Australian Aged Pension

[giddyup]

48 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Go to Google and type in " send fax from computer." 

I have, that's why I said you need a phone line.

[LosLobo]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

Just received my Proof Of Life letter from Centrelink. It was dated (written) 13/4/23 and posted on the 02/6/23 and received today, 12/7/23. It was supposed to be returned to Centrelink by today, otherwise pension could be stopped, so had to ring them and get an extension to the 31st October. Why the hell has it taken so long to get here?

When I get the form completed I'll send it back by some kind of express post. They said it can be faxed, but who has a fax machine anymore?

Centrelink has a document upload facility on MyGov, I use it all the time.

 

I was told to use it when I originally applied for the pension.

 

The documents I posted and even the ones I personally took to the local branch office were all lost by them.

 

Just phone them and ask!

 

 

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Centrelink has a document upload facility on MyGov, I use it all the time.

 

I was told to use it when I originally applied for the pension.

 

The documents I posted and even the ones I personally took to the local branch office were all lost by them.

 

Just phone them and ask!

 

 

I found the upload facility on Mygov, will use it once I have the form completed. Thanks. Pity the person who answered the phone when I rang this morning didn't give me this info.

[LosLobo]

2 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I found the upload facility on Mygov, will use it once I have the form completed. Thanks. Pity the person who answered the phone when I rang this morning didn't give me this info.

But call them first maybe an original signature is required for Proof of Life.

The upload facility is also good as a record of compliance and you can also retrieve the document at anytime,

 

I was even back there today to get the copy of a Rental Lease Agreement I had lost.

[KhunHeineken]

On 7/12/2023 at 9:41 AM, giddyup said:

I have, that's why I said you need a phone line.

No, you just need an internet connection. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 7/12/2023 at 7:32 AM, Artisi said:

Can you "fax" from your computer, have a vague recollection that it is/was possible. 

Many companies offering this service. 

 

This company will send faxes to Aussie numbers. 

 

https://faxaroo.com/au/

[KhunHeineken]

On 7/12/2023 at 7:44 AM, Lacessit said:

Why was it not duplicated in your online inbox? As Robodebt has shown, Centrelink needs reforms.

Centrelink still chasing robodebt money, despite adverse findings from a royal commission.  Where's Albo? 

 

Let's hope Centrelink will be kinder to expat retirees in the future. 

 

https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/aussies-chased-over-robodebts-following-royal-commission/80ffcdf2-c722-4cda-9b3a-534098c920d4

 

[LosLobo]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Centrelink still chasing robodebt money, despite adverse findings from a royal commission.  Where's Albo? 

 

Let's hope Centrelink will be kinder to expat retirees in the future. 

 

https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/aussies-chased-over-robodebts-following-royal-commission/80ffcdf2-c722-4cda-9b3a-534098c920d4

 

Well done a new subject!

I was going to give you a 'Thanks' until I saw 'Let's hope Centrelink will be kinder to expat retirees in the future'.

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Well done a new subject!

I was going to give you a 'Thanks' until I saw 'Let's hope Centrelink will be kinder to expat retirees in the future'.

Some on here seem to think Centrelink is their friend.  Merely pointing out that once they decide payments should be reduced, or they have overpaid an individual and want the money back, they will give you grief.  The guy in the video has been fighting them for 6 years.  

 

As shown in the link, after all the negative publicity, suicides, and adverse royal commission findings, they are still chasing robodebt money.  

 

Some on here seem to think their pension money is small enough that Centrelink will not chase them as a non resident for tax purposes, yet, they are chasing money from residents for tax purposes, so why wouldn't they chase non residents? 

 

The new subject is just how ruthless Centrelink can be when dealing with people with minimum funds available to fight them, and especially those who don't even vote.

[Will27]

12 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Some on here seem to think Centrelink is their friend.  Merely pointing out that once they decide payments should be reduced, or they have overpaid an individual and want the money back, they will give you grief.  The guy in the video has been fighting them for 6 years.  

