Australian Aged Pension

[4MyEgo]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The full OAP in Australia is $1002.50, not including allowances which are only paid when actually in Australia.

Equals $26,065 pa.

It seems to have escaped the notice of most posters the tax rate is reduced from 32.5 % to 30 % after July 1, 2024.

Tax on the above is $7820. Less SAPTO at $2230 = $5590

On current exchange rates, pensioners in Thailand would lose about 11,000 baht/month from their OAP, assuming the change ever happens.

 

Agree, if the change ever happens.

[4MyEgo]

10 minutes ago, Will27 said:

That is quite the decrease if it happens.

Especially for people who have commitments.

 

It will also drop below 40 000 Baht per month for those

who use it as a monthly income for a marriage extension.

 

I also imagine a lot of expats will have partners.

 

Some people will have no option but to make it work if they want to live here.

 

I'm still of the opinion it won't get passed.

 

Some won't 

 

 

Agree with you and Lacessit.

 

The above said, if it ever did pass, it definitely wouldn't be feasible for lots of expats to return for the 2 year prison term.

 

Others might have to as they will be under the 40k baht amount required as you mentioned.

 

Fingers crossed, as I know HK prays every night it gets passed so he can say, see, I told you so, and if it doesn't, we can ask him what other scaremongering he has to offer us so that we don't get bored.

 

Edited February 3 by 4MyEgo

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

That is quite the decrease if it happens.

Especially for people who have commitments.

 

It will also drop below 40 000 Baht per month for those

who use it as a monthly income for a marriage extension.

 

I also imagine a lot of expats will have partners.

 

Some people will have no option but to make it work if they want to live here.

 

I'm still of the opinion it won't get passed.

 

Some won't 

 

I simply don't know. I do know discussion papers are a few streets away from actual implementation.

To quote Jack Reacher, hope for the best, plan for the worst.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Agree with you and Lacessit.

 

The above said, if it ever did pass, it definitely wouldn't be feasible for lots of expats to return for the 2 year prison term.

 

Others might have to as they will be under the 40k baht amount required as you mentioned.

 

Fingers crossed, as I know HK prays every night it gets passed so he can say, see, I told you so.

 

 

 

IIRC the 2 year prison term only applies to those who are waiting to qualify for the OAP. It does not apply to retirees who are already receiving the pension.

The kicker for many will be the requirement to stay in Australia for 183 days to be considered as resident in Australia for tax purposes. Some will be able to do that, although most would want to be in Thailand.

[Will27]

6 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Agree with you and Lacessit.

 

The above said, if it ever did pass, it definitely wouldn't be feasible for lots of expats to return for the 2 year prison term.

 

Others might have to as they will be under the 40k baht amount required as you mentioned.

 

Fingers crossed, as I know HK prays every night it gets passed so he can say, see, I told you so.

 

 

 

I've debated this with KH on numerous occasions.

 

If it does get passed, I'm of the opinion it will still be up to the ATO to collect tax so a lot of expats I imagine will just take their chances and don't lodge returns or keep ticking that they're residents.

 

HK is of the opinion that the non-resident tax will !00% be taken from the pension by Centrelink before it's allocated. 

 

I don't agree with that at all but I'm not going to go around in circles with him over it again.

[Will27]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC the 2 year prison term only applies to those who are waiting to qualify for the OAP. It does not apply to retirees who are already receiving the pension.

The kicker for many will be the requirement to stay in Australia for 183 days to be considered as resident in Australia for tax purposes. Some will be able to do that, although most would want to be in Thailand.

Some will just ignore it and continue on as usual and hope to fly under the radar I imagine.

[4MyEgo]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IIRC the 2 year prison term only applies to those who are waiting to qualify for the OAP. It does not apply to retirees who are already receiving the pension.

The kicker for many will be the requirement to stay in Australia for 183 days to be considered as resident in Australia for tax purposes. Some will be able to do that, although most would want to be in Thailand.

 

Correct, for those who have been in Australia for 2 years leading up to pension age, they can have it made portable, those returning must return for the 2 years, not 183 days.

 

I say not 183 days because the legislation states that it cannot bend those rules so to speak.

[HighPriority]

18 minutes ago, Will27 said:

That is quite the decrease if it happens.

Especially for people who have commitments.

 

It will also drop below 40 000 Baht per month for those

who use it as a monthly income for a marriage extension.

 

I also imagine a lot of expats will have partners.

 

Some people will have no option but to make it work if they want to live here.

 

I'm still of the opinion it won't get passed.

 

 

 

You may well be correct, this year… anyone who is not expecting it to happen at a future time has their head in the sand at best.

Just hope it happens after you shuffle off.

