the departure card."

 

"I told my Australian bank I am still a resident of Australia." 

 

"I'm on a veteran's pension. It's different." 

 

"I'm still a resident because I go back to Australia for a couple of weeks every year." 

 

"it would cost too many votes." 

 

"I still have a Medicare card so I am still a resident." 

 

"My mate told me................................"

 

 

How does any of the above get around the fact that an Australian individual, pensioner or not, is outside of Australia for 183 days? 

 

The UK do not pass on CPI increases to British pensioners living overseas.  This has been the case for years.  I am not surprised the Australian government would be looking at making some savings in this area as well.  

 

You call it sharing misery around, probably because of your pessimistic view on things, but I call it spreading information, so people can prepare. 

 

Te current law is 90 years old and viewed as no longer fit for purpose.  Times are changing.  The ground is shifting beneath Aussie expats.  The Australian economy is not in good shape and looking at 25 years of deficits. (already posted the link)  The government has to get the money from somewhere, and whilst pensioners in Australia may get a free pass, like UK pensioners, I am not so sure Aussie expat pensions will be left untouched.  Certainly self funded expats will be impacted. 

 

The previous Liberal government commissioned the draft legislation.  It's already been paid for.  The current Labor government is aware of it and reviewing it.  This tells me it's not dead in the water or been thrown in the bin.  It hasn't gone away with the election result as some on this forum had hoped.  The Labor government can smell a dollar in it just like Liberal did. 

 

You're on a part pension.  Have you at all considered, even for a moment, the 183 day law?  if so, would you have even known about the proposed changes it if it wasn't posted on this forum? 

 

Ignore the propose changes at your peril. 

You are accusing me of pessimism? That has to be one of the most egregious examples of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen. Pretending you are an altruist seeking to inform people, I beg to differ along with other posters.

 

Can you seriously tell me a guy who has made 345 posts, all on the same thread with the same theme, is not obsessed? I understand the clinical term is monomania.

 

You are totally wrong on the 2.5 million OAP recipients affording to live in Australia on the pension. If they are renting the roof over their heads, they are merely existing between pension payments.  When 50-60% of one's income is going in rent, the best they can afford is supermarket noodles.

 

I will start organizing myself IF the change you tout so vigorously actually becomes reality, I suspect it won't be as easy as you make out for a government to be victimizing pensioners. Until then, your posts are merely premature ejaculation.

 

[KhunHeineken]

22 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are accusing me of pessimism?

Yes.  Your constant personal attacks and trolling me show a lack of subjectivity and pessimism. 

 

Perhaps you should look upon this forum as an information source and self education tool.  Knowledge is power. 

 

22 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Can you seriously tell me a guy who has made 345 posts,

You have 19,000 posts and I have over 1,800 posts.   What was that about kettles? 

 

22 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You are totally wrong on the 2.5 million OAP recipients

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/age-pension

 

"As at 26 March 2021, around 2.6 million people received Age Pension, equating to over 3 in 5 (62%) of the population aged 65 and over."

 

Are you going to say that's not a credible link? 

 

Once again, you think the 183 day law is "victimizing pensioners" as in, ALL pensioners.  No, it's not.  It would just be withholding non resident tax from those aged pensioners living overseas.  Most of the 2.6 million aged pensioners living in Australia would not care less about non resident tax on pensioners living overseas.  Why would they?  Why do you think they would be vocal about the issue when there's nothing in it for them?  

 

You said in a previous post you believe there was only about 80,000 aged pensioners living overseas.  Why would the other 2, 520, 000 care about what happens to the 80,000 overseas?  Why would the government care about the 80,000, from whom it loses next to zero votes from, when compared to the other 2, 520, 000 pensioners in Australia. 

 

Do you really think 80,000 aged pensioners, scattered all around the world, most of whom do not vote in elections, are going to have an influence on non resident tax policy?

 

Why will it not be easy for the government to pass these changes?  Are you going to protest outside the Australian Embassy n Bangkok in opposition to them?  Expat aged pensioners are the minority, not the majority.  How do you propose small numbers will sway government? 

 

In my opinion, the laws will eventually be passed, and the best we can hope for is an exemption for pensions, or a dollar value threshold added to the non resident tax bracket table. 

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes.  Your constant personal attacks and trolling me show a lack of subjectivity and pessimism. 

 

Perhaps you should look upon this forum as an information source and self education tool.  Knowledge is power. 

 

You have 19,000 posts and I have over 1,800 posts.   What was that about kettles? 

 

 

I am not trolling you, I am rebutting you. As far as personal attacks go, IIRC they started with you. Take a vote among posters on this thread to determine whether it is you or I that is regarded as a troll. Or look at our relative positive rating scores and ratios.