 

As shown in the link, after all the negative publicity, suicides, and adverse royal commission findings, they are still chasing robodebt money.  

 

Some on here seem to think their pension money is small enough that Centrelink will not chase them as a non resident for tax purposes, yet, they are chasing money from residents for tax purposes, so why wouldn't they chase non residents? 

 

The new subject is just how ruthless Centrelink can be when dealing with people with minimum funds available to fight them, and especially those who don't even vote.

Some people on here have said they don't expect the ATO to target pensioners, not Centrelink.

Not going there again.

 

You seem to be confusing Centrelink and the ATO's duties.

 

It's not up to Centrelink to chase residents or non-residents.

They will chase people owing debts to them.

 

Residency and non-residency status will be determined by the ATO, but It's no use going down that rabbit hole again.

[KhunHeineken]

21 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Some people on here have said they don't expect the ATO to target pensioners, not Centrelink.

Not going there again.

Actually, the ATO may have not much to do with it for money people. 

 

Immigration inform Centrelink an individual has been outside Australia for 183 days and they reduce payments by 32.5%.  Much the same way they do with supplements after 6 weeks. 

 

21 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You seem to be confusing Centrelink and the ATO's duties.

No, I am not.  Centrelink already reduce payments after 6 weeks.  After 183 days outside Australia, the reduction reason will be for non resident. 

 

It's possible the ATO will not be involved, other than the exchange of consolidated revenue behind the scenes. 

 

21 minutes ago, Will27 said:

It's not up to Centrelink to chase residents or non-residents.

They will chase people owing debts to them.

 

Residency and non-residency status will be determined by the ATO, but It's no use going down that rabbit hole again.

You seem to be confusing a tax debt with a simple reduction of Centrelink payments.

 

Self funded and part pensioners will have an ATO debt.  Those on a full pension will simply have a reduction in payment.  This means, Centrelink don't chase anyone.  

 

It will not be a robotdebt scenario.  It will just be a reduction in pension, much the same way it is after 6 weeks.  There will be no debt to be repaid for those on a full pension. 

 

I agree with you that the proposed changes to the law are for the benefit of the ATO to be able to do away with 90 year old laws that have a huge gray area that many have been using to escape paying non resident tax rates, but it's entirely possible that the new laws are all about giving immigration the ability / power to inform both the ATO and Centrelink, via computer data bases, of who is outside Australia for 183 days, thus allowing the ATO and Centrelink to either start collecting, or reducing.

 

Sure, let's not go down the rabbit hole again.  I was just shocked when I read that news item that Centrelink was still chasing robodebt money, yet some on here seem to believe Centrelink are kind to pensioners, or their pension is so small that neither the ATO, immigration, or Centrelink with bother with them. 

[Olmate]

37 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

..... specially those who don't even vote.

Not trying to tie expats in there are you? 

[Will27]

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Actually, the ATO may have not much to do with it for money people. 

 

Immigration inform Centrelink an individual has been outside Australia for 183 days and they reduce payments by 32.5%.  Much the same way they do with supplements after 6 weeks. 

 

No, I am not.  Centrelink already reduce payments after 6 weeks.  After 183 days outside Australia, the reduction reason will be for non resident. 

 

It's possible the ATO will not be involved, other than the exchange of consolidated revenue behind the scenes. 

 

You seem to be confusing a tax debt with a simple reduction of Centrelink payments.

 

Self funded and part pensioners will have an ATO debt.  Those on a full pension will simply have a reduction in payment.  This means, Centrelink don't chase anything. 

 

I agree with you that the proposed changes to the law are for the benefit of the ATO to be able to do away with 90 year old laws that have a huge gray area that many have been using to escape paying non resident tax rates, but it's entirely possible that the new laws are all about giving immigration the ability to inform both the ATO and Centrelink, via computer data bases, of who is outside Australia for 183 days, thus allowing the ATO and Centrelink to either start collecting, or reducing.

