Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

On 5/5/2023 at 11:23 PM, Olmate said:

Increase to jobseeker

Only for Over 55's.  Is that Labor fundamentals? 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-03/jobseeker-budget-boost-for-over-55s/102279970

 

"While older JobSeeker recipients look likely to receive a modest increase in support, roughly 684,000 single people under 55 on JobSeeker and Youth Allowance would see their payments — at $49.51 and $40.20-per day —  remain well below the Henderson poverty line."

 

 

[Pink Mist]

An inflammatory accusatory personal attack has been removed.

 

9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

[KhunHeineken]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's not trolling when I ask a question in relation to a speculation of yours. That's simply a deflection.

You can't know what was said unless you have the full transcript, you just don't want to admit it.

You are reminding me of a guy who claimed he remembered everything. I asked him "How would you know?"

No speculation and no deflection.

 

You refuse to answer the simple question, how do you think the ATO will deem someone outside of Australia for 183 days? 

[Olmate]

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Only for Over 55's.  Is that Labor fundamentals? 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-03/jobseeker-budget-boost-for-over-55s/102279970

 

"While older JobSeeker recipients look likely to receive a modest increase in support, roughly 684,000 single people under 55 on JobSeeker and Youth Allowance would see their payments — at $49.51 and $40.20-per day —  remain well below the Henderson poverty line."

 

 

Seems labour fundamentals are holding firm.! 

[KhunHeineken]

11 hours ago, Olmate said:

Seems labour fundamentals are holding firm.! 

In Jim we trust. 

 

We will soon see who has to pays more, and who will receive more. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[Lacessit]

On 5/8/2023 at 8:41 PM, KhunHeineken said:

In Jim we trust. 

 

We will soon see who has to pays more, and who will receive more. 

The Federal Budget has been handed down.

 

There is no mention of taxing expat pensioners  ( or any expat for that matter ) at 32.5%, or implementation of any 183 day rule.

 

Unless such changes are buried in very fine detail, you may have to find another drum to beat.

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/news-federal-budget/2023/05/09/federal-budget-2023-winners-losers/?utm_campaign=News Alert - 20230509_Budget Night&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=6532358006ffdf91b6b45ab0f13d0b1c

[Artisi]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Federal Budget has been handed down.

 

There is no mention of taxing expat pensioners  ( or any expat for that matter ) at 32.5%, or implementation of any 183 day rule.

 

Unless such changes are buried in very fine detail, you may have to find another drum to beat.

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/news-federal-budget/2023/05/09/federal-budget-2023-winners-losers/?utm_campaign=News Alert - 20230509_Budget Night&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra&lr_hash=6532358006ffdf91b6b45ab0f1

 Why would it figure in any budget, it will just be a change to the tax laws which have nothing to do with the budget - so don't get excited it can and possibly will happen at some stage. 

[Lacessit]

I can see the point of taxing someone with a high superannuation balance. As many commentators have said, super was meant to fund retirement, not for generational transfer.

I can't see the point of taxing people on $26,000 per year. As I have said before, the gain is too small for the potential backlash.

No doubt a Liberal government would, their whole philosophy revolves around war on anyone receiving benefits, and fattening the rich even further. Check out how many Liberal MP's are negative gearing properties.

With this budget, IMO Chalmers has destroyed the Liberal claim to be more responsible economic managers. I'm predicting Dutton's response will fly with voters like a lead Zeppelin.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pink Mist
Quoted post removed

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I can see the point of taxing someone with a high superannuation balance. As many commentators have said, super was meant to fund retirement, not for generational transfer.

I can't see the point of taxing people on $26,000 per year. As I have said before, the gain is too small for the potential backlash.

No doubt a Liberal government would, their whole philosophy revolves around war on anyone receiving benefits, and fattening the rich even further. Check out how many Liberal MP's are negative gearing properties.

With this budget, IMO Chalmers has destroyed the Liberal claim to be more responsible economic managers. I'm predicting Dutton's response will fly with voters like a lead Zeppelin.

Did you read the Bob and Blake link?  If so, what has that got to do with being nice to expat pensioners, or how much tax can be collected from them?   

 

That link confirms that expat pensioners should already be paying non resident tax.  It's the gray area in the 90 year old laws which meant the ATO couldn't chase every individual case and prosecute it.  It was too costly and time consuming for them to distinguish who was on a long holiday, and who had left Australia with no intention of returning, and how would they prove the tax payer had no intention of returning? 

