Australian Aged Pension

[Nemises]

On 1/20/2024 at 9:27 AM, KhunHeineken said:

Click on "Consultation paper." 

 

Budget Night is only four months away and all you have to offer is a measly discussion paper ?!

 

Don’t hold your breath on there being a change of legislation any time soon.

 

Next. 

[4MyEgo]

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Albo is coming under fire for basically doing nothing other than flying around the world.  He's facing pressure in the media on the cost of living crisis.  It's possible he'll splash some cash around and go easy on taxes.  Hopefully the proposed changes will not make the next budget also. 

 

Sounds like someone back peddling to me, or trying to place an each way bet when not sure if the horse is going to come home in 1st place, after all that gas bagging.

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Sounds like someone back peddling to me, or trying to place an each way bet when not sure if the horse is going to come home in 1st place, after all that gas bagging.

Today, Albo was talking about modifying the Stage 3 tax cuts to apply further down the food chain, with low income earners.

It would be remarkable if, having done that, he then taxes pensions at 30% simply because said pensioner is living overseas.

 

[4MyEgo]

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm not on an aged pension.  I am self funded and never paid a cent of non resident tax for all the years I have been living in Thailand.  The reason for this is, I maintain a "domicile" in Australia and the ATO can not prove I have no "intention" of ever returning to live in Australia.  All I have to state is I am on a long holiday and have every "intention" of returning to Australia in the future.  I have a few friends that have dodged non resident tax the same way.  We have all been doing it for years.  

 

You cannot state that you are on a long holiday if you are in one country at a time, i.e. not moving around, everyone knows that, and what you believe to be your "domicile" so that you can avoid paying non residents tax, can be challenge by the ATO.

 

https://www.odintax.com/resources/australia-tax-residency-definition-rule-and-provisions#:~:text=Your residency is where you,new country becomes your domicile.

 

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Sure, we pay resident tax, and get the tax free threshold, but the government is missing out on 32.5% from $0 from us.  Why wouldn't they want to close that loophole?  As I have said in the past, if / when the proposed changes close that loophole, pensioners very well may be collateral damage, unless the pension is exempt, or they add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets.  The proposed changes mention neither.      

 

The only loophole is in your head as non residents can avoid paying tax "legally" without thinking they have a "domicile" elsewhere, i.e. Australia, when their actual domicile is Thailand.

 

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I know I should be paying non resident tax, but use the "maintaining a domicile" to circumvent paying it.  It stands to reason the government, of either political party, was one day going to give government agencies the ability to force people like me to pay non resident tax.

 

It's called self disclosure, and as you have been avoiding paying non residents tax because you believe Australia is your "domicile", then when they catch up with you, if they catch up with you, then you can explain your case to them, and they can challenge you to be a non resident who has avoided paying non resident tax.

 

Can't understand why you haven't set yourself up as a non resident to not pay any tax, as I have done for the past who knows how many years, excluding withholding tax on interest earning from the banks 10% of the interest.

 

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The government went for the easiest enforcement route, a physical presence and time based model, 100% proven by immigration records, which can not be denied, or appealed. 

 

Nothings changed really, they can currently prove 100% by immigration records that you are a non resident, the onus is on you to disprove them.

[4MyEgo]

20 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

183 days outside of Australia = non resident for taxation purposes. 

 

You just contradicted yourself, remember, you said you are a non resident, but because you state that you are on a long holiday, your domicile is Australia....LOL

[4MyEgo]

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You are correct, why would any expat retiree who derives or generates an income in Australia declare themselves a non resident for tax purposes, or even tick the "Leaving Australia Permanently" box on the departure card?  I have given a reason for why non residents have been able to get away with this for decades in a previous post, and it's exactly what the proposed changes are going to stop. 

 

As mentioned previously, there are legal means for non residents to earn an income from Australia without having to pay tax as a non resident, but it would appear you haven't worked that one out yet.

 

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I believe an aged pensioner who does not inform Centerlink they are going overseas, after 6 weeks, they stop some of the supplements.  Can a pensioner conform this?  If this is the case, the framework / infrastructure for the proposed changes to work the same way for the 32.5% withholding of the pension is already in place. 