 

Sure, let's not go down the rabbit hole again.  I was just shocked when I read that news item that Centrelink was still chasing robodebt money, yet some on here seem to believe Centrelink are kind to pensioners, or their pension is so small that neither the ATO, immigration, or Centrelink with bother with them. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

8 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Not trying to tie expats in there are you? 

As I posted, I was just shocked to see Centrelink still chasing robodebt money.  It's disgraceful. 

 

Some members have every confidence in Centrelink to overlook their tax residence status, yet here's Centrelink still chasing robodebt money. 

 

The new subject is how ruthless Centrelink can be, no matter how small the money involved, and where you live.   It's a new rabbit hole. 

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You said, and I quote "yet, they (Centelink) are chasing money from residents for tax purposes,".

Can you copy the sentence where I have said that?  It doesn't appear in the post you have quoted.  

 

 

8 minutes ago, Will27 said:

They will only chase people with debts to Centrelink.

Are there any debts incurred when supplements are withheld after being outside of Australia for 6 weeks?  It's not a debt, it's a reduction.

 

After 183 day outside of Australia, there MAY be a further reduction of 32.5%.  This MAY take place in the same way as the 6 week reduction.  

 

11 minutes ago, Will27 said:

At this stage, residency status doesn't come into anything.

You either owe them money or you don't.

Once again, all you are focused on the ATO and a tax liability. 

 

I said ages ago the payer is also the taxer.  To ensure the tax is paid, they will take it each fortnight, not give full payment and then a bill on the 1st July each year and chase a debt.

 

Anyway, let's not go down the rabbit hole again.

 

The new subject is the ruthlessness of Centrelink.  The point I am making is they have no problem chasing robodebt, even now, which is a disgrace, so I am quiet sure they would have no problem reducing payments to non residents for tax purposes, yet some on here believe the money is too small for them to bother. 

[Will27]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Some on here seem to think Centrelink is their friend.  Merely pointing out that once they decide payments should be reduced, or they have overpaid an individual and want the money back, they will give you grief.  The guy in the video has been fighting them for 6 years.  

 

As shown in the link, after all the negative publicity, suicides, and adverse royal commission findings, they are still chasing robodebt money.  

 

Some on here seem to think their pension money is small enough that Centrelink will not chase them as a non resident for tax purposes, yet, they are chasing money from residents for tax purposes, so why wouldn't they chase non residents? 

 

The new subject is just how ruthless Centrelink can be when dealing with people with minimum funds available to fight them, and especially those who don't even vote.

This is the part I quoted.

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I posted, I was just shocked to see Centrelink still chasing robodebt money.  It's disgraceful. 

 

Some members have every confidence in Centrelink to overlook their tax residence status, yet here's Centrelink still chasing robodebt money. 

 

The new subject is how ruthless Centrelink can be, no matter how small the money involved, and where you live.   It's a new rabbit hole. 

Then why reference 'non voters'. Are you suggesting Centrelink knows that we don,t vote so are fairgame? Just more deflection so you can continue the same old! 

[KhunHeineken]

19 hours ago, Will27 said:

This is the part I quoted.

You have read that out of context, and that's because the words "tax purposes" should read "taxation purposes."  Allow me to clarify. 

 

This is what I said:

 

"Some on here seem to think their pension money is small enough that Centrelink will not chase them as a non resident for tax purposes, yet, they are chasing money from residents for tax purposes, so why wouldn't they chase non residents?"

 

The point I am making is, some members believe Centrelink will not chase expat pensioners for non resident tax rates because they believe it's only small money for Centrelink / ATO.  When I use the word "chase" I really mean simply reduce their pension by 32.5% after 183 days outside of Australia. 

 

Yet, here's Centrelink chasing "residents for taxation purposes" for very small amounts, and for years. 

 

If you look at the link, you will see the guy in the article has been fighting Centrelink for 6 years over $786.06.  There is a photo of his bill in the article. 

 

My point is, if Centrelink are still fighting a robodebt bill of $786.06, I think the members who believe expat retiree non resident taxation is too small for Centrelink to be interested in may reconsider their stance. 