 

It's not about an individual's net worth.  It's about ensuring compliance with non resident tax law, and the proposed changes were designed to do just that. 

 

The new laws turn that gray area in to "days" inside and outside of Australia to ensure compliance.  That compliance is part of tax enforcement.  The "days" will be proven by immigration records.  Simple, effective, and cheap for the ATO to deem expats either as residents or non residents for taxation purposes through immigration records.  

 

Once again, you are posting like it's a new tax, it's not.  It's about finally scooping up ALL expats that are non residents for taxation purposes by changing the gray area into "days." 

 

The non resident tax brackets are still the same. The amount of tax a non resident must pay is still the same.  The definition of "income" at law is still the same.  What will change is the ease in which the ATO can deem an expat as a resident or non resident for taxation purposes, and the key "days" are 45 and 183.   

 

I'll ask you again, how will an expat pensioner argue they are a resident for taxation purposes when they are living in Thailand full time, and how will they argue their pension is not an "income" at law?  There were no exemption or a change to thresholds mentioned in the proposed changes.  How would they avoid paying non resident tax, other than returning to Australia for 6 months of the year? 

 

Links have been provided showing a pension is deemed to be an income at law.

 

Put simply, it was never about a new tax on expats.  It was about ensuring non residents paid the correct amount of tax and not continue to use loopholes in 90 year old tax laws. The debate about fairness, dollar amounts, Labor v Liberal etc is irrelevant.  

 

I don't know how to be any clearer than this.    

[Olmate]

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Debate about fairness, dollar amounts, Labor v Liberal etc is irrelevant.  

 

I don't know how to be any clearer than this.    

As I posted previously you really have no idea about politics! ????

[LosLobo]

7 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I have posted many times.....

 

It is a given that everything you post you have posted many times, as evidenced by your other 383 posts on this same subject on this forum.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

6 hours ago, LosLobo said:

It is a given that everything you post you have posted many times, as evidenced by your other 383 posts on this same subject on this forum.

 

 

Whist as recent as a week ago, there was one member under the belief that expats still had access to the domestic tax free threshold, and another member believing if he didn't withdraw his money from an ATM in Thailand then the government wouldn't know he is outside of Australia, I feel compelled to keep posting on the matter. 

 

What assistance do you offer? 

Edited May 10, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

At any point in time there are around 1 million Aussies living and / or working overseas.  (link already provided) 

 

What about the hundreds of thousands of other Aussie expats, many of them working on six figure salaries, do they get a free pass because the government doesn't want to force a minority of that 1 million, being expat pensioners, to pay non resident tax?  

 

If you are suggesting safety in numbers, expat pensioners don't make up the majority of the 1 million Aussie expats around the world. 

 

Like I said, expat pensioners should already be paying this tax.  It's not a new tax.  What is changing is compliance / enforcement, forcing expats to pay non resident tax rates in the future, and without an exemption, or a change to the non resident tax thresholds, that will include pensioners as well. 

 

The tax itself isn't changing, just how the ATO determines one's tax residency is changing, and it's based on days outside of Australia. 

 

It's funny how you will not comment on the Bob and Blake link. 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pink Mist
Replied to post removed

[Olmate]

28 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

At any point in time there are around 1 million Aussies living and / or working overseas.  (link already provided) 

 

What about the hundreds of thousands of other Aussie expats, many of them working on six figure salaries, do they get a free pass because the government doesn't want to force a minority of that 1 million, being expat pensioners, to pay non resident tax?  

 

If you are suggesting safety in numbers, expat pensioners don't make up the majority of the 1 million Aussie expats around the world. 

 

Like I said, expat pensioners should already be paying this tax.  It's not a new tax.  What is changing is compliance / enforcement, forcing expats to pay non resident tax rates in the future, and without an exemption, or a change to the non resident tax thresholds, that will include pensioners as well. 

 

The tax itself isn't changing, just how the ATO determines one's tax residency is changing, and it's based on days outside of Australia. 

 

It's funny how you will not comment on the Bob and Blake link. 

 

Q  Exactly how do BobnBlake influence the formulation of this Labour government taxation policy. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Q  Exactly how do BobnBlake influence the formulation of this Labour government taxation policy. 

You still don't get it, do you?  What does it take for the penny to drop? 

 

Blake explains to Bob that he has to pay non resident tax on his pension. That's 32.5% of it.  That "tax policy" or tax law has been around for decades.  It's not a new tax.  You, me, and probably most members reading this thread should have been paying it every year we have been living in Thailand. 