 

Yes, some supplements are cut off, Centrelink is not set up to collect a non resident tax you are referring to, for age pensioners, because if the age pension is the only source of income that person has, he/she won't be paying non residents tax, the same principal applies in Australia.

 

Banging my head up against the wall, yet again.

 

21 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I have posted links showing the pension is deemed an income.  I have posted links showing pensions are taxable.  I have posted links showing there is no tax free threshold for non residents.  If you put these fact together with the proposed changes, things aren't looking good for continuing to pay no tax.  

 

You still don't get it, its like I say, 6 2 1 half dozen the other and your confused.

 

The age pension is deemed an income if you have other sources of income, if not, it is taxable, get it, 6 2 1 half dozen the other, chipping away. 

 

In layman's terms, if you DO NOT have any other income apart from your age pension, you pay ZERO tax, on the other hand, if you have other sources of income, on top of your age pension, then you will pay resident tax and get the $18,200 threshold, if your a non resident it's a straight 32c to the $ including your age pension which will form part of that income, because you are getting other sources of income on top of your pension. 6 2 1 half dozen the other. 

 

 

 

 

[4MyEgo]

20 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I see the words "my interpretation" and "it could also apply to non residents in my opinion." 

 

You have posted, "the age pension forms part of your taxable income."  So, basically, as I have posted many times, and provided links, the pension is deemed to be an income, and is taxable. 

 

Again, your not listening, it is only subject to tax if......

 

Taxation of Age Pension as the Only Source of income

If the Age Pension is the only source of income for an individual, they may not be required to pay income tax. This is because the Age Pension income threshold for the tax-free amount is set at a level that is higher than the basic Age Pension rate. As a result, many Age Pensioners with only the Age Pension as their source of income will not be required to pay income tax.

 

https://oneclicklife.com.au/is-my-age-pension-taxable/

 

20 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, can you post a link showing the pension is exempt from non resident tax?  Can you post a link showing a tax free threshold for non residents?  

 

As I have said before, no I cannot, because it doesn't exist and you know that there is no non resident threshold, again, you do not want to accept that if the only source of income, is your pension, regardless if you are a resident, or a non resident, you will pay ZERO tax on it.

 

Apart from that, I am done and dusted, going around in circles on this.

 

[4MyEgo]

20 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

hence why I posted about it a long time ago, because a pension is deemed income, and is also taxable, and this caused some debate, which is still continuing. 

 

Hopefully after you have read the above, where you did mention in your post, to put up or shut up, accept the fact ?

[4MyEgo]

19 hours ago, LosLobo said:

With respect, I thought you would have retired after you achieved 500 superfluous, redundant and unnecessary posts, after well informing us of your point the first time.

 

Yet, Khun Herr Schadenfreude, in the past hour, you have imposed your nonsense on us at least 10 times.

 

Please stop this obsessiveness and perhaps troll a more deserving audience.

 

Love it, please excuse my many returned serves to this individual as I wish for him to go through the same punishment he is putting me through, or to fill his time in his perhaps bored life ?

 

Please feel free to skip my posts in lieu of providing you with some permanent brain damage.

[Will27]

9 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Again, your not listening, it is only subject to tax if......

 

Taxation of Age Pension as the Only Source of income

If the Age Pension is the only source of income for an individual, they may not be required to pay income tax. This is because the Age Pension income threshold for the tax-free amount is set at a level that is higher than the basic Age Pension rate. As a result, many Age Pensioners with only the Age Pension as their source of income will not be required to pay income tax.

 

https://oneclicklife.com.au/is-my-age-pension-taxable/

 

 

As I have said before, no I cannot, because it doesn't exist and you know that there is no non resident threshold, again, you do not want to accept that if the only source of income, is your pension, regardless if you are a resident, or a non resident, you will pay ZERO tax on it.

 

Apart from that, I am done and dusted, going around in circles on this.

 

The key word there is may.

 

That is your interpretation.

I've told you previously, I don't agree with it.

I think they're talking about residents, not non-residents.

 

If you are a non-resident for taxation, you pay from the first dollar.

 

This is from the ATO help desk.

It does mention offsets and SAPTO but still says you have to pay tax on the balance.

 

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

[4MyEgo]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I could do 45 days, and even cop 60 days, but 90 days a year is not good. 