 

So, forgetting about whether expat pensioners will or will not be taxed at non resident rates once the proposed changes are passed, the new subject is, will the dollar amounts involved be significant enough for Centrelink to reduce pensions by 32.5%, and going by that link, and the two testimonies in it, the answer appears to be yes. 

 

When I watched and read the link, I actually thought these people were caught out cheating the system because they were working more than they declared and tens of thousands of dollars had to be paid back.  When I saw it was only $786.06, and that was a robodebt amount, I was shocked. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

19 hours ago, Olmate said:

Then why reference 'non voters'. Are you suggesting Centrelink knows that we don,t vote so are fairgame? Just more deflection so you can continue the same old! 

It's not a deflection. 

 

The link shows how ruthless Centrelink are when chasing even small amounts of money.  I guess there's no difference between owing a small amount and a larger amount, a debt is a debt, and an over payment is an over payment, and both will proceed to the collections stage if not paid back.

 

My comment about "non voters" was to show that if Centrelink are chasing small amounts of money from people inside Australia, who do vote, it's probable Centrelink will reduce pensions when the changes are passed, knowing the government of the day loses no votes.   

 

It must be noted that robodebt was under the former Liberal government, yet Centrelink is still chasing the money under the current Labor government, hence my comment, "Where's Albo?"  Some members seemed to think Labor and Albo will look after pensioners and those on Centrelink, well, where is he on this issue? 

 

The new subject is about Centrelink being ruthless in their debt collection, with robodebt collection continuing to this very day, which is disgraceful. 

 

As another member says, Centrelink needs to reform, but when it comes to money, that can be difficult, and involves the letter of the law. 

 

As for your comment about "fairgame."  I think the link shows everyone is fairgame for Centrelink, and the point I am making is, that also includes expat pensioners.  Living in Thailand offers no protection from Centrelink. 

 

Do you have any comment on the link, or is it more same old personal attacks from you?

 

[Will27]

51 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

You have read that out of context, and that's because the words "tax purposes" should read "taxation purposes."  Allow me to clarify. 

 

This is what I said:

 

"Some on here seem to think their pension money is small enough that Centrelink will not chase them as a non resident for tax purposes, yet, they are chasing money from residents for tax purposes, so why wouldn't they chase non residents?"

 

The point I am making is, some members believe Centrelink will not chase expat pensioners for non resident tax rates because they believe it's only small money for Centrelink / ATO.  When I use the word "chase" I really mean simply reduce their pension by 32.5% after 183 days outside of Australia. 

 

Yet, here's Centrelink chasing "residents for taxation purposes" for very small amounts, and for years. 

 

If you look at the link, you will see the guy in the article has been fighting Centrelink for 6 years over $786.06.  There is a photo of his bill in the article. 

 

My point is, if Centrelink are still fighting a robodebt bill of $786.06, I think the members who believe expat retiree non resident taxation is too small for Centrelink to be interested in may reconsider their stance. 

 

So, forgetting about whether expat pensioners will or will not be taxed at non resident rates once the proposed changes are passed, the new subject is, will the dollar amounts involved be significant enough for Centrelink to reduce pensions by 32.5%, and going by that link, and the two testimonies in it, the answer appears to be yes. 

 

When I watched and read the link, I actually thought these people were caught out cheating the system because they were working more than they declared and tens of thousands of dollars had to be paid back.  When I saw it was only $786.06, and that was a robodebt amount, I was shocked. 

 

 

They're 2 completely different scenarios TBH.

 

You keep bring up residents and non-residents.

As it stands, it's completely irrelevant.

 

If Centrelink are directed by the ATO to reduce pensions (which I extremely doubt will happen), the amount won't matter, it will just be done.

 

If that is done, again highly unlikely IMO, there will not be a debt, 

just a reduction in pensions.

 

I keep telling you this and you haven't grasped the concept.

Residency and non-residency is an ATO issue, not a Centrelink one.

 

 

[Will27]

41 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's not a deflection. 