 

Stop thinking the proposed changes are a new tax, they are not. 

 

Expat pensioners haven't been paying non resident tax because of a big gray area in current tax law, the same law Blake informs Bob about, because the ATO couldn't distinguish  been an Aussie living overseas and therefore clearly a non resident, and an Aussie having a long holiday overseas.  That's the brief version of it.  The longer version is, consideration is given if the person has a domicile in Australia, community ties, family, a vehicle, maintains a utility bill etc etc.  Basically, things that would tend to show they have every intention of returning to live in Australia.

 

The trouble for the ATO was proving "intention"  of returning, or not returning, and most expat retirees have access to a family member's residence, or domicile.  How does the ATO prove one's state of thinking, or their "intention?"  It was basically to time consuming and costly to try, so we all got away with not paying non resident tax.  

 

People constantly asking for reviews, appealing the adjudication, not paying etc tended to make it not worthwhile to prosecute these cases. 

 

The above is a very short and simplified version of the pages and pages of criteria of resident v non resident on the ATO website. 

 

There are people working overseas on big money, but spending a lot of time in Australia, who pay no tax in Australia, despite using all of Australia's infrastructure.  Then, you had the opposite, those living overseas but deriving an income from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an "income" at law.  This demographic is us, living in Thailand, on Aussie income, pension, or otherwise.  We are stripping money out of the Australian economy.  

 

Many in the two groups above didn't really pay non resident tax. 

 

Now, the government, that's Labor and Liberal (see the Labor "in-tray" link) are changing the old way of determining someone's residency for taxation purposes from "domicile, community ties, family, vehicle utility bill etc" and "intention of returning to Australia" to 183 days inside Australia you are a resident for taxation purposes, and 183 days outside of Australia you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  

 

The non resident tax brackets haven't changed.  The definition of "income" hasn't changed.  It's not a new tax.  It will just close the loopholes in the current non resident tax laws, which are 90 years old.

 

What has changed is the gray area mentioned above will change to simply the amount of days inside and outside Australia a year.  No more gray area.  Nothing to review.  Nothing to appeal.  Nothing to prosecute.  Basically, judge, jury, and executioner.   

 

Pensioners may wonder, well, I'm living in a village in Issan, how can they make me pay non resident tax?  As I have said, pensioner's "payer" is also their "taxer" so, in my opinion, and I'll say that again, in my opinion, once a pensioner is outside of Australia for 183 days, their pension will be reduced by 32.5%, in the same way it is reduced now when outside Australia for 6 weeks.     

 

Self funded retirees with simply get a bill from the ATO. 

 

A while ago I actually read the pages and pages on the ATO website about resident v non resident.  There are so many clauses and sub-clauses.  It's all going to change to 45 days and 185 days. Simple as that. The government is not changing tax policy.  The government is not introducing a new tax.  The government is going to bring in a system that allows them to ensure compliance with existing tax non resident tax laws. 

 

Does this make it clearer for you, or are you going to tell me the 183 days only apply to guys like Paul Hogan, or you still have a Medicare Card so you are still a resident for taxation purposes, despite living in Thailand full time? 

Edited May 10, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[Artisi]

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You still don't get it, do you?  What does it take for the penny to drop? 

 

Blake explains to Bob that he has to pay non resident tax on his pension. That's 32.5% of it.  That "tax policy" or tax law has been around for decades.  It's not a new tax.  You, me, and probably most members reading this thread should have been paying it every year we have been living in Thailand. 

 

Stop thinking the proposed changes are a new tax, they are not. 

 

Expat pensioners haven't been paying non resident tax because of a big gray area in current tax law, the same law Blake informs Bob about, because the ATO couldn't distinguish  been an Aussie living overseas and therefore clearly a non resident, and an Aussie having a long holiday overseas.  That's the brief version of it.  The longer version is, consideration is given if the person has a domicile in Australia, community ties, family, a vehicle, maintains a utility bill etc etc.  Basically, things that would tend to show they have every intention of returning to live in Australia.

 

The trouble for the ATO was proving "intention"  of returning, or not returning, and most expat retirees have access to a family member's residence, or domicile.  How does the ATO prove one's state of thinking, or their "intention?"  It was basically to time consuming and costly to try, so we all got away with not paying non resident tax.  

 

People constantly asking for reviews, appealing the adjudication, not paying etc tended to make it not worthwhile to prosecute these cases. 