 

Dated October 23.

 

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/business-travellers-tourists-could-be-caught-in-new-tax-rules-20231017-p5ecvy

 

 

 

Sounds like they're concerned of hitting visitors as opposed to non residents.

 

Moves that could classify tourists and business traveller's who spend more than 45 days in Australia as tax residents risk stifling economic activity by discouraging visitors, the Albanese government has been warned.

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/22/2024 at 8:55 PM, Nemises said:

 

Budget Night is only four months away and all you have to offer is a measly discussion paper ?!

 

Don’t hold your breath on there being a change of legislation any time soon.

 

Next. 

 

I would think the "discussion paper" was put forward back in 2021 by the Liberal government.  This was the "consultation paper" in which stake holders could make final submissions.  So, I am thinking it's closer than what you think. 

 

As for holding my breath about changes to tax legislation, what about those changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts?    You wake up one morning, and suddenly the Stage 3 tax cuts have changed.  That's how quick it can happen. 

 

Here's an article from today.

 

"Everything on the table" in relation to changes to taxation.  I'd say the proposed changes to tax residency legislation would be on the table as well.   

 

Stage 3 tax cuts: Allegra Spender, Bill Kelty call to overhaul system beyond income tax cuts (smh.com.au)

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:08 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Sounds like someone back peddling to me, or trying to place an each way bet when not sure if the horse is going to come home in 1st place, after all that gas bagging.

Let me be very clear about it, and you can quote me on this.

 

After the change of government, when the Assistant Treasurer met with expats in Singapore and said to then the proposed changes were in the government's "in tray" (link previously posted) I have always said it appears it's not IF, just WHEN. 

 

I have also gone on to say that even if Labor do not bring in the proposed changes, the next Liberal government will because they are the ones that proposed them, so once again, it's only a matter of time.  

 

We can speculate on "when" the current Labor government may or may not bring in the proposed changes, but you can quote me on saying that it is my opinion that they will eventually be passed, by either political party, at some stage in the future.  

 

As mentioned in a previous post, we saw how quick the changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts happened.  The proposed changes to tax residency will have no where near the same media scrutiny and will be easily passed in by Labor because it's the opposition party that proposed them.   

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:24 AM, Lacessit said:

Today, Albo was talking about modifying the Stage 3 tax cuts to apply further down the food chain, with low income earners.

It would be remarkable if, having done that, he then taxes pensions at 30% simply because said pensioner is living overseas.

 

Where is the exemption for pensioners in the proposed changes?  Where is a new tax free threshold for non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes so pensions are not taxed? 

 

As I have said before, pensioners may very well be collateral damage, and given they don't vote at election time, where's the political damage in lost votes if they do have 32.5% of their pension withheld in non resident tax? 

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:27 AM, 4MyEgo said:

You cannot state that you are on a long holiday if you are in one country at a time, i.e. not moving around, everyone knows that, and what you believe to be your "domicile" so that you can avoid paying non residents tax, can be challenge by the ATO.

For 90 years Australia's residency tax legislation has been based on whether or not an individual is "domiciled" in Australia, and whether or not that individual has an "intention" of returning.

 

One can prove their intention to return by maintaining a property, a vehicle, utility bills, club memberships, family ties etc etc etc etc. 

 

The ATO can not prove you do not have an intention to return to Australia if you stick to your story that you do have an intention to return, particularly if you have left things in place for that return, such as the above. 

 

I, and some friends here, have maintained a "domicile" back in Australia.  We haven't cut all ties to Australia except for income derived from Australia.  We, and our various accountants, believe this is why we have never paid a cent of tax at the non resident rate, and it's due to the loopholes in the 90 year old tax laws. 

 

I, for one, can see why the government would want to change the current laws to laws based on physical presence and time, because just about every Aussie expat, all around the world, has been avoiding non resident tax for decades.  

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:27 AM, 4MyEgo said:

The only loophole is in your head as non residents can avoid paying tax "legally" without thinking they have a "domicile" elsewhere, i.e. Australia, when their actual domicile is Thailand.

Tell me how.  