 

The link shows how ruthless Centrelink are when chasing even small amounts of money.  I guess there's no difference between owing a small amount and a larger amount, a debt is a debt, and an over payment is an over payment, and both will proceed to the collections stage if not paid back.

 

My comment about "non voters" was to show that if Centrelink are chasing small amounts of money from people inside Australia, who do vote, it's probable Centrelink will reduce pensions when the changes are passed, knowing the government of the day loses no votes.   

 

It must be noted that robodebt was under the former Liberal government, yet Centrelink is still chasing the money under the current Labor government, hence my comment, "Where's Albo?"  Some members seemed to think Labor and Albo will look after pensioners and those on Centrelink, well, where is he on this issue? 

 

The new subject is about Centrelink being ruthless in their debt collection, with robodebt collection continuing to this very day, which is disgraceful. 

 

As another member says, Centrelink needs to reform, but when it comes to money, that can be difficult, and involves the letter of the law. 

 

As for your comment about "fairgame."  I think the link shows everyone is fairgame for Centrelink, and the point I am making is, that also includes expat pensioners.  Living in Thailand offers no protection from Centrelink. 

 

Do you have any comment on the link, or is it more same old personal attacks from you?

 

In most cases, a Centrelink debt can be recovered by taking money out of their payments.

 

A small debt like the one you mentioned ($786.00) if it was to the ATO would either be written off or recovered by taking money out of a potential tax refund.

 

The ATO wouldn't waste time and resources pursuing such a small debt.

[Olmate]

40 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's not a deflection. 

 

The link shows how ruthless Centrelink are when chasing even small amounts of money.  I guess there's no difference between owing a small amount and a larger amount, a debt is a debt, and an over payment is an over payment, and both will proceed to the collections stage if not paid back.

 

My comment about "non voters" was to show that if Centrelink are chasing small amounts of money from people inside Australia, who do vote, it's probable Centrelink will reduce pensions when the changes are passed, knowing the government of the day loses no votes.   

 

It must be noted that robodebt was under the former Liberal government, yet Centrelink is still chasing the money under the current Labor government, hence my comment, "Where's Albo?"  Some members seemed to think Labor and Albo will look after pensioners and those on Centrelink, well, where is he on this issue? 

 

The new subject is about Centrelink being ruthless in their debt collection, with robodebt collection continuing to this very day, which is disgraceful. 

 

As another member says, Centrelink needs to reform, but when it comes to money, that can be difficult, and involves the letter of the law. 

 

As for your comment about "fairgame."  I think the link shows everyone is fairgame for Centrelink, and the point I am making is, that also includes expat pensioners.  Living in Thailand offers no protection from Centrelink. 

 

Do you have any comment on the link, or is it more same old personal attacks from you?

 

Not all  CL debts are Robodebt related and of course recovery will bepersued (from your link)edit mine. Lame attempt to avoid a slap for repeating your old catch cry continues.( I did not report your post)! ????

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Not all  CL debts are Robodebt related and of course recovery will bepersued (from your link)edit mine. Lame attempt to avoid a slap for repeating your old catch cry continues.( I did not report your post)! ????

For the record, this is a new subject.  We are now discussing what the ATO / Centrelink determine to be a small debt / reduction, thus, will not bother with it.  

 

Your link relates to robodebt, and that's fine.  I still can't believe with all that happened with robodebt, they are still chasing it. 

 

Of course not all debt is robodebt.  I never suggested it was.   

 

Here's another article.  This is about some debt accrued during covid.  Look at the small amounts.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-16/welfare-pandemic-covid-centrelink-debts-jobkeeper/100379072

 

"It's really, really difficult to get Centrelink debts waived," she said.

 

"Ms Singh said Centrelink was doing what was lawful under its recovery system but the federal government had the power to intervene.

"I think that's unlikely," she said."

 

Like I said, we are all just a number, with a dollar value. 

[Will27]

14 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, of course, or, knowing non resident tax must be paid on a pension because immigration has informed Centrelink a recipient has been overseas for 183 days, they will reduce the pension.  