 

[Will27]

2 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

You may well be correct, this year… anyone who is not expecting it to happen at a future time has their head in the sand at best.

Just hope it happens after you shuffle off.

 

I don't think it will happen now or in the near future.

 

And my head isn't in the sand.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Correct, for those who have been in Australia for 2 years leading up to pension age, they can have it made portable, those returning must return for the 2 years, not 183 days.

 

I say not 183 days because the legislation states that it cannot bend those rules so to speak.

I think you are confusing the pension qualification requirement with the tax residency requirement ( one of them at present ), one is Centrelink, the other is the ATO.

[HighPriority]

6 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Correct, for those who have been in Australia for 2 years leading up to pension age, they can have it made portable, those returning must return for the 2 years, not 183 days.

 

I say not 183 days because the legislation states that it cannot bend those rules so to speak.

I understand that to qualify for the AAP you need to be an Australian resident for 2 years but I don’t understand why you’re saying that someone who is already receiving the AAP would need to return to Oz for 2 years to CONTINUE to receive the AAP ?

[HighPriority]

3 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I don't think it will happen now or in the near future.

 

And my head isn't in the sand.

Sorry, I don’t think you have your head in the sand.

 

I personally think that at some point the Australian Government will want the money, will it be this year, next year or 2034, know one knows.

Long term (undefined) it will change and likely to a similar model that KH has proposed, hopefully it’s after we have shuffled off.

Im 57, still working in Oz and I doubt I’ll accumulate enough to not be on the AAP, such is life.

[Will27]

5 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

Sorry, I don’t think you have your head in the sand.

 

I personally think that at some point the Australian Government will want the money, will it be this year, next year or 2034, know one knows.

Long term (undefined) it will change and likely to a similar model that KH has proposed, hopefully it’s after we have shuffled off.

Im 57, still working in Oz and I doubt I’ll accumulate enough to not be on the AAP, such is life.

If they do bring in the proposed changes, there's nothing to stop the government saying it won't be applied to the OAP.

 

That wouldn't cost them much in the scheme of things and won't get negative publicity about hurting pensioners.

Edited February 3 by Will27

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If they do bring in the proposed changes, there's nothing to stop the government saying it won't be applied to the OAP.

 

That wouldn't cost them much in the scheme of things and won't get negative publicity about hurting pensioners.

IMO the ATO and Centrelink have the Robodebt debacle as a glaring example of what eventually happens to people who think targeting the poor and vulnerable is fair game.

[HighPriority]

4 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If they do bring in the proposed changes, there's nothing to stop the government saying it won't be applied to the OAP.

 

That wouldn't cost them much in the scheme of things and won't get negative publicity about hurting pensioners.

I’m not so sure the Australian Government really care about Australian pensioners who live and most importantly (to them) spend overseas.

Welfare payments are really only popular with the recipients and amongst “lefties”, there’s a philosophy of it’s good for the economy because it almost all goes back into circulation but if the money is going overseas however…

And right wingers don’t want to pay anyone any welfare.

 

There isn’t going to be anyone protesting in the streets about reducing pensions to people living overseas and when the government of the day says “This budget measure will save X $Aud which will be focused on healthcare and policing for hard working Australian Citizens”

 

[HighPriority]

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO the ATO and Centrelink have the Robodebt debacle as a glaring example of what eventually happens to people who think targeting the poor and vulnerable is fair game.

They’ll slap a coat of “rich wasp living a Christopher Skase lifestyle funded by Mr & Mrs Little Ozzie Battler” paint on you and throw you to the witch burning mob who will sing and dance while you bbq.

You are correct in that they wouldn’t do it to Australian Residents, but by this time they’ve figured out that you’re not.

[4MyEgo]

38 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

I understand that to qualify for the AAP you need to be an Australian resident for 2 years but I don’t understand why you’re saying that someone who is already receiving the AAP would need to return to Oz for 2 years to CONTINUE to receive the AAP ?

 

Misunderstanding, only those who are over here and are not on the Age Pension, will need to return.

[LosLobo]

58 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

I understand that to qualify for the AAP you need to be an Australian resident for 2 years but I don’t understand why you’re saying that someone who is already receiving the AAP would need to return to Oz for 2 years to CONTINUE to receive the AAP ?

No, you do not need to be resident for two years to qualify for the AAP, if you are a returning resident the AAP is available on application, if eligible.

But you need to wait two years to gain portability.

There was some discussion that portability may not be indefinite for someone who returns too long after gaining portability and may have to re-apply. The links were posted some years ago, but hard to find now that this topic was been polluted with unnecessary repetitive reposts.

This view does not seem to have gained any traction lately and I suggest may not be an issue.
 