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:27 AM, 4MyEgo said:

It's called self disclosure, and as you have been avoiding paying non residents tax because you believe Australia is your "domicile", then when they catch up with you, if they catch up with you, then you can explain your case to them, and they can challenge you to be a non resident who has avoided paying non resident tax.

 

Can't understand why you haven't set yourself up as a non resident to not pay any tax, as I have done for the past who knows how many years, excluding withholding tax on interest earning from the banks 10% of the interest.

You have no idea, do you?

 

My income is derived from Australia.  I pay resident tax on it, and have the benefit of the tax free threshold.  I lodge tax returns each year. If I declare myself a non resident, I pay 32.%% from $0 to $120,000.  That's a lot more tax than I am currently paying. 

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:27 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Nothings changed really, they can currently prove 100% by immigration records that you are a non resident, the onus is on you to disprove them.

Hence, keeping a "domicile" back in Australia, as well as all the other things mentioned.  

 

Then, it's up to the ATO to prove I have no intention of every returning to use them again.  At law, it's very difficult to prove "intent" as it's in the person's mind. 

 

Thus,  the inevitable change to a physical presence and time based model which does away with all the loopholes.       

[Olmate]

31 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Let me be very clear about it, and you can quote me on this.

 

Too funny! 

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:30 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

You just contradicted yourself, remember, you said you are a non resident, but because you state that you are on a long holiday, your domicile is Australia....LOL

No contradiction. 

 

I am a resident for tax purposes, due to maintaining a domicile, and should I ever be questioned, I will say I am maintaining that domicile because I have every intention of returning to Australia to live. 

 

However, I really should be classified as a non resident, but due to loopholes in the current 90 year old laws, the ATO can't prove I am a non resident for reasons mentioned in a previous post.   

 

Thus, the government's need to move to a physical presence and time based tax residency model that does away with the loopholes.   

[georgegeorgia]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:17 PM, Will27 said:

The key word there is may.

 

That is your interpretation.

I've told you previously, I don't agree with it.

I think they're talking about residents, not non-residents.

 

If you are a non-resident for taxation, you pay from the first dollar.

 

This is from the ATO help desk.

It does mention offsets and SAPTO but still says you have to pay tax on the balance.

 

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

As a matter of interest Will, how old are you ? You probably won't be affected by it in 10 years have you thought about that?

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

As mentioned previously, there are legal means for non residents to earn an income from Australia without having to pay tax as a non resident, but it would appear you haven't worked that one out yet.

Do tell. 

 

Paul Hogan tried that, and look what happened to him. 

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Yes, some supplements are cut off, Centrelink is not set up to collect a non resident tax you are referring to, for age pensioners, because if the age pension is the only source of income that person has, he/she won't be paying non residents tax, the same principal applies in Australia.

 

Banging my head up against the wall, yet again.

 

Who said Centerlink had to "collect" anything? 

 

They would simply withhold the 32.5% non resident tax in the same way they withhold the supplements.  Yes, rocket science. 

 

It's clear that you seen to think pensions / pensioners are exempt from paying tax no matter their geographic location.  So I can be clear on what point you are debating, can you tell me which of the following you believe to be incorrect?

 

1)  The pension is deemed to be an income.

 

2)  The pension is taxable.

 

3)  There is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets.

 

4) There are no exemption in the proposed changes.

 

5)  There is no proposed new tax free threshold for the non resident tax brackets.  

 

I have proved links for all of the above.  If you can tell me  one or more of the five thins above that is wrong, and back it up with some links, I could better understand why you think pensions / pensioners will not have to pay non resident tax. 

 

On 1/23/2024 at 6:44 AM, 4MyEgo said:

You still don't get it, its like I say, 6 2 1 half dozen the other and your confused.

 

The age pension is deemed an income if you have other sources of income, if not, it is taxable, get it, 6 2 1 half dozen the other, chipping away. 

 

In layman's terms, if you DO NOT have any other income apart from your age pension, you pay ZERO tax, on the other hand, if you have other sources of income, on top of your age pension, then you will pay resident tax and get the $18,200 threshold, if your a non resident it's a straight 32c to the $ including your age pension which will form part of that income, because you are getting other sources of income on top of your pension. 6 2 1 half dozen the other. 

 

You are wrong. 