 

I agree knowledge is power. Hypotheses and predictions only have power when they come to fruition. Opinions are not power.

 

Egregiously stupid comparison. I post across a wide spectrum of threads on ASEAN. You have 346 posts on this thread alone, leading the field easily. I doubt if I get past 20 posts on any thread, unless I find the topic particularly interesting. Kettles? Do you know what a non sequitur is?

 

Telling us you are an information source might be true if you posted new information, instead of mantras repeated ad nauseam.

[KhunHeineken]

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I am not trolling you, I am rebutting you. As far as personal attacks go, IIRC they started with you. Take a vote among posters on this thread to determine whether it is you or I that is regarded as a troll. Or look at our relative positive rating scores and ratios.

I have just done a quick scroll back of 3 pages.  You have only posted one link in your last 25 poss, and that was a news link. 

 

You are the one always asking for a "credible link."  How can you rebutt my posts with opinion, alone? 

 

In a previous post you said, "You are totally wrong on the 2.5 million OAP recipients."  I posted a link showing there are 2.6 million people on the aged pension in Australia. The link was from a government website. 

 

I have no problem with you rebutting my posts and links, if you can supply a "credible link" of your own with more accurate or more recent figures.  If you can, I will gladly retract and work off the new information, but you don't put forward any rebuttal links, just more derogatory remarks.  

 

I don't post, on any forum or platform, for likes, thumbs ups, points, or a positive rating.  I'm too old for that.  Is that the motivation behind your posts?

 

In any case, we have discussed the psychology behind people shooting the messenger, especially those who are elderly, happy with their lifestyle and routine in Thailand, and who are being informed they might be facing a 32.5% reducing in their pension in the future.  It was never going to be a popular message, and it was always going to make the messenger unpopular. 

 

Obviously, I then started rebutting replies like, "That's only for Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" with the harsh reality.  This resulted in many personal attacks and trolling me.  After a while, I started to fire back, even got sent on some short holidays, but alas, the proposed non resident tax changes didn't go away.  

 

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Telling us you are an information source might be true if you posted new information, instead of mantras repeated ad nauseam.

As mentioned above, this sub-topic of a possible tax coming the way of expat pensioners, within the aged pension thread, has gone through several stages.  Some of them psychological, such as denial and anger. 

 

I have posted link after link to back up some of my comments, but sometimes they need some foresight of the reader.  An example of this is below.

 

This link is hot off the press.  It's only a short read, but paints the picture well of the difficult decisions the government facing in the May budget.  I'll list some key points.   

 

Federal budget: Jim Chalmers’ choice – more deficit or higher taxes (smh.com.au)

 

First, there's the headline:  "more deficit or higher taxes."  This is what the government is faced with on the 9th May.  Now, an expat pensioner might view this as, "we'll, I don't pay any tax now, so how can I pay more tax."  Whereas I view this as, "Anymore than $0 is more tax."  Is that a pessimistic view, or a view the government may or may not adopt?  I said way back there was going to have to be either higher taxes, or new taxes, or a combination of both.    

 

"But they would also cause havoc to a budget that, in case anyone has forgotten, has been in deficit since 2008 and is carrying record levels of debt."  I have said before, the Australian economy is not in good shape.  I have posted a link showing there will be 25 years of deficits, and debit is approaching $1 Trillion.  I have consistently said "The money has to come from somewhere." 

 

"The biggest proposal, from the inclusion committee, is to increase JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the age pension. At present, it’s around 71 per cent."  I have mentioned welfare is the Australian government's biggest expenditure and posted a link showing it, and is only going to get bigger.  Who's going to pay for it? 

 

"That would also mean increasing tax on every person who earns more than $45,000 a year. And without those tax cuts, middle-income earners will pay a record share of their income to the taxman."  Like I have said, someone has to pay for it, and the money has to come from somewhere.

 

Now, when you read the article, do you consider it improper to form a hypothesis that the government clearly needs to collect more money so it doesn't have to keep borrowing?  Couple that with the government sitting on draft legislation to changes to 90 year old non resident tax laws, which a previous government paid for, and loses next to no votes, and do you think it's "opinion" or probability that at some stage in the future, by either party, they will be eventually passed?    Is that too long a bow to draw?  If so, why? 

 

This is where some foresight is needed.  Connect all the dots and one can see they lead to higher tax and / or new taxes in the near future. 

 

I disagree hypothesis only have power when they come to fruition.  Many business decisions and investment decisions are made on hypothesis.  For something as simple as reading a forum such as this, what's wrong with forming a hypothesis on the issue? 

 

Haven't people all around the world just gone through 3 years of forming hypothesis in relation to covid, and government policy?