 

They will not pay a full pension and then issue a debt for over payment on the 1st July each year, just to reduce payments the next year to recoup the debt. 

 

Interesting comment. 

 

I have no doubt they will take it from a tax refund before they write it off.

 

If a self funded non resident expat retiree is a case for the ATO to deal with, then they clearly have income being generated in Australia, which means they could start the collections process. 

 

You are suggesting if it's only a small amount, they will not bother, but I can't see them handing out free passes when they have the debtor on toast, and he's still making money.

 

It was discussed ages ago the ATO can also place an airport warning on someone, but let's not get into that again. 

 

$1, or $1 million, we are all just a number and a dollar value to the ATO. 

 

Do you have any links to show what the ATO call a small debt? 

 

Say a self funded expat retiree is generating around the 65,5000 baht a month range that is required for a retirement visa.  That's around $2,826AUD a month.  (using 23 baht to the $1)

 

$2,826 x 12 months = $33,913AUD a year.

 

$33,913 x 32.5% = $11,021AUD per year in non resident tax due from a self funded expat retiree. 

 

Do you consider $11,021AUD a small enough amount the ATO will waver for everyone, every year, forever?  I don't. 

 

Let's look at pensioners. 

 

Going on the $971.50 per fortnight for a single, that's $25,259AUD per year.

 

$25,259 x 32.5% = $8,209AUD in non resident tax savings to Centrelink, per pensioner, per year, forever. 

 

Do you consider $8,209AUD a small enough amount for Centrelink not to bother about, and say it is, what if it's not small enough for the ATO, who will ultimately be paid it through behind the scenes consolidated revenue. 

 

I have provided a link where Centrelink have been fighting for $786.06 of robodebt for 6 years.  The figures above are considerably higher. 

 

Remember, there is no $18,500 tax free threshold for non residents.

 

I know some will comment on the morality, or lack of it, by the ATO / Centrelink in chasing pensioners, but as I said, the law reduces us all to numbers and a dollar value. 

 

For the members that want to report this post to the mods, this new subject is discussing IF the new changes see the ATO / Centrelink chase debt or reduce pensions, will the amounts be big enough for them to bother, and how will they do it.  It's a new subject. 

You just keep repeating yourself and then go off on these long winded tangents.

 

I quoted your debt of $786, and already said it would be taken from a tax refund if one was available.

If it wasn't, the ATO would send out a couple of demand notices.

 

They aren't taking legal action over a debt that small.

It would be written off.

 

I'm not interested in your continuing hypotheticals on residents, non-resident, self funded retiree's etc.

[Will27]

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

For the record, this is a new subject.  We are now discussing what the ATO / Centrelink determine to be a small debt / reduction, thus, will not bother with it.  

 

Your link relates to robodebt, and that's fine.  I still can't believe with all that happened with robodebt, they are still chasing it. 

 

Of course not all debt is robodebt.  I never suggested it was.   

 

Here's another article.  This is about some debt accrued during covid.  Look at the small amounts.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-16/welfare-pandemic-covid-centrelink-debts-jobkeeper/100379072

 

"It's really, really difficult to get Centrelink debts waived," she said.

 

"Ms Singh said Centrelink was doing what was lawful under its recovery system but the federal government had the power to intervene.

"I think that's unlikely," she said."

 

Like I said, we are all just a number, with a dollar value. 

Again, I was talking about a debt to the ATO, not Centrelink.

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

You just keep repeating yourself and then go off on these long winded tangents.

 

I quoted your debt of $786, and already said it would be taken from a tax refund if one was available.

If it wasn't, the ATO would send out a couple of demand notices.

 

They aren't taking legal action over a debt that small.

It would be written off.

 

I'm not interested in your continuing hypotheticals on residents, non-resident, self funded retiree's etc.

I am not repeating myself.

 

You say the ATO will not take action over a debt that small.  Do you have a link for that?  What is their dollar amount between a small debt you say they will wipe, and a larger debt they will chase.  It's your story, I'm just asking for a credible link.