Edited February 3 by LosLobo

[norbra]

There seems to be a lot of misconception with ATO definitions.

Foreign non resident is a foreign national on a bridging or similar visa.

A foreign resident is a foreign national maybe married to an Aussie.

Australian Expats living overseas for more than 180 in a single country are considered Tax residents of that country,ATO not interested in aged pension tax as levied by that country due to DTT.

 

 

[norbra]

Here is a straw to clutch.

Rule 42 section 12 "Special"Pensions are not assessable income

[Lacessit]

35 minutes ago, norbra said:

There seems to be a lot of misconception with ATO definitions.

Foreign non resident is a foreign national on a bridging or similar visa.

A foreign resident is a foreign national maybe married to an Aussie.

Australian Expats living overseas for more than 180 in a single country are considered Tax residents of that country,ATO not interested in aged pension tax as levied by that country due to DTT.

 

 

Perhaps our resident prophet of doom will finally shut his trap, although I doubt it.

 

Thanks for posting something of fact and official, which is NOT a discussion paper.

[HighPriority]

47 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Perhaps our resident prophet of doom will finally shut his trap, although I doubt it.

 

Thanks for posting something of fact and official, which is NOT a discussion paper.

To be fair, no one of any opinion had published this. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, HighPriority said:

To be fair, no one of any opinion had published this. 

The resident prophet of doom kept publishing links to the discussion paper.

Can't say if it was over 600 times, but I suspect it was a substantial percentage.

In this case, I think once should be enough.

Edited February 3 by Lacessit

[Artisi]

I'm really having problems understanding all the crap that's constantly being regurgitated to such a simple condition. 

The current law is quite clear, if you're deemed to be a non-resident the Australian tax on your pension is 32.5% starting at $1 - currently nobody in their right mind will put up their hand to say "I'm a non resident" and it's very simple to circumvent the law. 

There is currently a proposed move to close the loop-holes by defining what is  a non-resident, ie., if you're out of the country for more than 183 days in any 12 month period you will be taxed in accordance with the current law, how this will be controlled / reported / enforced is the only unknown in this discussion. 

Will it comes about - who knows. 

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, Artisi said:

I'm really having problems understanding all the crap that's constantly being regurgitated to such a simple condition. 

The current law is quite clear, if you're deemed to be a non-resident the Australian tax on your pension is 32.5% starting at $1 - currently nobody in their right mind will put up their hand to say "I'm a non resident" and it's very simple to circumvent the law. 

There is currently a proposed move to close the loop-holes by defining what is  a non-resident, ie., if you're out of the country for more than 183 days in any 12 month period you will be taxed in accordance with the current law, how this will be controlled / reported / enforced is the only unknown in this discussion. 

Will it comes about - who knows. 

For those living in Thailand, being a non-resident is no longer an issue, according to a double tax agreement. No 32.5% tax applies, which is 30% after July 2024.

I suggest you read norbra's post again, perhaps you did not understand its significance.

Edited February 3 by Lacessit

[Lacessit]

Hey there KH, you have been yammering on about links for some time. It seems the cat has got your tongue for a while.

 

Here's a link for you, enjoy.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

 

[LosLobo]

Just now, Lacessit said:

Hey there KH, you have been yammering on about links for some time. It seems the cat has got your tongue for a while.

 

Here's a link for you, enjoy.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

 

Articule 19 of Norbra's email seems to be for Govt Pensions, Articule 18 seems to be for Aged Pensions.

Without the context of the question which promoted Norbra's email more confusion is added to the mix.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Articule 19 of Norbra's email seems to be for Govt Pensions, Articule 18 seems to be for Aged Pensions.

Without the context of the question which promoted Norbra's email more confusion is added to the mix.

Are you confused now? If so, about what?

[norbra]

5 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Articule 19 of Norbra's email seems to be for Govt Pensions, Articule 18 seems to be for Aged Pensions.

Without the context of the question which promoted Norbra's email more confusion is added to the mix.

Only for you I would guess,as the response from the ATO in their closing paragraph mentioned Aged pension,  also government (service)pensions excluded as they have been taxed in Australia.

[LosLobo]

16 minutes ago, norbra said:

Only for you I would guess,as the response from the ATO in their closing paragraph mentioned Aged pension,  also government (service)pensions excluded as they have been taxed in Australia.

'Only for you'?

I would suggest that this discussion may be existential for some as expats in Thailand and possibly not the place for ad hominem remarks.

My goal is to share information and perspectives and sort through the array conflicting viewpoints to achieve a consensus.

To add to your perspective, I would like to share this, though it is for Service Pensions and 20 years old.

ATO ID 2003/154 | Legal database

Edited February 3 by LosLobo