 

The above is a very short and simplified version of the pages and pages of criteria of resident v non resident on the ATO website. 

 

There are people working overseas on big money, but spending a lot of time in Australia, who pay no tax in Australia, despite using all of Australia's infrastructure.  Then, you had the opposite, those living overseas but deriving an income from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an "income" at law.  This demographic is us, living in Thailand, on Aussie income, pension, or otherwise.  We are stripping money out of the Australian economy.  

 

Many in the two groups above didn't really pay non resident tax. 

 

Now, the government, that's Labor and Liberal (see the Labor "in-tray" link) are changing the old way of determining someone's residency for taxation purposes from "domicile, community ties, family, vehicle utility bill etc" and "intention of returning to Australia" to 183 days inside Australia you are a resident for taxation purposes, and 183 days outside of Australia you are a non resident for taxation purposes.  

 

The non resident tax brackets haven't changed.  The definition of "income" hasn't changed.  It's not a new tax.  It will just close the loopholes in the current non resident tax laws, which are 90 years old.

 

What has changed is the gray area mentioned above will change to simply the amount of days inside and outside Australia a year.  No more gray area.  Nothing to review.  Nothing to appeal.  Nothing to prosecute.  Basically, judge, jury, and executioner.   

 

Pensioners may wonder, well, I'm living in a village in Issan, how can they make me pay non resident tax?  As I have said, pensioner's "payer" is also their "taxer" so, in my opinion, and I'll say that again, in my opinion, once a pensioner is outside of Australia for 183 days, their pension will be reduced by 32.5%, in the same way it is reduced now when outside Australia for 6 weeks.     

 

Self funded retirees with simply get a bill from the ATO. 

 

A while ago I actually read the pages and pages on the ATO website about resident v non resident.  There are so many clauses and sub-clauses.  It's all going to change to 45 days and 185 days. Simple as that. The government is not changing tax policy.  The government is not introducing a new tax.  The government is going to bring in a system that allows them to ensure compliance with existing tax non resident tax laws. 

 

Does this make it clearer for you, or are you going to tell me the 183 days only apply to guys like Paul Hogan, or you still have a Medicare Card so you are still a resident for taxation purposes, despite living in Thailand full time? 

That's it in a nutshell, what is unknown at this point is - will it be acted on and the criteria changed? End of story - what I cannot understand why people can't accept what has been clearly stated. 

[simple1]

10 hours ago, Artisi said:

That's it in a nutshell, what is unknown at this point is - will it be acted on and the criteria changed? End of story - what I cannot understand why people can't accept what has been clearly stated. 

Because at this stage it's only an opinion. To keep on rabbiting on about the matter in lengthy posts is irritating. If a member is so concerned about possible future changes to taxation law, <deleted> contact your Senator and stop wasting people's time on the forum.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Because at this stage it's only an opinion. To keep on rabbiting on about the matter in lengthy posts is irritating. If a member is so concerned about possible future changes to taxation law, <deleted> contact your Senator and stop wasting people's time on the forum.

The answer is simple - stop reading his posts. I have, because it is the same theme restated multiple times,. I have better things to do with my time.

[Will27]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Because at this stage it's only an opinion. To keep on rabbiting on about the matter in lengthy posts is irritating. If a member is so concerned about possible future changes to taxation law, <deleted> contact your Senator and stop wasting people's time on the forum.

Incoming: A 5000 word reply on why he's right and most everyone else is wrong.

 

Followed by a paragraph asking what have you contributed to the forum followed by a put me on ignore sign off.

[scorecard]

58 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The answer is simple - stop reading his posts. I have, because it is the same theme restated multiple times,. I have better things to do with my time.

He's totally repetitive, so boring, I blocked him.

Edited May 11, 2023 by scorecard

[Lacessit]

44 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Incoming: A 5000 word reply on why he's right and most everyone else is wrong.

 

Followed by a paragraph asking what have you contributed to the forum followed by a put me on ignore sign off.

I like to think I contribute to the forum on other threads with my scientific knowledge. IMO I contribute to this thread by calling out BS, and use of dishonest arguments.

[Artisi]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Because at this stage it's only an opinion. To keep on rabbiting on about the matter in lengthy posts is irritating. If a member is so concerned about possible future changes to taxation law, <deleted> contact your Senator and stop wasting people's time on the forum.

The idea of 183 days is not an opinion, it is on the books, possibly to become a ruling to overcome the short circuit of the existing rules. 

Will it eventuate, maybe yes - maybe no. 