 

The pension is deemed an income, simple as that.  I have posted links to this previously.  It has nothing to do with having other sources of income, or not.

 

You still can't get your head around the non resident tax brackets.  I'll post them again for your benefit.

 

Can you show me in the table below where someone's first $26,000 (the pension) doesn't have to pay any tax? 

 

The "zero tax" you are talking about is for residence of Australia for tax purposes.  Living in Thailand for more than 183 days, you will be deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes and the rate is 32.5% from $0 to $120,000. 

 

Foreign residents tax rates 2023–24

Foreign resident tax rates 2023–24

Taxable income	Tax on this income
0 – $120,000	32.5c for each $1
$120,001 – $180,000	$39,000 plus 37c for each $1 over $120,000
$180,001 and over	$61,200 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:04 AM, 4MyEgo said:

Again, your not listening, it is only subject to tax if......

 

Taxation of Age Pension as the Only Source of income

If the Age Pension is the only source of income for an individual, they may not be required to pay income tax. This is because the Age Pension income threshold for the tax-free amount is set at a level that is higher than the basic Age Pension rate. As a result, many Age Pensioners with only the Age Pension as their source of income will not be required to pay income tax.

Again, you refuse to address the non resident tax brackets.  They are 32.5% from $0.  All the material you post is in relation to resident tax rates.  The whole game changes when you are a non resident. 

 

Post a link showing pensions do not come under the non resident tax brackets. 

 

On 1/23/2024 at 7:04 AM, 4MyEgo said:

As I have said before, no I cannot, because it doesn't exist and you know that there is no non resident threshold, again, you do not want to accept that if the only source of income, is your pension, regardless if you are a resident, or a non resident, you will pay ZERO tax on it.

 

Apart from that, I am done and dusted, going around in circles on this.

 

Too right it doesn't exist, and that's why it's highly probably pensioners will have 32.5% tax withheld from their pension after being outside of Australia for 6 months when the proposed changes are passed, exactly the way they have their supplements withheld after being outside of Australia for 6 weeks.

 

I find it laughable that you state on here "pensioner do not pay tax" and then admit there are no links to back up your argument because such links don't exist.  The links don't exist because your argument doesn't exist.   

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:08 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Hopefully after you have read the above, where you did mention in your post, to put up or shut up, accept the fact ?

You are simply wrong. 

 

I have asked which one out of five points you think is incorrect in a previous post. 

 

Once you chose one, or more, and back it up with some "existing" links, then your argument can be explored.  I'll gladly concede if you can prove your argument to me. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:15 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Love it, please excuse my many returned serves to this individual as I wish for him to go through the same punishment he is putting me through, or to fill his time in his perhaps bored life ?

 

Please feel free to skip my posts in lieu of providing you with some permanent brain damage.

Poor attempt at a personal attack. 

 

Without any links, I find your argument just your "interpretation" and "opinion" and is basically hot air and wishful thinking. 

 

Come up with some substance. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:17 AM, Will27 said:

The key word there is may.

 

That is your interpretation.

I've told you previously, I don't agree with it.

I think they're talking about residents, not non-residents.

 

If you are a non-resident for taxation, you pay from the first dollar.

 

This is from the ATO help desk.

It does mention offsets and SAPTO but still says you have to pay tax on the balance.

 

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

He doesn't get it.

 

He doesn't understand the whole game changes as a non resident.

 

I've posted links showing the pension is deemed an income.  I've posted links showing the pension is taxable.  I've posted links showing the non resident tax brackets. 

 

Yet, he still believes he will enjoy the benefit of the tax free threshold in resident tax brackets, even after being deemed a non resident for tax purposes. 

 

To be fair, I have asked him to post some links backing up his argument, only to be told "they don't exist." 

 

Here's another similar link.  This time it's "Carvets and CaroATO."

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245

 

"As a non-resident for tax purposes, we'll only tax you on the income you receive from Australia sources such as interest and your pension."

 

I hope he sees the pension will be taxed at non resident rates also, not just the interest, which he says is "other income" that will be taxed, with the pension being exempted by a non resident tax free threshold that "does not exist" also.   

[KhunHeineken]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:20 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Sounds like they're concerned of hitting visitors as opposed to non residents.