 

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Egregiously stupid comparison. I post across a wide spectrum of threads on ASEAN. You have 346 posts on this thread alone, leading the field easily. I doubt if I get past 20 posts on any thread, unless I find the topic particularly interesting.

Of course you missed an important part of the math formula, that is "time."  How long we have been members for.  

 

Yes, I have posted a lot on this topic.  Anyone who has replied to me, I have given the courtesy of replying back.

 

When I have been asked for a "credible link" (sound familiar) I have replied and posted one.

 

After a while, anyone personally attacking me or trolling me, I fired back.  

 

In my opinion, yes, only my opinion on this one, the proposed changes to non resident tax is going to have  big impact on EVERY Aussie expat, unless exemptions or thresholds are added, so I see it worthy of discussion, not trolling.    

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have just done a quick scroll back of 3 pages.  You have only posted one link in your last 25 poss, and that was a news link. 

 

You are the one always asking for a "credible link."  How can you rebutt my posts with opinion, alone? 

 

In a previous post you said, "You are totally wrong on the 2.5 million OAP recipients."  I posted a link showing there are 2.6 million people on the aged pension in Australia. The link was from a government website. 

 

I have no problem with you rebutting my posts and links, if you can supply a "credible link" of your own with more accurate or more recent figures.  If you can, I will gladly retract and work off the new information, but you don't put forward any rebuttal links, just more derogatory remarks.  

 

I don't post, on any forum or platform, for likes, thumbs ups, points, or a positive rating.  I'm too old for that.  Is that the motivation behind your posts?

 

In any case, we have discussed the psychology behind people shooting the messenger, especially those who are elderly, happy with their lifestyle and routine in Thailand, and who are being informed they might be facing a 32.5% reducing in their pension in the future.  It was never going to be a popular message, and it was always going to make the messenger unpopular. 

 

Obviously, I then started rebutting replies like, "That's only for Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" with the harsh reality.  This resulted in many personal attacks and trolling me.  After a while, I started to fire back, even got sent on some short holidays, but alas, the proposed non resident tax changes didn't go away.  

 

As mentioned above, this sub-topic of a possible tax coming the way of expat pensioners, within the aged pension thread, has gone through several stages.  Some of them psychological, such as denial and anger. 

 

I have posted link after link to back up some of my comments, but sometimes they need some foresight of the reader.  An example of this is below.

 

This link is hot off the press.  It's only a short read, but paints the picture well of the difficult decisions the government facing in the May budget.  I'll list some key points.   

 

Federal budget: Jim Chalmers’ choice – more deficit or higher taxes (smh.com.au)

 

First, there's the headline:  "more deficit or higher taxes."  This is what the government is faced with on the 9th May.  Now, an expat pensioner might view this as, "we'll, I don't pay any tax now, so how can I pay more tax."  Whereas I view this as, "Anymore than $0 is more tax."  Is that a pessimistic view, or a view the government may or may not adopt?  I said way back there was going to have to be either higher taxes, or new taxes, or a combination of both.    

 

"But they would also cause havoc to a budget that, in case anyone has forgotten, has been in deficit since 2008 and is carrying record levels of debt."  I have said before, the Australian economy is not in good shape.  I have posted a link showing there will be 25 years of deficits, and debit is approaching $1 Trillion.  I have consistently said "The money has to come from somewhere." 

 

"The biggest proposal, from the inclusion committee, is to increase JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the age pension. At present, it’s around 71 per cent."  I have mentioned welfare is the Australian government's biggest expenditure and posted a link showing it, and is only going to get bigger.  Who's going to pay for it? 

 

"That would also mean increasing tax on every person who earns more than $45,000 a year. And without those tax cuts, middle-income earners will pay a record share of their income to the taxman."  Like I have said, someone has to pay for it, and the money has to come from somewhere.

 

Now, when you read the article, do you consider it improper to form a hypothesis that the government clearly needs to collect more money so it doesn't have to keep borrowing?  Couple that with the government sitting on draft legislation to changes to 90 year old non resident tax laws, which a previous government paid for, and loses next to no votes, and do you think it's "opinion" or probability that at some stage in the future, by either party, they will be eventually passed?    Is that too long a bow to draw?  If so, why? 

 

This is where some foresight is needed.  Connect all the dots and one can see they lead to higher tax and / or new taxes in the near future. 

 

I disagree hypothesis only have power when they come to fruition.  Many business decisions and investment decisions are made on hypothesis.  For something as simple as reading a forum such as this, what's wrong with forming a hypothesis on the issue? 

 

Haven't people all around the world just gone through 3 years of forming hypothesis in relation to covid, and government policy?

 

Of course you missed an important part of the math formula, that is "time."  How long we have been members for.  