 

And yes, someone is going overboard to the extreme and a few others are not helping. 

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I like to think I contribute to the forum on other threads with my scientific knowledge. IMO I contribute to this thread by calling out BS, and use of dishonest arguments.

Well said!

Edited May 11, 2023 by scorecard

[simple1]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Can you clarify what you are stating is "only an opinion?" 

Because the changes to law have not been enacted. It is a waste of time to repeatedly reference the matter in very lengthy posts. As I mentioned and as you suggest, if a member is concerned about these matters write to your political representative, media outlets etc. It is a total waste of time to keep carrying on in this forum. 

[Pink Mist]

A reported Baiting troll post and the same post posted over and over again have been removed along with replies indicating such.

 

Continue reposting the same post and it will be removed without warning.

[Artisi]

I fully agree, it has been done to death from both sides of the argument and will never be resolved. 

The fact is, the proposed 183 day rule is /will be debated and acted on at some stage - will it become a ruling, maybe yes / maybe no.

 

I believe it will come into force and personally I'm against it for the average OAP / low paying super funded people. 

Now what each person feels / believes what the outcome will be  is up to them but flogging an argument to death won't change anything. 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pink Mist
Moderator comment moved to bottom of posts.

[Pink Mist]

A reported Baiting troll post and the same post posted over and over again have been removed along with replies indicating such.

 

Continue reposting the same post and it will be removed without warning. If this continues the topic will be locked.

 

DO NOT USE A MODERATORS POST ON REMOVED POSTS AS A QUOTE TO CONTINUE YOUR TOPIC POSTING.

[LosLobo]

With respect, for one who repetitively quotes the forum rules, I am surprised that you don't  know that the three-dot ellipsis on the top right of the post has a share option!

 

A share option lets a member reference any post.

 

By your own admission, it seems that you posted 388 more times than necessary.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Pink Mist
A quoted post has been removed

[4MyEgo]

On 5/10/2023 at 8:29 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Like I said, expat pensioners should already be paying this tax.  It's not a new tax.  What is changing is compliance / enforcement, forcing expats to pay non resident tax rates in the future, and without an exemption, or a change to the non resident tax thresholds, that will include pensioners as well. 

 

The tax itself isn't changing, just how the ATO determines one's tax residency is changing, and it's based on days outside of Australia. 

This link might be of some interest for you.

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

The above said, I have a mate coming over in October once his pension is approved. I sent him the link saying, hey watch out for this space as a non resident you might be up for 32.5c in every $ as a non resident.

 

I asked him to contact the ATO and he did, they said, not interested in pensioners, no tax on pensions overseas, so that is from the horses mouth, suffice to say, I did say to him to keep an Oz address and to notify the motor registry, Medicare etc etc because you are a resident until you are not a resident.

 

Now personally I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners to slug them 1/3 of there pensions, that said, if those pensioners were earning an income and not declaring it on top of their old age pensions, then that would be a different story.

 

Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia, that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $.

 

Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO.

 

All of the above said, I am wondering of anyone knows how Centrelink reduces the OAP if your married to a younger chick, e.g. wife is an Aus citizen 21 years my junior, suffice to say, from what I have read, I can have $643,500 as combined assets with her and they will provide me with a single OAP, around 45,000 baht, does that sound right ? 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

49 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

This link might be of some interest for you.

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

The above said, I have a mate coming over in October once his pension is approved. I sent him the link saying, hey watch out for this space as a non resident you might be up for 32.5c in every $ as a non resident.

 

I asked him to contact the ATO and he did, they said, not interested in pensioners, no tax on pensions overseas, so that is from the horses mouth, suffice to say, I did say to him to keep an Oz address and to notify the motor registry, Medicare etc etc because you are a resident until you are not a resident.

 

Now personally I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners to slug them 1/3 of there pensions, that said, if those pensioners were earning an income and not declaring it on top of their old age pensions, then that would be a different story.

 

Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia, that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $.

 

Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO.

 

All of the above said, I am wondering of anyone knows how Centrelink reduces the OAP if your married to a younger chick, e.g. wife is an Aus citizen 21 years my junior, suffice to say, from what I have read, I can have $643,500 as combined assets with her and they will provide me with a single OAP, around 45,000 baht, does that sound right ? 

 

Sounds right. You’ll receive it at the partner rate rather than single rate assuming you and your partner have no issues with the income test. 
This might help a bit

https://aboutretirement.com.au/age-pension-when-one-partner-is-eligible/