 

Moves that could classify tourists and business traveller's who spend more than 45 days in Australia as tax residents risk stifling economic activity by discouraging visitors, the Albanese government has been warned.

Again, you still don't get it.  You are not looking at the bigger picture.

 

The proposed changes are designed to scoop up people living in Australia deriving an income, but who are not paying resident tax rates, and people deriving an income from Australia, but living overseas, who are not paying non resident tax rates.

 

Both demographics have been getting away with paying resident and non resident tax rates for years. 

 

The resident has been saying they are a non resident, and the non resident has been saying they are a resident.  The current laws are 90 years old and full of holes.  The proposed changes are a physical presence and time based model, backed up at law by immigration records, so no reviews, no appeals, just days in and out of Australia, which can't be refuted. 

 

The proposed changes will net them all, and, without an exemption, or the introduction of a tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets, pensioners will be caught up in the net and will have to pay. 

[KhunHeineken]

51 minutes ago, georgegeorgia said:

As a matter of interest Will, how old are you ? You probably won't be affected by it in 10 years have you thought about that?

I would think it almost an impossibility that the proposed changes would not be passed, by either political party, within the next 10 years.  That would make the current laws over 100 years old. 

[Lacessit]

19 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

The proposed changes will net them all, and, without an exemption, or the introduction of a tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets, pensioners will be caught up in the net and will have to pay. 

So what happens to your predictions if a pensioner says to the Australian government - I am resident in Thailand, and pay tax on my income to the Thai authorities. Therefore, under a double taxation agreement, you cannot tax me.

 

Personally, I think the returns from pensioners are too small, and would have a cost politically. It's probably why there is no rush to implement the proposals. Much juicier and more popular targets around.

 

It's not almost an impossibility you will stop posting the same repetitive material on this thread. It is.

[KhunHeineken]

Whilst locating a link for another member, I came across the results of the petition about the proposed changes.

 

It took me back to the early days of this debate, and the comments of some members like: "the government would never do that because it would cost too many votes" and "pensioners would be up in arms" and "there would be a big pensioner backlash"  etc etc.

 

I remember posting about the petition, for any member interested in signing their disapproval. 

 

Well, here is the result of the petition. 

 

Signature count: 5235.

 

Yes, so big was the backlash from pensioners in Australia for their fellow pensioners living abroad, and so much were they up in arms in support for their fellow pensioners living abroad that a whopping 5235 people signed the petition. 

 

I am sure the government is very concerned about losing 5235 votes, from people that will not vote in an election anyway. 

 

I wonder if Paul Hogan signed the petition. 

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN4259

[KhunHeineken]

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

So what happens to your predictions if a pensioner says to the Australian government - I am resident in Thailand, and pay tax on my income to the Thai authorities. Therefore, under a double taxation agreement, you cannot tax me.

Income derived in Australia.  The Australian government would want their cut.  Don't you think so?

 

Given that Centerlink can withhold the 32.5%, I can't see Thailand becoming a tax haven for pensioners. 

 

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Personally, I think the returns from pensioners are too small, and would have a cost politically. It's probably why there is no rush to implement the proposals. Much juicier and more popular targets around.

Just wishful thinking on your behalf. 

 

Australia will soon hit a trillion dollars of debt.  The government needs every dollar it can find. 

 

Of interest is the quick way the Stage 3 tax cuts saw a change in the resident tax brackets.  Hopefully, a similar change might happen to the non resident tax brackets, but then again, why would they let guys like Paul Hogan off paying tax on the first $30,000?

 

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's not almost an impossibility you will stop posting the same repetitive material on this thread. It is.

I am simply reply to a member, like I am to your post. 

 

The clock is ticking on the proposed changes.  As a part pensioner, have you considered my "prediction" may eventuate? 

 

Tick, Tick, Tick. 

[Lacessit]

38 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Income derived in Australia.  The Australian government would want their cut.  Don't you think so?

 

Given that Centerlink can withhold the 32.5%, I can't see Thailand becoming a tax haven for pensioners. 

 

Just wishful thinking on your behalf. 

 

Australia will soon hit a trillion dollars of debt.  The government needs every dollar it can find. 