 

Yes, I have posted a lot on this topic.  Anyone who has replied to me, I have given the courtesy of replying back.

 

When I have been asked for a "credible link" (sound familiar) I have replied and posted one.

 

After a while, anyone personally attacking me or trolling me, I fired back.  

 

In my opinion, yes, only my opinion on this one, the proposed changes to non resident tax is going to have  big impact on EVERY Aussie expat, unless exemptions or thresholds are added, so I see it worthy of discussion, not trolling.    

You joined in 2011. How do you know I was not posting under a previous nom-de-plume prior to 2017? Please consider changing yours to No-Toes, you keep shooting yourself in the foot with incorrect assumptions. Pray tell, what is the relevance of that attribute to the credibility of either of us?

 

I do not post for likes. I say what I think, which annoys posters who don't enjoy having their pretensions punctured. They are miffed when I post facts in rebuttal of their misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, or when I demonstrate the dishonesty of their arguments. As I have done quite a few times with you.

 

To me, a credible link contains established facts or data. Many of your links on the OAP are not credible because they contain the word "proposed", or are factually incorrect.

 

You were not wrong when you said there were 2.5 million pensioners in Australia. You were wrong when you said those pensioners could afford to live in Australia. Of course, that fact was ignored in your response.

 

Nothing wrong with forming hypotheses, it is when they are treated as established fact problems begin. As many organizations have found out to their cost.

 

It's a Labor government. We all know the track record of the Liberals, what logically do you think Jim Chalmers will do, when it's a choice between going after a small cohort of overseas pensioners for very little gain and some political risk, or removing rorts for the rich for much bigger gains and widespread public approval?

 

Posting a few times on a topic is OK, posting the number of times you do is boring.

 

Noted you reply to everyone, although permit me to doubt that is courtesy. More like obsessive behavior in justifying previous posts.

[ozz1]

I think you are all jumping the gun here let's wait till the budget comes out  after all it was just a proposal from the previous government  I don't think they want all us old pensioners coming back there is not enough housing available now let alone straining the medical system anyway that's my 2 bobs worth

[ripstanley]

9 minutes ago, ozz1 said:

I think you are all jumping the gun here let's wait till the budget comes out  after all it was just a proposal from the previous government  I don't think they want all us old pensioners coming back there is not enough housing available now let alone straining the medical system anyway that's my 2 bobs worth

Very true. Wait and see.

[LosLobo]

16 minutes ago, ozz1 said:

I think you are all jumping the gun here let's wait till the budget comes out  after all it was just a proposal from the previous government  I don't think they want all us old pensioners coming back there is not enough housing available now let alone straining the medical system anyway that's my 2 bobs worth

I would tend to agree.

 

They should be incentivizing pensioners to leave OZ, as they need more housing to  increase immigration to address the worker shortage and growth for taxation income.

 

I would suggest possibly more than 1m expats returned home during the three years of COVID. 

 

At least 500k returned in the first 12 months.

 

This no doubt exacerbated the medical and housing situation in Australia.

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, ozz1 said:

I think you are all jumping the gun here let's wait till the budget comes out  after all it was just a proposal from the previous government  I don't think they want all us old pensioners coming back there is not enough housing available now let alone straining the medical system anyway that's my 2 bobs worth

I addressed this myth several pages ago.

 

Briefly, every cent of pension money going to expats overseas is a total loss to the Australian government, and the Australian economy.  In fact, it benefits another country's economy. 

 

Directly, or indirectly, force pensioners back to Australia and just about all that fortnightly pension circulates in the Australian economy, which creates jobs, and jobs create income tax, not to mention GST, taxes, excise, levies, council rates, fees, licenses, insurances etc that are all government revenue.  Basically, the government gets a lot of that pension money back through various different sources. 

 

I agree there is currently a housing shortage at the moment, but this, and the myth that it will strain the medical system, is not enough for the government to care one bit about updating 90 year old non resident taxation laws. 

 

All it means is the waiting list gets a bit longer, so if pensioners have to wait 12 months instead of 9 months for medical treatment, why would they care? 

 

I don't think it will be in the 9th May budget, but in my opinion it will happen, possibly in Labor's current term.  Labor are aware of the proposed changes and are reviewing the 45 day part of the law, but no mention of pensioners, pensions, exemptions, or thresholds.

 

The assistance treasurer said the changes were in "the government's in-tray."  

 

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

 

As it's a Liberal initiative, I doubt they will oppose it, so it will have the numbers to pass. 

 

Best to start planning a strategy for your own circumstances for when these laws come in. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, ripstanley said:

Very true. Wait and see.

Sure, but failing to plan means you are planning to fail. 

 

No gray area in this one, and at this stage, no free passes.

 

This one's not going to go away.