 

I have given figures of what a debt / reduction might look like IF expat retirees will be paying non resident tax in the future.  I have asked you if you consider those figures to be small enough to be written off.  No reply from you. 

 

It's not hypothetical.  The 65,000 baht is a fact.  Converting it to AUD is a fact.  The 32.5% is a fact.  Links have shown pensioners should already be paying it, but we are not going down that path again.  I said if you don't believe so, that's up to you. 

 

We are now focusing on the dollar amounts and the ATO / Centrelink's debt collection methods. 

 

I've provided a link showing Centrelink have been chasing $786.06 for 6 years.  Can you provide a link where either the ATO or Centrelink have written off small debts like this?  If so, great, but I question whether they would keep writing it off, every year, forever.  If that was the case, accountants would be structuring their client's financials to "earn" just the right amount of debt that the ATO writes off, but they don't.  

 

 

[Pink Mist]

Continued repetitive postings by the same poster have been reported and moved.  You have been asked before to move on and cease and desist in continuing to post the same information over and over again.  You have made your point many times before. Continue and the posts will be removed without a moderators post. The bickering and baiting of others who do not see things as you do needs to stop.  Agree to disagree and move on.

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, Will27 said:

The ATO wouldn't waste time and resources pursuing such a small debt.

Pretty low threshold.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Support-to-lodge-and-pay/In-detail/Release-from-your-tax-debt/

 

"In certain circumstances, we can permanently remove some or all of an individual's tax debt. We call this 'release'.

We can only release you from payment of particular tax debts where paying those debts would leave you not able to provide for yourself, your family or others for whom you are responsible. This includes providing for items such as:

food

accommodation

clothing

medical treatment

education"

 

This means, anything more than the above, they will go after. 

 

 

[Will27]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Pretty low threshold.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Support-to-lodge-and-pay/In-detail/Release-from-your-tax-debt/

 

"In certain circumstances, we can permanently remove some or all of an individual's tax debt. We call this 'release'.

We can only release you from payment of particular tax debts where paying those debts would leave you not able to provide for yourself, your family or others for whom you are responsible. This includes providing for items such as:

food

accommodation

clothing

medical treatment

education"

 

This means, anything more than the above, they will go after. 

 

 

Again, you keep clouding the issue.

I never mentioned the debt being released.

 

I said the debt would be written off.

You do know the difference between written off and release of a debt don't you?

[Will27]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I am not repeating myself.

 

You say the ATO will not take action over a debt that small.  Do you have a link for that?  What is their dollar amount between a small debt you say they will wipe, and a larger debt they will chase.  It's your story, I'm just asking for a credible link.

 

I have given figures of what a debt / reduction might look like IF expat retirees will be paying non resident tax in the future.  I have asked you if you consider those figures to be small enough to be written off.  No reply from you. 

 

It's not hypothetical.  The 65,000 baht is a fact.  Converting it to AUD is a fact.  The 32.5% is a fact.  Links have shown pensioners should already be paying it, but we are not going down that path again.  I said if you don't believe so, that's up to you. 

 

We are now focusing on the dollar amounts and the ATO / Centrelink's debt collection methods. 

 

I've provided a link showing Centrelink have been chasing $786.06 for 6 years.  Can you provide a link where either the ATO or Centrelink have written off small debts like this?  If so, great, but I question whether they would keep writing it off, every year, forever.  If that was the case, accountants would be structuring their client's financials to "earn" just the right amount of debt that the ATO writes off, but they don't.  

 

 

The ATO is not going to provide a link saying they won't chase your debt.

That would be stupid.

 

In just about most cases, legal action won't be taken to try and collect a debt when it is uneconomical to do so.

Again, spending thousands of dollars to chase a $700 would be ridiculous.

 

This is from a well known accounting firm:

ATO determines a debt is not viable to pursue

The ATO can determine that a tax debt is not viable to pursue, given the costs associated with pursuing it and the prospects of recovery.

 

If you want to keep debating this issue, start a new thread.