 

Of interest is the quick way the Stage 3 tax cuts saw a change in the resident tax brackets.  Hopefully, a similar change might happen to the non resident tax brackets, but then again, why would they let guys like Paul Hogan off paying tax on the first $30,000?

 

I am simply reply to a member, like I am to your post. 

 

The clock is ticking on the proposed changes.  As a part pensioner, have you considered my "prediction" may eventuate? 

 

Tick, Tick, Tick. 

Given the number of times you have posted the same statements on this thread, I'd say you are the one with the wishful thinking.

 

It's going to be an administrative nightmare for the ATO and Centrelink if a pensioner like me decides to game the system by shuttling back and forth between  Thailand and Australia within the 'proposed' time frames, and don't think I am not bloody-minded enough to adopt that strategy.

 

Hopefully, the government won't be taxing pensions. Number 1, no other country does. Number 2, there are several ways that could be challenged legally.

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

t's going to be an administrative nightmare for the ATO and Centrelink if a pensioner like me decides to game the system by shuttling back and forth between  Thailand and Australia within the 'proposed' time frames, and don't think I am not bloody-minded enough to adopt that strategy.

As I have said before, computer data bases will do the heavily lifting. 

 

Despite Australians voting down a National ID Card years ago, we are all still just a number, one way, or another.  Eg. drivers license number, Medicare number, passport number etc. 

 

We have already established that Immigration inform Centerlink of a pensioner who is outside of Australia for 6 weeks, so their supplements are cut off.  Immigration will do the same after 183 days, so the 32.5% non resident tax will be withheld.  The infrastructure is already in place for it. 

 

Now, initially, the proposed changes were 45 days in Australia, followed by the factor test.  If outside of Australia for 183 days that's automatic non resident.  The Labor government were looking at tweaking the 45 days.  There's some suggestion that it may be 90 days, in line with other countries.  (links previously provided) 

 

That would mean you would have to do 3 months in Australia, plus meet two of the factor tests, which are not difficult, but 3 months in Australia would no doubt effect the bottom line of many pensioner's budgets, so much so that one member posted it may be actually financially beneficial to remain in Thailand and give up 32.5% of the pension, and that was just for the 45 days. 

 

The data base will simply calculate your combined amount of days in Australia and proceed from there, but most Aussie expat retirees will be an easy catch because they are simply outside of Australia for 183 days.  Many haven't been back to Australia in years.   

 

Every member's situation is different.  Some may have free accommodation back in Australia, for example.  However, a forced 3 month stay is double a forced 6 week stay, should you decide to adopt that strategy.  Keep your eyes on what Labor tweak. The longer tweak is good for working Aussie expats, but no good for Aussie retired expats. 

 

I guess it comes down to how much "income" one is deriving from Australia, and how cheaply they can remain in Australia for either 6 weeks or 3 months, or anything in between, as to how financially viable a return to Australia would be, in order to be deemed a resident for tax purposes for the year. 

 

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Hopefully, the government won't be taxing pensions. Number 1, no other country does. Number 2, there are several ways that could be challenged legally.

Once again, it's not a new tax.  It's a tax that pensioners should already have been paying, for decades.  (see the Bob and Blake link, plus a new one I have recenlyt posted) 

 

As for other countries, how is that relevant?  Have you seen the UK Forum what UK Banks are doing to non residents? 

 

Tell me how you think it could be legally challenged?  Who's going to challenge?  Have a look at the results of the petition I posted recently.  I see you are still of the belief of a big protest, or backlash, or pensioners being "up in arms."  It didn't happen and isn't going to happen.  The legis;ation will be easily passed because it was originally put forward by the Liberals, so why would they oppose it now? 

 

30 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Given the number of times you have posted the same statements on this thread, I'd say you are the one with the wishful thinking.

No.  I have skin in the game.  I stand to lose, or, adopt your strategy and go home for the amount of time set in legislation, then meet two of the factor tests.  I don't like either option. 

 

What has caused such great debate is that many pensioners believed it was all not applicable to them.  Comments such as, "I don't earn a pension" and "the pension is not an income" and the famous " that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" etc etc. 

 

I hope the legislation never passes, but the naivety of many members on this forum is amazing.  They truly need to believe none of this will have any impact on them, hence throwing rocks at the messenger in the hope the message goes away.